Peru: Man from United States Accused of Murdering Young Wife

(LIP-ir) -- The family members of Jana Claudia Menéndez are sure that her American husband murdered her due to his jealousy.

Jana Claudia Menéndez, a young student from Trujillo, Peru, married William Trickett on March 1 after an internet relationship. She was reported missing on July 26 and found dead on August 16.

According to Peru's El Comercio newspaper, 21 year-old Jana was found by police on the shores of a beach in Barranco, a district in Lima, Peru, inside of a blue suitcase. It was reported that she was found 8 days after her murder.

On one of Peru's television shows, Reporte Semanal, Jana's father, officer José Gómez, stated that the prime suspect, William Trickett, was a very distrustful person and prohibited Jana from going out with girlfriends, going to the gym and even using the Internet.

Peru 21 reported that the jealousy theory is becoming more accepted by police in the investigation of Jana's murder. It was reported that a police spokesperson stated that Jana had been speaking to someone from the United States, not yet identified, before she died.

Currently William Trickett Smith is the main suspect in Jana's murder. Chief of Peru's Crime Investigation Directorate (DIRINCRI), General Walter Rivera, stated that the DIRINCRI is waiting for Peru's Judicial Power to order an extradition for Trickett Smith, who has also had problems in the United States for drug trafficking and several other crimes.

 | | | |

• Business : Microsoft Peru will invest US $500,000 in its expansion
• Travel and Tourism : Prom-Peru to promote Southern Peru tourist destinations in Chilean fair
• Food : US gastronomic website praises Peru's food
• Mining/Energy : Peru: More natural gas found in Camisea
• Law and Order : Peru will sign The Hague Apostille Convention

# Cholingo says :
4 September, 2007 [ 03:26 ]

Sad story, poor girl, damn gringo.

Terrible grammar, the story needs edited!!!

# Clever Cutter says :
4 September, 2007 [ 08:57 ]

The best part of your post is that it includes two incomplete sentences.  Your entire post is grammatically incorrect.  Congratulations, sir.

This story is quite tragic indeed notwithstanding Cholingo's completely racist remark.  The next time a story is posted about a Peruvian committing a crime in the United States I think I'll chime in with "Damn Cholo."

# Tyler Curtis says :
4 September, 2007 [ 10:46 ]

The story is very sad.   The Comment from Cholingo is even more sad.  He attacts Gringos but it is a bad character of the killer.   IT'S NOT ABOUT COLOR, IT'S ABOUT CHARACTER.    Every race and country has good and bad people.   The evil is for Cholingo to assume the crime was due to Gringo and not Peruvian.     Cholingo needs education AND wisdom! ~Tyler (Gringo) and a good man from Houston.  

# Javier Montes says :
4 September, 2007 [ 12:35 ]

As a Peruvian I sincerely apologize for Cholingo's ignorant statement. Like Tyler said, it's about character. Unfortunately there are Peruvians with Cholingo's uneducated mind and character.

# C/O says :
4 September, 2007 [ 22:30 ]

William Trickett Smith is currently incarcerated at Dauphin County Prison in Harrisburg, PA. On unrelated charges.

# IMBRA 4EVER says :
5 September, 2007 [ 20:26 ]

Did they meet through Match.com?

# ladylaw488 says :
6 September, 2007 [ 04:48 ]

This story is terrible.  How old was William Trickett Smith and is he from Harrisburg, PA  U.S.A.?

# ladylaw 488 says :
6 September, 2007 [ 04:50 ]

I think this is just terrible.  Does the U.S. typically cooperate with extradition requests from Peru?

# 1childofgod says :
6 September, 2007 [ 13:57 ]

Will is my nephew's father Please pray for our family

# Seeking the Truth says :
6 September, 2007 [ 14:46 ]

It is irresponsible and unfair to assume that William, as one suspect, is guilty until all of the facts are known...whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?   I pray for Jana Claudia's family, and for William and his family.

# IMBRA 4EVER says :
9 September, 2007 [ 09:44 ]

This whole event may not have happened if the National Organization For Women, NOW, and The Tahirih Justice Center did not exclude Match.com from regulation under the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act or IMBRA.  Trickett has a criminal record that would have been revealed under IMBRA and Jana would have been forced to know that and approve her communication with Trickett.  In any law suit, Match, NOW and Tahirih should all be accused.

# americorps says :
9 September, 2007 [ 10:33 ]

I was unaware that NOW wrote laws for the US, and I was unaware that they were responsible for laws in peru.  How odd.

# Rev_ (NZ) says :
10 September, 2007 [ 05:18 ]

 First i have to extend my deep Symphaty s to the Family of this young Lady,who has innocently been taken away from them and the grief/sad lost that has been inflicted opon them. A very sad tragic event has taken place,that should have not happen,irrespects of what ever reason,that might have been. There are a lot of unanswered questions as to why and what prevoked this tragedy and some-one has to be made accountable for this/why/who/what measure were taken in the prevention to what has happen and who else out there is at risk,of this happening to them.
 My support/Respect is with the victims Family(in their time of grief\loss and they are entitle to answers,justice) and to any other decent innocent people out there,who could fall victim to the cruel-demises of others in this world.

# Heather says :
10 September, 2007 [ 22:00 ]

"There are a lot of unanswered questions as to why and what prevoked this tragedy and someone has to be made accountable"

Match.com is responsible for allowing American men (the paying client) to use an Internet site to utilize his so-called free speech rights to communicate with a foreign woman (the non-paying recruit).  If Match.com was not exempted (for political reasons) by radical feminist groups like www.legalmomentum.org and www.tahirih.org from IMBRA (Google that to learn more) then the man would have had to provide Match.com with his criminal record and Jana would have had to approve it before they were even allowed to email each other.  Match.com, Yahoo Personals and others make millions from the coupling of American men and foreign women; a practice that not only creates a gendered dating imbalance in the United States, but leads to tragedies like the one in Peru.

# Rev says :
10 September, 2007 [ 22:50 ]

Question is; what are we going to do about this,to hopely,stop, prevent this kind of thing happening or occuring to other people out there in the world. (especially to woman)
Maybe it is time to put the boot into some of these Organisation who don't really acknowledge the value/importance of people s live s.(especially who they are,being that the innocence of a lot of people)

Whats happened reflect strongly on,not just (one) organization,but on all and being this is(that this is probably not the only  situation) given that has occured,(there has probably been many others,unspoken of in the world)

The big Question is [ What are we going to do about the Prevention of Happening again]
No buts,maybes,its impossible,won't work,excuses,its the way of the world; because it is not the ways of others or the world.
Some-one has to be made accountable for this tragic issues of this nature( the accused & every one associated with the representation of keeping peoples safe (.irrespect of who they are or where they come from)



 

# Americorps says :
11 September, 2007 [ 12:19 ]

I still fail to see how you can make NOW responsible for this woman's death.  She is not, NOW is not and Match.com is not responsible, only the killer is.  The woman was free to choose and she could have, and should have, known more about the man..if indeed the speculation is correct as to what happened. 

I am not saying she had a hand in her death by making a bad decision, she is an innocent victem, I am saying niether NOW nor Match.com are responsible for her decision.

I feel terrible for her and her family and I hope the criminal recieved severe and swift justice for the crime. 

Now does not try to place women in harm, I have been a member for nearly 25 years and they work long and hard to protect women, so this claim is false. 

Further, there are a million ways a man can meet a woman, or a woman meet a man, to blame one venue is irresponsible at best.  This was a terrible and neeless tragedy, but to legislate responsibility never works and never solves any problems.  If Heather would like to be effective and changing the world, perhaps she would be better suited to educate women on their rights and responsibilities, such as NOW does.  To help arm women with opportunities and education to make more informed choices and to know more about dangers that lurk. 

That is how to fix them from happening again...if you close match.com that will not stop people from meeting and if you blame now for some weird reason, then you are attacking the single most important organization in the USA that has faught tirelessly to advance equal rights and equal opportunities and protection for women.

Heather is referring to IMBRA, the International Marriage Brokers Act that was supported by NOW and other feminist organizations to help criminalize unscrupulous marriage brokers..people who arrange international marriages for money and often send women to a terrible fate.  Online dating sites were not included because they do not arrange marriages and they are voluntary sites, no coersive groupls like marriage brokers.

Heather's frustrastion and anger is understandable, however misguided.

# Heather says :
11 September, 2007 [ 18:01 ]

"IMBRA, the International Marriage Brokers Act that was supported by NOW and other feminist organizations to help criminalize unscrupulous marriage brokers..people who arrange international marriages for money and often send women to a terrible fate.  Online dating sites were not included because they do not arrange marriages and they are voluntary sites, no coersive groupls like marriage brokers."

Actually, IMBRA did not criminalize marriage brokers; it legitamized them through regulation.  NOW spent a lot of resources (years of time and much money) to target some small mom/pop garage-based businesses that are responsible for a very very tiny percentage of dating matches with even fewer leading to marriages in the US.  Since they went to all the trouble to isolate them from the larger dating sites, they should have just banned them.  After all, who would have come to the defense of such businesses?  Instead, these brokers are now a regulated class and therefore out of the shadows and legitimate.  NOW had good intentions no doubt; the result gets a poor mark.

Marriage brokers sell contact information for money.  Match.com sells contact information for money.  Neither "broker" marriages.  NOW wants us to believe they are different so they can justify regulating one and not the other.  Why?  For the same reason I would regulate just one...the smaller foreign-focused dating sites because they convey a very offensive anti-feminist message and pit foreign women against American women.  Its disgusting.  Its damaging.  One of the earliest messages regarding the need for regulation is here - http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/7/emw138739.htm.  Moreover, folks from this site http://www.online-dating-rights.com have emerged since IMBRA and are making a real mockery out of what was already a mess.   

There is no real good reason to have excluded any American-based dating site from IMBRA.  It would have been very easy to include them.  Sites such as Match.com, Yahoo Personals, Meetic, FriendFinder, et al have multitudes more foreign women as free members than all 200 or so foreign dating sites.  On Match.com, the women sign up for FREE and the American man pays to initiate contact.  Same business model as all the foreign dating sites. 

# americorps says :
11 September, 2007 [ 18:35 ]

Your logic is false, it is the same as saying, God is Love, Love is Blind, Ray Charles was Blind, Ray Charles is, therefore God.

A free will meeting people site is not the same as a marriage broker, no matter how you spin it.  You are barking up the wrong tree.  Like i said, I honestly belive if you REALLY want to help, there are things you can do that will actually help.

And I am sorry you think free speech is something that can be easily tossed in the trash, I do not.

I support NOW.

# Heather says :
11 September, 2007 [ 19:00 ]

I also support NOW.  That does not mean I think they always make appropriate decisions just like no individual or organization does either.  Since NOW actually did restrict free speech by imposing IMBRA, albeit limited to men who use so-called marriage brokers, why not go further and provide equal protection to all foreign women who utilize American-based dating sites to find American men?  There is no denying that if IMBRA did not give a free pass to Match.com, Jana would have been forced to receive Trickett's criminal history report.  Then, she could decide on her own to release her contact information to him.  Her choice, but with better knowledge.  This is the first case that proves that the exlusion in IMBRA was a bad policy decision.  NOW is not perfect.  Its a learning process.  This conversation will be very different after a few more American men prey on foreign women through the Match.com medium.

# Immigration says :
11 September, 2007 [ 22:20 ]

Very interesting points of interest expressed in your comment of  major concern about there Organisation and huge attention needs to be focused on these important issue,as it is brought to the attention of all. Thanks (Heather)

# TOM MCCLAIN says :
12 September, 2007 [ 09:04 ]

    As a retired cop, I know nothing about the evidence in this case but I can tell you that this mans trip to the U.S. before the body was found puts him at the top of my list of suspects.   The spouse is always the first suspect in any case such as this.   The man didnt stay to defend himself.  Why did he not take his wife with him?   Did he buy her a ticket?   What communications did he have with his inlaws and friends here before his trip home?   The fact that he is in jail in Pa doesnt set well with me.   Sounds like he doesnt have much regard for the law.
    The U.S. should send him back and he should be locked up until all the evidence is considered but then it seems that our own leaders in the U.S. are above the law these days.  ref---LIBBYS PARDON BY BUSH.

# Rob says :
12 September, 2007 [ 11:36 ]

Heather I met my Peruvian wife through the internet and it's the best thing that ever happened to me. 

In my opinion many women in the US are no longer attractive partners for men.  They are more focused on career and accumulating money than nurturing families. Many have also let their bodies go and don't seem to care about appearance. But that is my opinion only, you may disagree.

But the reasons are not important. If a women wants to work 10 hours a day, become partner in a law firm and weigh 200 pounds then that is her right!   More power to them!

However it is also the right of men to look anywhere in the world they desire to find a partner they choose.   And increasingly more men are looking to foreign countries to find the kind of women they are attracted to.

Choice goes both ways.

# Not allowed in my Country says :
14 September, 2007 [ 21:59 ]

Hola,ola Hello all. What does every one thing about Dating Agencies,that operate throu out the world and operate under false pretences(allow opportunities for people to operate scams on ordinary decent people of the world. Question [people] who is incharge of keeping a eye on the Agencies that blatantly ignore and allow these forms of desrespectful activities from taking place,within there services,that tend to always do harm to other.

# tom mcclain says :
15 September, 2007 [ 13:37 ]

There is no way one can blame these agencies because there is no way they can EFFECTIVELY screen these people.    Lets face it, many people in the smaller countries that offer few oppertunities are to  the point of being desperate for comapnionship and financial stability.   Peru is a good example if this.  This country is the worst Ive ever encountered when it comes to age descrimination in the job market.  That leaves a 40 y.o. single mother in a real bad situation.   So what does she do?   she certainly has no money to travel.   Even the men here avoid a woman if she is older or has children.
    When you meet some one its YOUR DUTY to determine whether this person is worth your friendship.   Dont blame the person who introduced you if it turns out bad.
    TO OUTLAW ANY SOURCE OF COMMUNICATION IS A VIOLATION OF MY FREE SPEECH SO DO NOT TRY TO DETERMINE OR LIMIT WHOM I AM ALLOWED TO SPEAK WITH!   Bush tried this in the first years of his administration and found out the people would not stand for it.

# Should i deal with this my way? Think about it says :
15 September, 2007 [ 18:44 ]

Funny you say that. Cause most Dating Agencies (worldwide) they apply regulations to be complied too,when you decide to become a member of their organisation(1) is if you don't comply to the compliance required,(you are removed from their Agency)eg  Offence behaviour to others/ Scamming people for money/soliciting criminal attivities etc etc.
Now i know and am a member of some of these organisation (comply to these require regulation,as to being a member. These organisation acknowledge in there Regulations (that if members) of there agencys are soliciting other member for (money scamming reason) to inform them of this and the Agency with remove these member from their service.You inform the Agencies of the nature of what has been done to you,via members of their service(scammed for money/sent money to) and been Fraudulently scammed.
  Okay then you do,you own research into the identification of these people and sometime after having traveled to meet these people,(surpisingly) to find that these so-call people do not exit and  with the support of International Security Agencies realize that the information of the people in question ( fails to exit)  Now the question is,alot of these Agencies after being informed(fail) to act on/safe-guarding other  decent member from this kind of things happening to them .The member envolved in this scamming proceedure continues to (prayer on vonarable
people) who become members of these Agencies. Call me naive at times,but sometimes our (Hearts rule our Brains) when we see a beautiful woman make acknowledgement of us.

# should i deal with this my way? says :
15 September, 2007 [ 19:07 ]

Question? I,m stumped as to see where Peru,is being used as a tagget to the question i ask.I have nothing but respect for the Peruvian People,irrespect of the demises,brought opon them in their lives or what other may say & think. Remember the statement made about Peruana is not a isolated  issue. The rest of the world is no  different and are responsible  for very much the same demise that you say too.

# TOM M. says :
15 September, 2007 [ 21:13 ]

THE SIMPLE SOLUTION TO THESE PROBLEMS IS  "TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT YOURSELF"   A LOT OF LIES TOLD WHEN DESCRIBING THEMSELVES ON BOTH SIDES.   PEOPLE ARNT GOOD ABOUT REVEALING THEIR BAD OR WEAK POINTS.  CRIMINAL RECORDS CAN BE UNCOVERED BUT A PERSONS INTENTIONS ARE KNOWN AFTER THE HARM IS DONE.

# Legal Prof says :
15 September, 2007 [ 22:47 ]

Not the answers i was looking for.
What makes you think that every person in this world is,about what you want to think they are to be in your eyes,(to you) and what makes you think that people don't tell the true s about who they are.

# should ideal with my way? says :
15 September, 2007 [ 23:17 ]

Should i deal with this my way? means legally, that we need to find away to assure that stringent guide-lines are implimented into the Regulatory operations of operations of Dating Agencies,as to importance of acknowledging the Safety issue in relations the Business structures/practises of these Organisation. The general public/people are entitle to be given some satisfaction that they can be kept safe of the demises of the world.

# Rob says :
15 September, 2007 [ 23:25 ]

This whole debate is a bit bizarre.  Whatever happened to boy meets girl and they fall in love.  Bad things sometimes do happen, but the vast majority of encounters whether internet or in person end up just fine. 

It's not like if you meet someone in a coffee shop, bar or even through a friend at work, that you ever look up and check out someones background and criminal record.  People just meet, fall in love (or not) and life goes on.

Society has just gotten way too wrapped up in overblown fears.

# americorps says :
16 September, 2007 [ 02:10 ]

These are mature adult women here, I do not see why they should have government regulated babysitters.  I think that shows a lack of respect for the intellegence and independence of women.

# Rest of the world says :
16 September, 2007 [ 02:30 ]

Wonder what Nation is the Biggest pain in the ass to the rest of the worlds Human Society and mankind.

# TOM M. says :
16 September, 2007 [ 02:42 ]

I DONT KNOW.
WHY DONT YOU TELL ME?

# Reading tipical crap says :
16 September, 2007 [ 05:24 ]

Americorp
What the hell are you on & whats your dam point,are you one of these tipical Yank crap blow ass.( Full of bloody air) like Bush & his corupt cronies. And i will answer the question of who the biggest pain in the ass Nation in this world is.
Its the USA (greedy,arrogent,selfcentred,blow asses in the bloody world.

# Rob says :
16 September, 2007 [ 08:08 ]

"tipical" crap, you have really raised the level of intellegent discussion on this board with your well thought out posts. 

My non"corupt" hat goes off to you!

# americorps says :
16 September, 2007 [ 08:26 ]

as far as Bush goes, I consider him a criminal and a traitor to my country and should be impeached and tried on war crimes for allowing torture.

There are many things about the Peruvian Government I do not like, but I love Peru and it's people, I am not so dense and stupid that I can make racist over-tones about a whole people based on terrible politics.  I realize you fall in a different catagory than I.  Good luck with that.

As far as women goes, I understand you must think they are neither intellegent nor should be allowed independence judging from your rebuttal against my post...I hope no self-respecting woman has anything to do with you if you are a guy and if you are a woman, I will pray you develop some self respect.

# T.M. says :
16 September, 2007 [ 12:56 ]

A LOT OF THE BRITS DONT CARE FOR BUSH.    I DESPISE HIM AND HIS RUNNING MATE AS WELL.   THE QUESTION IS WHY DOESNT ENGLAND WORRY ABOUT THEIR OWN MESS AND QUIT WORRYING ABOUT THE OTHER COUNTRIES THAT THEY COME RUNNING TO WHEN GERMANY GETS IN A FOUL MOOD.

# Rev_ (NZ) D.F says :
16 September, 2007 [ 20:56 ]

Greeting all,very interest expression of interests on this. (Site) Do hope that everyone acknowledges the main Headlines of this Publication of Importance and contribute some attention to the concepts of the prevention this terrible accurrance happening to others.I do understand (inrespect)that alot of you ses do have urgent concerns & compassion on/in the issues at hand,that need to be addressed for the good and betterment in situations.
I was hoping to see maybe a more positive attention be formated to the acknowledgement toward offering more resourseful developements structures to the prevention of what has happen in the tragic case of [ Jana Claudia Menendez] and any one else has been effected by this terrible situation & who may fall victim to this kind of inhumane act of cruelty.
Again my condulences of support go to the grieving Familys of [Jana] and anyone effected by these unexceptable injustices and for justice to be served.
We have a similar case of this,that happened in my country,last (Xmas) (still pending a final sentencing of the accusers of foriegn citizenship and extradition) to another Foriegn Citizen of the same country. The victim was a Foriegn Student here on a [Exchange Tertiary Education Programme] and the innocence of this person fell victim to the Fate of others.
[The Mutilated Body in the Suitecase in the Harbour]
Again another act of Cruel deliverance falls opond a good-Family,set at the hands by/of other & the demises of the World.


Ask yourselve[PEOPLE] if this happens to you or some-one known to you.
[ How would you really FEEL]
Not a Important issue, you would put-concern to youself,????????
I think not (i know your answers)

Give some consideration to others that fall, FATE set down by the HANDs of this World.

# Rev_(NZ)D.F says :
16 September, 2007 [ 21:36 ]

To the Peruvian People of the Nation of Peru (Be Strong,Standup and be Counted.
Show the World what they don't know about
A [Culture of People] that have respect in who they are,what they are and what Developements you strive to Achieve to the Future of a People & Nation.
Kia Kaha [Be Strong]

The Peruvian People alway welcome in my country

# Bonnie says :
19 September, 2007 [ 10:39 ]

# americorps says :
16 September, 2007 [ 02:10 ]

These are mature adult women here, I do not see why they should have government regulated babysitters.  I think that shows a lack of respect for the intellegence and independence of women.


______________________________________________

Agreed!!

And that is EXACTLY what IMBRA does!  IMBRA does not respect a foreign woman's ability to determine HER own level of security.  IMBRA will not allow her to freely provide her email address to American men.  IMBRA makes her out to be a feeble, weak, idiot who is not capable of making decisions.  This law was crafted by the National Organization for Women!  The irony is staggering. 

# Sic of the crap says :
20 September, 2007 [ 21:30 ]

Sick of the PC Political Crap that goes on in this world. Your words are airless,vioceless & have no structural meaning s what so ever. Words are cheaps

# KC says :
3 October, 2007 [ 05:07 ]

.Es este otro caso del Sistema de Justicia americano que trabaja para el Sospechoso, Delincuente, Mundo Criminal, pero no para el inocent victoms familia en su pena y perdido de su miembro de Familia. Parece que este sistema tiene algo para esconder y no querer que nadie más sepa sobre.

# Erbe says :
10 October, 2007 [ 08:21 ]

"And that is EXACTLY what IMBRA does!  IMBRA does not respect a foreign woman's ability to determine HER own level of security.  IMBRA will not allow her to freely provide her email address to American men.  IMBRA makes her out to be a feeble, weak, idiot who is not capable of making decisions.  This law was crafted by the National Organization for Women!  The irony is staggering."

________________________________________________

Despite the truth in the above statement, Layli Miller Muro of the Tahirih Justice Center and her friends at the National Organization for Women clearly made a politically motivated FATAL error by exempting Match.com from the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act or IMBRA.  I will see to it that this fact is broadcast to numerous media outlets.

# Bonnie says :
10 October, 2007 [ 09:15 ]

"Despite the truth in the above statement, Layli Miller Muro of the Tahirih Justice Center and her friends at the National Organization for Women clearly made a politically motivated FATAL error by exempting Match.com from the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act or IMBRA.  I will see to it that this fact is broadcast to numerous media outlets."


Did you know that the sponsors of IMBRA are backed with United States taxpayer dollars?  So, in a way, the US government is responsible for allowing Jana to use Match.com unsupervised.  Match is owned by a large corporation that has a lot of influence over politicians.  The timing of all this is interesting since this week, Congress is awarding the Tahirih Justice Center with $1,000,000 to enforce IMBRA globally.  Of course, that enforcement will not include Match.com, Yahoo Personals, and other mass sources of foreign women contacts for American men.  Dont expect Tahirih (http://www.tahirih.org) to ever comment on this (the first of many to come) tragedy.

# americorps says :
10 October, 2007 [ 10:41 ]

A dating site is not a marriage broker, no matter how you want to spin it.

The woman did not deserve what happened to her and this is a terrible tragedy, but regulations do not fix the problem.  This very website has ads looking for people, as does craigslist and the local newspapers...  You are barking up the wrong tree if you think you can federally regulate dating.

# Bonnie says :
10 October, 2007 [ 11:46 ]

"A dating site is not a marriage broker, no matter how you want to spin it."

Then what exactly is a "marriage broker?"  Does such an entity collect a commission for arranging a marriage as the term suggests?  Can you provide web links to sites that operate with that business model?  I cannot seem to find any.

"You are barking up the wrong tree if you think you can federally regulate dating."

I support the federal regulation of dating.  That is why I support IMBRA.  Do you support IMBRA?  Is the National Organization for Women "barking up the wrong tree?"

IMBRA was tailored to regulate AMERICAN MEN who actively seek to date NON-AMERICAN foreign women WHO LIVE OUTSIDE THE US.  Match.com could easily be regulated under IMBRA by simply removing the exemption that gives it a free pass.  There is no denying that Jana would have been forced to receive Trickett's criminal history before communication between the two could occur if Match.com fell under IMBRA. 

"The woman did not deserve what happened to her and this is a terrible tragedy, but regulations do not fix the problem."

If "regulations do not fix the problem" then why did numerous organizations spend countless work hours, years of lobbying, and taxpayer money to have IMBRA passed?

# Rob says :
10 October, 2007 [ 13:22 ]

"If "regulations do not fix the problem" then why did numerous organizations spend countless work hours, years of lobbying, and taxpayer money to have IMBRA passed?"

For the same reason Halliburton, Enron and Big Tobacco spend countless work hours, years of lobbying, and taxpayer money to have laws passed.  They profit from it.

# tom says :
10 October, 2007 [ 13:25 ]

MY OBSERVATION
CANADA,U.S.A., AND EUROPE DO A VAST AMOUNT OF BUSINESS IN PERU AND OTHER COUNTRIES IN S. AMERICA.   THE MONEY FROM THIS BUSINESS GOES TO A FEW WEALTHY FAMILIES FOR THE MOST PART AND THOSE WHO ARE IN NEED GET VERY LITTLE OR NO BENEFITS FROM THIS FOREIGN TRADE. THIS IS THE REASON THAT S. AMERICA IS LEANING TO THE LEFT WITH EACH ELECTION.   PERU AVOIDED A LEFTIST GOVT BY A VERY THIN MARGIN IN THEIR LAST ELECTION.  THE DISTROBUTION OF BENEFITS FROM OUR TRADE IS SOMETHING OUR GOVT NEEDS TO REGULATE AND NOT WORRY ABOUT TELLING ME WHO TO ASSOCIATE WITH.   THE WEALTHY CONTROL THE MONEY BUT THEY HAD BETTER WAKE UP AND SEE WHO CONTROLS THE VOTE.   BUSH AND CHENEY ARE BEGINNING TO LEARN THIS LESSON AFTER THEIR BIG POWER PLAY FELL FLAT ON ITS FACE.

# Redneck says :
10 October, 2007 [ 13:30 ]

"IMBRA was tailored to regulate AMERICAN MEN who actively seek to date NON-AMERICAN foreign women WHO LIVE OUTSIDE THE US"

... wow is that why it was put in place???  First off that sounds completely sexist, why are you actively targeting men? Who is regulating women? It also sounds delusional and fascist to think you can regulate worldwide dating. 

This sounds like an organization that would love to force men to date feminazi's that continue to emasculate them instead of giving them the chance to date real women abroad.  sorry won't work, you are now learning what competition is all about.  God bless globalization.

# americorps says :
10 October, 2007 [ 13:32 ]

A marriage broker arranges marriage, a dating site is nothing more than a message board...if any marriages are arranged, it is by the ad poster, not the agency..that alone exempts them from the regulation you speak of, they do not arrange marriages.

You do not hold a newspaper liable if you buy a car advertised in a newspaper that turns out to be a lemon.  You can not hold the owners of a message board responsible for every message on the board.

The marriage broker was the guy...he used a message board..he could have also taken out a classified ad, distributed posters around town or just showed up....

Would you then call for the regulation of the printing presses? Make the newspapers around the world meet your requirements or hold the airlines responsible for what their passengers do?

No, of course not and this is the same thing.

# americorps says :
10 October, 2007 [ 13:49 ]

Having known survivors of the holocaust, I consder the word feminazi utterly stupid.

I think you emascuate yourself just fine, no need to blame women.

# Redneck says :
10 October, 2007 [ 14:20 ]

Sorry if I offended your sensibilities Americorps, but whatever pc word of the day you prefer, this chick is a fascist.

# Bonnie says :
10 October, 2007 [ 15:09 ]

"A marriage broker arranges marriage"

Correct.  However, none of the websites that IMBRA targets arranges marriages.  They all sell postal and email addresses to men at the request of the ad poster (foreign woman).  That is the business model.   That service may or may not result in marriage and is soley up to and arranged by two consenting and willing adults.

"You do not hold a newspaper liable if you buy a car advertised in a newspaper that turns out to be a lemon.  You can not hold the owners of a message board responsible for every message on the board."

The examples you cite above relate to certain exemptions to an existing law called the Communications Decency Act or CDA.  For dating sites, such exemptions apply if the website is not a content provider of defamatory information.  

However, IMBRA does make select dating sites liable although they are exempt under the CDA.  IMBRA requires that the dating sites it targets collect extensive personal information from each American man and that information must be sent to each foreign woman he wishes to communicate with (not marry or even meet!) and she must then acknowledge that she read it all and then provide permission for her email address to be sent to him.  If that is not done, then the dating site is liable.  These requirements contradict certain provisions of the Communications Decency Act as they apply to so-called "marriage broker" websites.

"Would you then call for the regulation of the printing presses? Make the newspapers around the world meet your requirements or hold the airlines responsible for what their passengers do?"

"No, of course not and this is the same thing."

I would call for no regulation of those enterprises (on the subjet of communication).  However, if IMBRA is imposing such restriction of communication (as it does) then it should apply it in whole, not in part.  If the well-meaning feminist groups wish to stand defiant to the CDA, that challenge must be across the entire spectrum of American man/foreign women dating on the Internet.

# American Justice says :
10 October, 2007 [ 15:23 ]

I guess its the typical American Way to cover-up this Murder to protect the Big Picture of how their System Failed and protect their sourse of catching more crims.  American have to be the (Dominant) Rulers of the World. What they say,is what ever has to be excepted. [Anyone agree] Should i eliberate more ??

(B/S) American Coverup. You ll be surprise how much the world doesn't know about this Issue(Topic) but i guess they will form there own personal adhesive on what they want to do,in their lives. Corupt Americans.

There has & is Corporate/Political  Scandul-  and money Bribes-Laundering going on between (Top notch Figures)

Beware:  we will open the up [a Pandora s Box] for all to see, very soon  Keep Tuned.

# Bonnie says :
10 October, 2007 [ 15:38 ]

American Justice:

You are right...and that Pandora's Box contains the exemption granted by the National Organization For Women and the Tahirih Justice Center on behalf of Match.com. What a deal. Except for Jana.

Get that box opened and you will see a media storm like no other as it concerns big business, feminism, dating, and gender issues in the United States.

# Americorps says :
10 October, 2007 [ 15:46 ]

a message board can not be regulated as you like without violating the Constitution because you are regulating personal messages, not a commercial service.

# Bonnie says :
10 October, 2007 [ 16:13 ]

"a message board can not be regulated as you like without violating the Constitution because you are regulating personal messages, not a commercial service."

Go tell that to the National Organization For Women.  IMBRA was their idea, not mine.

The main fight to outlaw IMBRA has to do with exactly that - constitutionality.  The dating sites targeted by IMBRA do not let people communicate in the first place (can't even start to have personal messages) without completing and submitting a host of paperwork. 

Since the Constitution has already been violated through IMBRA, how difficult or wrong is it to apply that violation to Match.com?  Consider this as a great opportunity to cover all American men looking to date foreign women.

# Foreign Int Investi says :
10 October, 2007 [ 17:09 ]

Very interesting: Very Concerning Issue s & points present here by Bonnie & Americanjustice. There is huge concerning Elements to this Contitutional  that do need major attention and Addressing. As we are aware that Contitutions Reforms are not always Design to meet what they are ment to be in deliverance of. So it is up to us,to maintain that  Deliverance of the Contitution to a Levels of Compliance to Justifiable & Exceptable Means.

# americorps says :
10 October, 2007 [ 20:56 ]

Bonnie, \

You do not understand, match.com is excemp as are other casual dating sites because they are message boards and the matchmaking is not a commercial transaction...on those you only rent space.

They are excempt because of the Constitutionality, it has not been violated and I am shocked and ashamed of any American that does not hold the foundation of our democracy as sacred.  George Bush, for me, is one of the worst leaders in our country if for no other reason, he referred to this document as just a GD piece of paper. 

You may feel like trashing the constitution and changing it here and there to suite your needs, but I consider that tatamount to treason.

rented space on a message board..or free space as there are free dating sites as well are not comercial transactions like matchmaking or selling marriage lists..that is the difference and you can not change it simply because you do not like it...  You oppose all America stands for when you oppose the Constitution.

# Redneck says :
10 October, 2007 [ 21:19 ]

I submit that all humans should submit to full DNA tests before dating to determine if their potential children could possibly have any criminal tendencies or any other undesirable traits as determined by the NOW.  No human interaction should take place, and DNA sensors should be set up at possible meeting points immediately.

# Bonnie says :
11 October, 2007 [ 12:03 ]

"You do not understand, match.com is excemp as are other casual dating sites because they are message boards and the matchmaking is not a commercial transaction...on those you only rent space."

Match.com charges fees to members for the right to post messages to other members.  So called "marriage broker" websites charge fees to buy the email address of another member.  Please explain how this justifies exempting Match.com and not exempting the other very similar type of dating service.  How is it that you claim one does not involve a commercial transaction and the other one does.  

# americorps says :
11 October, 2007 [ 13:46 ]

according to your backwards logic, Ray Charles is God.

God is love..love is blind..Ray Charles is blind...then Ray Charles is God.

Paying a fee for the right to post a message is not the same as paying a fee to obtain a list of people who are presented to get marriage...you simply do not understand the law nor the Constitution...I will not debate you because either from ignorance or blindness you make statements that are simply not factual.  I can not debate someone who can not tell the truth.

# Bonnie says :
11 October, 2007 [ 15:37 ]

"Paying a fee for the right to post a message is not the same as paying a fee to obtain a list of people who are presented to get marriage"

What website(s) did you visit that IMBRA is meant to regulate that provides lists of people seeking marriage?  Certainly, you are telling the truth and have done some research  None of the IMBRA-targeted sites that I visited provide lists of people presented to get marriage.  Really.  Truthfully.  Why don't you post a list of your researched sites?  That would be most helpful.

Those IMBRA-targeted sites do post the profiles of women who want their profiles posted.  They provide an email address because they want men to email them.  Then, they can freely post messages back and forth with the men they choose to communicate with.  Ya see, just like Match.com only with an approach that works for them in their present situation.  What percentage of those who exchange emails via IMBRA-targeted sites actually get married to each other?

Jana got married via Match.com; so, was she presented for marriage?

Those sites targeted by IMBRA have been around a long time.  Only very recently did they get labeled "marriage brokers" - just about the time IMBRA was being crafted.  What a coincidence.

# Jim Peterson says :
19 October, 2007 [ 13:56 ]

Americorps,

I seldom see anyone as ignorant of facts as you, talking about something you clearly have not read.

Heather (now Bonnie) was pulling your chain. She is no supporter of the NOW. She was being sarcastic about IMBRA, correctly noting, however, that this woman would have been alive if the US Government had been completely fascist in implementing a law like IMBRA that blocks communications between Americans and foreigners.

Please go read the IMBRA law at www.onlinedatingrights.com.

The definition of "Marriage Broker" according to the US government is "any for-profit social interaction website that has as it PRIMARY business the introduction of American citizens or residents with foreign nationals."

Match.com gets a pass (until we get them in court) because the assumption is that the primary business of Match.com is to introduce Americans to Americans and Germans to Germans or Italians to British.

That means that Match gets a pass because it is not focussing on the market of hated American males - hated by radical feminists.

Al Qaeda males can continue to meet anyone they want online. Terrorists now have more rights than American men. Not only are foreign men not regulated by IMBRA, but all "religious" and "ethnic" matchmaking sites and real Muslim marriage brokers are exempt.

So some families that condone "honour killings" would just send their son to a real marriage broker.

But either way, young women NEVER pay to use any dating service or "message board".

Now sites like www.aforeignaffair.com also might not primarily focus on just American men meeting foreign nationals...because a lot of Canadian and British and German men would also use that site.

One mistake A Foreign Affair's owner made was in allowing himself to identify himself as the kind of "broker" NOW was targetting, but he doesn't really mind "complying" with all the background check stuff because he makes his real money in selling tours of other countries and he knows that people who just meet each other easily and at low cost don't contribute much to the bottom line.

Another dating site, www.blossoms.com, refuses to comply with IMBRA because they correctly say that they do not "broker marriages", but simply introduce people to each other.

A Foreign Affair is a big message board where foreign women (or American women) can leave their OFFLINE contact info or one of their many private email addresses (it takes 30 seconds to get an anonymous hotmail address).

But IMBRA stops the women from leaving any kind of information or even entering into an online chat with an American (but not an Al Qaeda Arab) because the feminists

IMBRA radically violates the Right to Assemble of the US Constitution in that it stops foreign women from exercising their right to decide their own level of security.

I can go on. But here are some videos that point out how outrageous the IMBRA law is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihW4P8Bcrxc&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HYaZ3sIZ4w

You are welcome to argue, Americorps, because it will only cause the truth to come out on another place where Google searches can direct people.

But I think your problem is that you mistakenly think that there exist American-owned websites where arranged marriages are made and the women have no choice.

Nothing could be further from the truth. IMBRA is what takes the choice away from foreign women. With IMBRA, they now have to be constantly finding ways to be attached to the Internet because that is the only practical way to give "written approval" for contact with others.

When the women had their choice, their $5 cell phone numbers would be ringing (it costs $5 in Russia to have a new cell phone number that you can conceivably discard if a crazy stalker ever gets it and won't stop calling it).

When the women had their choice, paper snail mail would arrive and a woman would have her choice of a number of great looking and successful American or German men to write back to by snail mail.

Because the Internet exists and anonymous webmail exists, IMBRA says that it should be illegal for a man to know any means of contact to a woman, especially the postal address that was so necessary 10 years ago in the US and which is still completely necessary in most of Russia.

Isn't it comforting to know that, as new technology comes into existence, it will become illegal to do things without the technology shortly after?

IMBRA is equivalent to laws requiring that restaurants use electric dishwashers at 110 degrees water temperature, except that the latter laws are not unconstitutional because they are not federal and do not mess with a fundamental liberty like assembly. Because the technology exists to wash dishes that way, it has become illegal to wash dishes by hand. Because the Internet exists, IMBRA says that paper snail mail pen-pal writing is now practically illegal, at least in terms of the initial introduction where the website owners would refuse to send a man's background check by parcel post (it takes too long to do that and they have, therefore, simply started to delete the profiles of women who do not have email addresses).

# Jim Peterson says :
19 October, 2007 [ 14:15 ]

However, it can be proven in court that the hated American male (white, professional and over 35 years old) is precisely the primary market of Match.com.

Despite all the beautiful young American women saying in their profiles that they do not want to date a man older than 30, while not paying anything at all, almost the only people actually paying money to Match.com are the white professional males over 35.

Now Match's managers try to be good radical feminists by officially banning women from Russia and other countries that are deemed to be overly friendly to American men, they also face the corporate imperative to globalize.

This globalization imperative directly collides, however, with the feminist wish that American men in particular and men in general should actually get LESS OPTIONS of personal contact.

Meanwhile, Adultfriendfinder and Sexsearch are going gangbusters introducing Americans and foreigners to have sex with each other (no mention of possible marriage on those sites).

In court, if these corporate dating sites won't fight IMBRA alongside upstanding American veterans and businessmen, then we will ask the court to define "for dating purposes" as also including hookup sex and these porno dating sites will then immediately fall under IMBRA.

Can anyone get me the names and phone numbers of the managers at those two porno dating sites?

# TOM says :
19 October, 2007 [ 14:19 ]

THE HUMAN RACE HAS A RIGHT TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS REGARDING WHOM THEY ASSOCIATE WITH OR BECOME INVOLVED WITH.    THOSE WHO WISH TO ELIMINATE MY CHOICES BY PASSING EMPTY, BIASED, AND IGNORANT LAWS CAN MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.   I WILL ASSOCIATE WITH ANYONE I CHOOSE IN ANY WAY I CHOOSE!    THE CONSERVATIVES THAT ARE RUNNING THE U.S. GOVT. NEED TO REALIZE THAT THE PEOPLE ARE ON TO THEIR INCOMPETENT EFFORTS TO DICTATE CHANGES IN OUR CONSTITUTION.  BUSH AND CHENEY ACTUALLY TRIED TO PASS A LAW THAT MADE IT ILLEGAL TO CRITIZE THEIR ADMINISTRATION BUT IT GOT O SUPPORT.   AS LONG AS I WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THESE LAWS!

# Jim Peterson says :
19 October, 2007 [ 14:53 ]

Tom,

You don't have to consciously comply with IMBRA. A few of the bigger international dating sites have already made that decision for you.

Tens of thousands of women who do not have email addresses have already been either deleted from these sites or their profiles are still there but you have very little chance of ever having free contact with them. Even Blossoms.com, which refuses to otherwise comply with IMBRA, took the step of deleting over 10,000 women without email from their system. Those are women you will probably now never meet Tom, despite their desire to meet you.

So IMBRA is not something a man can defy so much as something that measurably separates him from enormous numbers of women who would be otherwise easy to meet online.

The reason is because dating sites have always known or have learned via their experience with IMBRA that there is more money to be made by hampering contact between individuals than by getting them easily out on their own with each other's contact info.

For instance, in the paranoid east and west coast of the USA, Match.com has garnered an impressive amount of subscription renewals on the $34.95 per month charge to white males over 35.

This is because these professional males, who contribute so much to the gross domestic product, are being warned in the profiles of most of the non-paying members that they are "too old" and those American women who do start writing to a paying guy are being told by Match.com's managers as well as the US media that they must treat the men like they could be serial killers and only slowly give out contact information. So, for instance, because the Internet has done away with snail mail, an American woman would now only give out her home address on the 3rd date if and when she wants to have sex with a man.

Match.com profits further when the American women treat sex like recreation and she and the man both keep playing the field with the man continuing to pay $34.95 per month.

In terms of corporate profits, the paranoid US culture rakes in the most cash which is why the model of the international dating sites was seen as a huge threat not only to ideological feminists: the willingness of foreign women to have their hotmail addresses or their cheap cell phone numbers simply broadcast around the world for anyone willing to spend $10...offered men the option to opt out of the $34.95 per month merry-go-round and the horrible insult of seeing fellow members of sites like Match.com explicitly state that they would not even bother answering a male over 30...rude behavior that does not happen to such an extent in real life.

IMBRA forces American men to face a more humiliating form of paranoia and ill-will than is already present on sites like Match.com.

With IMBRA, the US Government has decided that foreign women are not nasty and paranoid enough to adequately inflict the "required" level of pain on American white male professionals over 35.

When one looks at the fact that most legislative aides and federal court clerks are women who are feminists regardless of what party they pretend to belong to, it does not matter that the Congressmen and federal judges are still mostly white mails over 35 themselves. These older white males in the US Government have completely lost their power to those whom they trust to do their daily business for them. These legislative aides, such as Larrissa Martinez of Republican Senator Chuch Hagel's office, will not even bother taking phone calls from males who say they are military veterans. Her number, by the way, is 1-202-224-4224.

# Jim Peterson says :
19 October, 2007 [ 15:24 ]

American men who do not live in the United States know that it is entirely possible to wake up on a Saturday morning and fully expect to meet a great woman with whom to have a date by the time the sun sets.

This concept is anathema to the big corporations who want to charge men $34.95 per month to remain single indefinitely.

You cannot honestly believe that a greedy dating site owner actually wants its paying members to stop paying and its best women members to ask that their profiles be taken down?

The real irony here is that the socalled "marriage broker" site owners were allowing exactly that to happen! Men were coming online and paying $10 and that was it...that $10 sufficing to meet someone and have an extremely long term relationship, only 3% of online meetings resulted in marriage however.

If you consider that 10,000 American men married foreigners every year before IMBRA tried to put the brakes on, then over 5 years, that would be $21 Million in membership fees that Match.com can recover from men who have been appropriately cowed into submission to their program.

Even if you don't believe that Match's owners were calculating that they can profit so much from IMBRA neutralizing their competition, you can imagine that the $21 Million windfall to domestic dating sites will work to make sure that Match.com will NOT help us fight IMBRA in the courts and Match.com will be only too happy to participate in the government later inflicting direct humiliation on their paying male members via the domestic form of IMBRA that John McCain will introduce as soon as the Supreme Court upholds IMBRA itself.

Senator McCain's office is 202 224-2235. Speak with Lee Dunn and Brandon Ashley about why McCain might vote to give $1 Million to a feminist group to enforce the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act. Let them know that Republican males would sooner vote for Hillary than for a traitor to his own gender.

# Groon says :
19 October, 2007 [ 16:18 ]

It seems that the American feminist organizations and large dating sites, lets just call them the "Axis," are accountable for Jana's muder by the American man who used Match.com to find her.  The Axis made a bet that this cruel scenario would not play out; they were wrong.  Dead wrong.

# Jim Peterson says :
19 October, 2007 [ 16:31 ]

Well...remember that "Heather" above was only being sarcastic. She is completely against IMBRA but was pretending to be a supporter in order to show how ridiculous the pro-IMBRA reasoning is.

I know that Match.com, by their own logic and the logic of the feminists and US Congresspeople is responsible for Jana's murder, but let's be careful about playing that angle that Match really is responsible for what happened after two people met each other here on Earth because the feminists and social conservative Republicans (feminists at heart) would be only too happy to regulate Match.com as well after getting IMBRA upheld in the Supreme Court which would automatically overturn the decision on the CDA (Communications Decency Act) and making every male on Earth an apriori criminal (apriori means "before the fact").

This means that Peruvian men are now very close to losing their right to say hello to women. If the US government universally hampers/blocks free contact with women on all US owned or hosted websites, they can make it so foreign website owners who don't comply with US law can be blocked from entering the US or otherwise financially punished via the banks and credit card companies.

Weak foreign governments would then pass their own laws similar to what President Hillary Clinton or President "Lets Stop Men from Travelling" Giuliani advises.

By the way, Americans have no choice for president next year. Both leading candidates hate men.

# Willoughby says :
20 October, 2007 [ 00:38 ]

Where is the evidence that so-called “Marriage Brokers” send women to a terrible fate as Americorps contends?  All that has been mentioned (in the American media) are a few cases of “mail-order brides” being abused and/or murdered by their husbands in the United States.  There isn’t any statistical evidence for a major problem in the “mail-order bride” industry.  What about all of the American women who have been treated badly or murdered in domestic relationships?  IMBRA (International Marriage Broker Regulation Act) doesn’t do anything to protect American women in domestic dating agencies.  Are foreign women more important than American women?

 

It will probably be legally impossible to regulate the dating sites exempted by IMBRA with the same provisions.  That is because the courts will call it unconstitutional.  You can’t regulate a dating site, and then exempt some of its members (e.g. American women) when the dynamics within the site are the same.  That violates the equal protection clause of our (U.S.A.) constitution. 

 

Since most foreign women apparently advertise for American husbands on the exempted sites, they risk ending up like this unfortunate woman.  The only way to ensure complete protection is to regulate all Internet dating.  That probably won’t work, because IMBRA is ostensibly designed to prevent communication between people. Apparently, it does this by scaring men away (from foreign women) with cumbersome background checks before a man can even say hello to a woman.  Anyone with any semblance of intelligence will realize that most men will not want to do this (whether they have something to hide or not).  American men and women will never tolerate such a law in domestic dating agencies.

 

# Willoughby says :
20 October, 2007 [ 04:36 ]

"There is no real good reason to have excluded any American-based dating site from IMBRA.  It would have been very easy to include them.  Sites such as Match.com, Yahoo Personals, Meetic, FriendFinder, et al have multitudes more foreign women as free members than all 200 or so foreign dating sites.  On Match.com, the women sign up for FREE and the American man pays to initiate contact.  Same business model as all the foreign dating sites." - Heather

Any attempt to regulate the major domestic dating agencies probably would have destroyed IMBRA.  The major exempted dating sites are making a lot of money providing access to foreign women.  They have a lot of power.  That is almost certainly the reason why Legal Momentum and the Tahirih Justice Center left them alone.

# Jim Peterson says :
20 October, 2007 [ 04:44 ]

But what are the phone numbers of the top management of these sites like Adultfriendfinder and Sexsearch as well as Match?

We have to tell them that we won't leave them alone until IMBRA is overruled. The problem is that they probably want to be regulated themselves because, as I noted above, the harder it is for people to meet, the longer the men will pay monthly subscriptions on a dating site.

But at least we can document that they would not help...which would go a long way towards showing that they actually want to be regulated themselves in the near future.

# americorps says :
20 October, 2007 [ 10:18 ]

The crusader does not understand the difference between a marriage broker and a dating site, the crusader has already stated she does not care if the US Constitution is violated, the crusader has not discussed alternative methods of meeing...printing press..should that be regulated, local newspapers? Message boards that are not dating focused?

Over-regulation in the US will only drive websites to other countries or offshore.

Her desire to protect women is noble, but her methods are mad, without logic, forsight ...just a knee jerk reactionairy with tunnel vision who can not see the forest through the trees.

# Willoughby says :
20 October, 2007 [ 13:52 ]

There really is no difference between a "marriage broker" and a dating site.  The "marriage brokers" don't "broker" marriages, they simply sell contact information so that two people can meet.  All dating sites enable people to contact people for friendship, and romance.  Most of them charge fees.

IMBRA is actually gender neutral.  The only reason it only applies to men at present is because there is largely only a desire to marry American men in other countries.  There are many foreign women who want to "marry up" so to speak in the less affluent parts of the world.

A "marriage broker" as our government defines it is any dating agency that charges fees and whose primary business is to introduce foreigners to American citizens.  If the American man or woman wants to contact a foreign individual through one of these agencies, they must reveal all of the personal details of their life as well as have a criminal background check performed on them before they can even communicate with the foreign individual.  The foreign person isn't under the same commensurate obligation.  The law is designed to protect foreign people from Americans. 

IMBRA seems like a law that would have existed in the former East Germany.  It doesn't seem like a law that is appropriate for a liberal democracy.

# Willoughby says :
20 October, 2007 [ 14:25 ]

"Over-regulation in the US will only drive websites to other countries or offshore." -Americorps

This isn't true.  If you meet a foreigner through the auspices of an agency that isn't compliant with IMBRA, the INS will deny your fiance(e) visa.  It doesn't matter if it is a foreign dating agency. 

The law doesn't regulate "marriage brokers", it regulates American citizens.  It is enforced on people by the American government when they apply for a visa. 

The "marriage broker" can be fined and/or imprisoned if they exist in the United States and don't comply with the law.  It (enforcement) cannot be done to foreign agencies though.

If an American citizen tries to circumvent IMBRA by using a foreign agency that doesn't comply with IMBRA, they will fail.  When they try to get their fiance(e) into the United States to marry them, the INS will deny the visa.

If IMBRA were expanded to include Match.com, Yahoo personals, and other exempted sites, the same standards would prevail.  It is impossible to circumvent the law.

# americorps says :
20 October, 2007 [ 14:38 ]

clearly you FEEL marriage brokers and dating sites are the same, but the law contridicts you, enough said on that.

The US government is not in the business of deciding how people meet.  It is regulating a business activity, NOT our personal lives and you present a lie to say the contrary.  Imbra puts requirements on certain types of business transactions.  Your illogical way of thinking would then include airlines as they transport people to other countries who might want to seek wives...local newspapers because they might take ads to meet wives...printing presses because they might print a flyer for people wanting to meet spouses...general message boards because someone might post a message to meet a spouse..

No, you can not change the law to redefine what you think a marriage broker is, you can not create government control over how people meet, you can not control al the things you want to control to create a nanny state and take responsibility away from the people and put it in the hands of the US government and you can not suddenly pretend IMBRA no longer is a business regulation but a personal law.  If I truley thought my government was inteferring with how I meet someone I want to date, I would be in washington DC knocking on ever door I could to let them know I would not tolerate such an intrustion...

and most importanly, you can not simply disregaurd the US Constitution just because you feel differently, that would be called treason.

# Willoughby says :
20 October, 2007 [ 15:57 ]

Americorps,

How does the law (IMBRA) regulate a business model or transaction?  It requires "marriage brokers" to obtain personal information on American citizens and disseminates that information to foreign people before they (the American) can obtain the contact information to talk to them.  IMBRA doesn't impose any regulatory standards on the "marriage brokers" themselves in terms of the way they advertise, charge fees, or conduct their operations for the most part.

I believe that some of the "marriage brokers" actually charge fees to the foreign members as well as American members.  A "marriage broker" is simply a dating agency that introduces foreign citizens to Americans.

I found the Violence Against Women Act (of which IMBRA is a part) online.  Look at subtitle D.  It contains the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act.  You will see what I mean when you read the Act itself. Please see the following link:

http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/images/IMBRA2005.pdf

Your reasoning with regard to airlines and newspapers, etc., doesn't make any sense.  Those entities are not in the business of introducing people to one another.  They may provide those services indirectly or in a minor way, but that isn't their primary business.  That being the case, I can't follow the logic of your argument.  I never stated that IMBRA regulates all manner of communication.  It regulates Americans who want to meet foreigners through agencies whose primary business is to introduce foreigners to Americans.

I think Heather was correct on this issue.  This is what she wrote:

"Marriage brokers sell contact information for money.  Match.com sells contact information for money.  Neither "broker" marriages.  NOW wants us to believe they are different so they can justify regulating one and not the other.  Why?  For the same reason I would regulate just one...the smaller foreign-focused dating sites because they convey a very offensive anti-feminist message and pit foreign women against American women.  Its disgusting.  Its damaging." 

I am not in favor of expanding IMBRA to the domestic dating sites.  I don't think IMBRA is a good law in its present form.  The law appears to be unconstitutional in its present form.  You can't pass a law that violates people's civil rights simply because you find an industry repugnant.  What will NOW and the Tahirih Justice Center try to regulate next, Playboy magazine?  Will men have to be background checked before they can purchase a pornographic magazine? 

# americorps says :
20 October, 2007 [ 21:28 ]

You answered your own question...

How does the law (IMBRA) regulate a business model or transaction?  It requires "marriage brokers" to obtain personal information on American citizens and disseminates that information to foreign people before they (the American) can obtain the contact information to talk to them.

Your bizarre notion that because it only regulates one aspect of the business but not, for example, advertising and therefore is not a business regulation is simply unfounded...and a little surreal.

You also continue to ignore the Constituional question, a very serious question and to a good American, one that makes any other debate moot. 

There is no such thing as a domestic dating site, anyone with a credit card can place a personal ad.  And there is a definition of marriage broker and there is a different definition of dating site.  You can not pretend otherwise.

Further your putrid lies about NOW's motives simply make most everything else you say irrelevent..they did NOT target certain businesses because of what you describe as an anti-feminice agenda and your pure prejiduce and bias and inability to reason resounds in that part of your statment..it is a bold faced lie and therfore you are a bold faced liar.

They decided to support and uphold the Constiution of the United States, something you clearly do not care about.

# Willoughby says :
21 October, 2007 [ 01:36 ]

So you view Match.com as exactly what?  If it isn't a domestic dating site, what is it?  You seem to be calling it a message board which seems bizare to me.  Most people advertise there because they are looking for romance.  Would you care to elaborate on how a "marriage broker" site is different from Yahoo personals or Match.com? 

I am not ignoring the constitutional question.  IMBRA is an infringement on free speech.  It requires that an American citizen be background checked before they can communicate with someone who is advertising for a mate via a so-called "marriage broker".  It prevents the right to free assembly.  There is no precedent in American society for this that I am aware of.  It doesn't regulate marriage, because no relationship even exists.  If this law remains, all types of interaction between people could be regulated.  You could require background checks before people can communicate in all types of venues.

Maybe you would like to explain exactly how a "marriage broker" is involved in a commercial transaction (beyond selling contact information)?  You call "marriage brokers" unscrupulous.  Would you like to give some evidence for this?  How exactly do they "arrange" marriages? 

# Willoughby says :
21 October, 2007 [ 01:45 ]

"You answered your own question...

How does the law (IMBRA) regulate a business model or transaction?  It requires "marriage brokers" to obtain personal information on American citizens and disseminates that information to foreign people before they (the American) can obtain the contact information to talk to them."


So you think that regulating a business involves forcing the business to do background checks on its customers?  If we regulate the automobile industry, we do so by forcing them to do background checks on their customers?  How does that regulate the automobile industry?

# Jim Peterson says :
21 October, 2007 [ 15:26 ]

Willoughby,

Please stop playing along with the feminists by calling any dating sites "marriage brokers". If you go to www.blossoms.com, they say they are not a marriage broker because MBs don't exist except in the minds of the few people who even know the law exists (most Congresspeople do no remember voting for it and we have proof of that). It is a mistake to play along and use that word. These are International Matchmaking Sites or International Dating Sites.

Remember the official definition of MB is a social interaction site, including message boards, that have less than 50% American women on them but more than 50% American men on them. That is such a brazen attack on American men's right to talk to foreigners that the Republican judge, the brain-dead Thomas Rose, who denied a restraining order on May 26, 2006 had to say the following just to back himself up:

"The Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner."

It seemed that Thomas Rose was thinking that Georgie Bush would promote him for that kind of remark that he would have thought might help pave the way for stopping Muslim Americans from talking with foreign Muslims about blowing up a city.

In March 2007, the Hillary patsy judge, Clarence Cooper, who temporarily upheld IMBRA until the next judge sees it, said "Meeting someone is like buying a gun, it should require a background check.

That insane remark will never pass even the 4 liberal Supreme Court Justices, much less the 5 conservative justices who don't feel that background checks should be required even to buy a gun.

When a restraining order soon goes back into effect on IMBRA, the new judge will declare the definition of MB to be nonsensical and unconstitutional because it depends not on the way the business does business but on how many of the customers are American women compared to foreigners. 

Also, while bars can be regulated like crazy at the state level (not federal level), neither the state nor the feds can regulate how the customers of any business talk with each other while inside the business.

Americorps: If you were sincere about your desire to uphold the US Constitution, you need to be going to Washington to start knocking down those doors.

You have now been advised several times that the defiinition of MB is any dating site or bulletin board where the preponderance of female members are not American while the preponderance of male members are American.

----------------

Having said that, there is a loophole at the very end of the definition of marriage broker after all the Muslim and Bahai matchmakers are let off the hook the hook as being "ethnic" (this is the part of the law that makes sure that only white heterosexual professional males are affected).

This last loophole is a final line that says "and offers the same level of service to everyone regardless of gender or nationality."

This means that all any business has to do to NOT be considered an MB is tell foreign women that they have to pay money to initiate a conversation the way Match.com and Adultfriendfinder and other raunchy American "dating sites" do.

Shockingly, some of the international dating sites that have decided to let themselves be called MBs will NOT implement that last loophole.

This is partly because they view the word "and" incorrectly and think that they would still be an MB if they implemented this feature.
 
The entire sentence reads "social interaction site that primarily deals with Americans meeting foreigners AND which does not offer the same level of service regardless of gender or nationality."

I have stated above that there are economic reasons why website owners would WANT to be labeled MBs (because they incorrectly assume that the harder it is to meet people, the more money and time men will spend). Another reason, in the case of www.1st-international.com , is because an otherwise excellent dating site wants foreign women to write to American men in order to convince the American man to pay to respond.

I find this is a terrible practice because it is mainly the foreign scammer element that write to men first.

It is really bothersome for men to get 20 emails per day from guys who are probably named Boris or Ivan but pretending to be women.
 
In any event, the US federal government does not really have the right to regulate a dating site by saying that women (or Boris and Ivan) should be forced to pay money to initiate contact with men...if the website owner determines that its better off to just let them do everything for free. I say this even though I don't like it when Boris and Ivan bother me for free by pretending they are women writing to me.

However, if the Supreme Court should find otherwise, the court will still have to admit that a dating site is NOT a "marriage broker" if it does force women to pay to initiate contact with men.

In essence, the main thing about the next IMBRA challenge is getting the courts to clarify that the word "AND" means that it is not enough to be called an MB if only one of the parts of the above sentence apply but not the other.

---------------

It still remains sick (and a testimony to the vapidity of the Bush and the coming Clinton administrations) that the temporarily "in effect" definition of "marriage broker" does not indicate that the site has to have anything to do with marriage. The law should be called the International Anti-Feminist Dating Site Regulation Act (because the targetted sites mostly do not say kind words about feminism) or the International Site That Let's Women Initiate Contact With Men For Free Regulation Act.

# Willoughby says :
21 October, 2007 [ 17:04 ]

Maybe we could rename IMBRA the International Regulation of American Men Dating Act (IRAMDA). 

I put the term "marriage brokers" in quotes because it is such a misleading and thoroughly stupid term.  Of course the international matchmaking agencies don't broker any marriages.  Feminists to caricature an industry that they despise invented the term.

# Groon says :
22 October, 2007 [ 10:01 ]

Me thinks americorps lives in or is somehow affiliated with some folks in the state of Virginia.  Just a hunch...could be wrong.

If Trickett murdered Jana while both were living the US, the conversation would be much more widespread and the topic regarding Match.com would not be limited to this foreign-based forum.  Yet, someone in Virginia decided that damage control was necessary.

It is very perplexing.  Imbra is law.  Its done.  You worked for years, spent untold funds, and now you have your pet to stroke.  Those who oppose the law are a very small, underfunded group with no clout.  So why are there some very nervous taxpayer funded groups constantly trying to defend it?  Expecially when there is a comparison to Match.com and other dating sites, the roaches come out of the walls, guns-a-blazin'

# Layli Miller-Muro says :
22 October, 2007 [ 17:14 ]

Match.com is exempt because they gave my Tahirih Justice Center a healthy "donation" unlike those International Friendship Services (I like to label them "marriage brokers" to rile people up.) Also many of the few heterosexual feminists out there need to use Match.com if they have ny hopes of conning a male pig into marrying them.

IMBRA wouldn't pass on its own when I tried to get is passed in 2004. The politicians wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole because it is so obviously un-Constitutional. This is why it had to be sneaked into the renewal of the VAWA at the last minute with no hearings or testimonies from Penpal Clubs or their members. Most politicians are unaware that they even signed it and I intend to keep it that way. This is why you don't hear about it in the media. We feminists don't want "unwanted public scrutiny" of it as we have many more anti-male laws planned for the future. Once we have control of Washington, we won't even have to sneak them in.

I drafted and propagandized IMBRA for 2 reasons. To make more money with my "protecting women" scam called Tahirih Justice Center and to stop foreign women from coming to American via marrying American men. Not only are these foreign women not feminists but they have the traditional, old fashioned values that men are seeking so not only are they competition but they are a threat to our feminist agendas of putting all you men on leashes.

Ever wonder why there are so many Women's Organizations out there? Because there is a lot of easy money to be made. Boy is it easy. I get millions of your taxpayer dollars. A lot goes into my Swiss bank account. A lot gets funneled back into my Bahai Faith religion agenda. Our Bahai Faith is an Iranian Religious Cult that worships an Iranian feminist. We believe the image of God as a man is sexist and the proper image of God is that of an Iranian woman. We believe in the Bahai World Order (similiar to Hitler and Stalin's idea of "World Order") except that women are to be in the leadership roles of government. Well not just any women - Bahai women of course.

We also believe in CHANGE OF SOCIETY (similiar to Hitler and Stalin's idea of "Change of Society") to achieve our goals. IMBRA is a good way of doing this as if you can take away men's civil liberties and Constitutional rights so easily, it shouldn't be too difficult to change America (and then the rest of the World) into our vision of a Bahai Faith society. You may not like it but that is too bad. You will just have to get used to it, especially when your tax dollars are helping me and my Bahai Faith achieve this goal. As to IMBRA? You WILL obey me. I am your master.

# americorps says :
22 October, 2007 [ 18:55 ]

it looks like another coward ashamed of themselves are making up posts under false names again.

I am sure medication can help you, poor little thing.

# Jim Peterson says :
23 October, 2007 [ 02:29 ]

So Americorps:

Do you or do you not work for the Tahirih Justice Center? Because, apart from the cowards in the US Congress who don't want to know what feminist groups they are funding (we now have solid proof of their irrationality in not even investigating where the $430M in funding for the OVW will be going), there are only about 8 or 9 people in the world who support background checks for dating sites and they all get money from the TJC.

# Groon says :
23 October, 2007 [ 08:48 ]

DEAR PERUVIAN PEOPLE:

This is alarming.  Do not be fooled by anyone on this board who is attempting to justify the national organization for women's (N.O.W.) decision to exclude match.com from imbra.  Do not be fooled by an argument that defines regulation of match.com as unconstitutional.  If Imbra is not unconstitutional as applied to so-called fictitious "Marriage Broker" dating sites then Imbra cannot be unconstitional if applied to Match.com and other large rich American dating sites.

Simply put, if Match.com was not purposely excluded from Imbra, Jana would be alive today.  No matter what they say here, the large American corporation Match.com and the politically motivated N.O.W. are doing everything they can to keep this murder quiet and out of the American press.  I will not let them get away with it.  Neither should you.     


FACT 1

AN AMERICAN MAN WITH A DOCUMENTED CRIMINAL RECORD LIVING IN THE U.S. (TRICKETT) WAS SEEKING A FOREIGN WIFE WHO LIVED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY

FACT 2

TRICKETT RESEARCHED MANY DATING SITES INCLUDING MATCH.COM, YAHOO PERSONALS, FRIENDFINDER, AND SO-CALLED "MARRIAGE BROKER" SITES.  NATURALLY, HE AVOIDED THE "MARRIAGE BROKER" SITES DUE TO IMBRA.

FACT 3

VERY SIMPLY, TRICKETT TURNED TO MATCH.COM WHERE THE PERUVIAN WOMEN SELECTION WAS VAST AND THE MATCH.COM DEAL WITH THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN (N.O.W.) ENABLED TRICKETT TO COMMUNICATE WITH PERUVIAN WOMEN AS FREELY AS HE WOULD WITH AMERICAN WOMEN. 

FACT 4

MATCH.COM WAS CLEARLY EXEMPTED FROM IMBRA BECAUSE 1) MATCH.COM IS A BIG AMERICAN CORPORATION WITH A LOT OF MONEY AND POWER AND 2) THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED FEMINIST ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS N.O.W. WAS FOCUSED ON DATING SITES THAT THEY PERCEIVED AS HAVING AN ANTI-FEMINIST AGENDA.

PERUVIAN PEOPLE READING THIS:  YOU ARE RIGHT - IT IS ABOUT AMERICAN POWER, AMERICAN POLITICS.

FACT 5

TRICKETT PAID A FEE TO JOIN MATCH.COM AND CONTACTED JANA WHO DID NOT PAY A FEE AND THEY EXCHANGED PRIVATE EMAIL ADDRESSES (JUST LIKE THEY WOULD HAVE DONE ON A "MARRIAGE BROKER" SITE).  JANA FELT IT WAS SAFE TO COMMUNICATE BY EMAIL.
 
FACT 6

DUE TO THE N.O.W.-MATCH.COM ALLIANCE JANA WAS NOT FORCED TO RECEIVE TRICKETT'S BACKGROUND INFORMATION.  IF SHE DID, JANA MAY HAVE NOT ALLOWED MATCH.COM TO RELEASE HER EMAIL ADDRESS TO TRICKETT AND SHE WOULD BE ALIVE TODAY.

FACT 7

A FOREIGN NATIONAL RECRUIT (JANA) WAS MURDERED BY AN AMERICAN PAYING CLIENT OF MATCH.COM (TRICKETT).  THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF SITUATION IMBRA WAS SUPPOSED TO PREVENT AND IT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED IF NOT FOR THE N.O.W.-MATCH.COM ALLIANCE. 



 

# Jim Peterson says :
23 October, 2007 [ 08:54 ]

I would agree that someone in Peru should sue Match.com for having bought themselves out of being included in IMBRA.

However, IMBRA itself is an outrageous, unconstitutional law.

Jana had every right to try to meet someone without government interference. She had the right to decide her own level of security and 99.9% of men are not dangerous.

Still, the fact that Match.com got itself exempted from the law is something that they should pay for. Corruption should never win.

# americorps says :
23 October, 2007 [ 11:19 ]

Mr. Jim, is your middle name paranoia?

I am an English Professor living in Peru and though I once worked for the Government in Washington, DC, I have no connection to this.  I worked for the Corporation for National Service, the people who administer Americorps and Vista.

Other than that, I raised funds for Public Radio and Television for 18 years.

and for the rest of you..

1. Match.com is exempt as are most strictly dating sites because to regulate people meeting casually would be unconstitutional and not the same as regulating a business practice.  It is not a big corporation on the standards of any huge multi-national corporation with gross earnings of about $125 million a year, and profits about half that....I googled it.

2. My concern is government intrustion in private affairs and upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States, something I consider imperitive to maintain a free and civilized society and not live in a dictatorship or nanny state.  It is a value I hold essential and is the cruxt of my opposition.

3. Marriage brokers and casual dating sites are legally different, again a fact the detractors can not change no matter how much they wish to, it is a matter of law, not semantics.

4. NOW motives were neither against particular companies, they were to protect women and the Constiution of the United States, any other speculation is based on anger and childish accusations.

5. So many here that are upset, and I do not deny their right to anger, what happened should not have happened, but they resort to making up facts, tossing false accusations and disrespecting the US Constitution.  In a civilized society, there are ways of addressing these terrible tragedies and preventing them from happening again without giving up the rule of law, democracy and freedom and to support our positions without lies.  Anyone who is unable to perform un such a maner is undeserving of civil liberties.  We can not keep them only when we like or when convenient, if we start stripping them, like animal farm, they will dissapear.

6. It is actually possible, though difficult and expensive, for a person to obtain a criminal background check if they have justifiable interests.  I would be in favor of making that process easier and more affordable and supporitive of a campaign world-wide to inform and encourage women to take responsibility in doing so.  I support the concept with all my heart, I just am not willing to destroy American freedom and spit on our Constitution to do so.

So, liars go home, you are insiginifcant to this debate because you have NO credibility, the rest of you, please tell me how we can disregaurd the rule of law and the Constitution, especially when there are ways to solve this problem without ripping the very foundation of American civil liberties and freedom.

# Groon says :
23 October, 2007 [ 12:47 ]

Americorps, you say:

3. Marriage brokers and casual dating sites are legally different, again a fact the detractors can not change no matter how much they wish to, it is a matter of law, not semantics.

__________________________________________

Ok, but what defines this difference?  Imbra made them legally different for the first time.  But how?  Forget semantics.  Lets go right to the holy imbra law.  According to the imbra, Match.com is exluded because it is:

...an entity that provides dating services if its

principal business is not to provide international dating

services between United States citizens or United

States residents and foreign nationals and it charges

comparable rates and offers comparable services to

all individuals it serves regardless of the individual’s

gender or country of citizenship.

You can define the difference any other way you want, but there is the law as written.  No mention of marriage, no mention of marriage services or brokering; it only refers to dating services.  Therefore, americorps, how do you determine what entity is and is not a marriage broker?  Is this legal definition good enough or would you want to see something stronger?

It says that Match.com provides dating services.  It also says that "marriage brokers" provide dating services.   So, what would it take for Match.com to be regulated under Imbra?  Well, if more foreigners (both women and men) join to the point that the majority (50% or more) of membership are foreigners, then Match.com's principal business becomes international dating and poof, they fall under Imbra.  So, in light of the above legal definition in combinaton with what you have been writing in support of imbra, it would be unconstitutional to regulate Match.com until their membership reaches the magic foreign membership tipping point.  That alone implies that the lawmakers were more concerned about regulating the despised "marriage brokers" then protecting Match.com per the Constitution.

Regarding the comparable rates for comparable services point: that does not work.  Foreign women join for free and the American man pays to initiate contact on Match.com.  Therefore, that provision is moot.

You are correct in saying that the detractors cannot change that legally defined difference because, well, it is the law.   But, yikes, is it ever full of holes.

# Jim says :
23 October, 2007 [ 13:07 ]

Americorps,

You are not making sense. Nobody has ever won an open debate about IMBRA because it cannot be defended.

IMBRA regulates innocent dating sites that are no different from Match.com except they have less American women on them than foreign women. That is what the law states. Go to www.online-dating-rights.com to read the law itself.

How many times do WE have to show you what the law says while you just pretend that Congress did not violate the Constitution because they made up some silly name called "marriage broker" and applied it to any dating site that had less American women on it than foreign women?

And why does being an asexual left wing hermit in the Andes mean agreeing with any corrupt money-making gang in DC that calls itself a "women's shelter"?

This is not a left-wing, right-wing issue. The Constitution was badly violated by naming innocent dating sites "marriage brokers" and defining them as sites that don't have enough American women on them.

There is no such thing as a marriage broker.

Because of your absurd comments that they do exist, I just phoned the largest of all international dating sites and they agreed to clarify that they are not a "marriage broker" on the front page.

Tahirih now brags about how they "comply". Well, because of Americorps posturing, they will be bragging about a site that is a lot more defiant than before.

Go to www.veteransabroad.com and click the legal button in order to read the exact details of the law.

Do you agree with the words used to temporarily uphold it:

1) No fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner

2) Meeting someone online is like buying a gun, both should require background checks?

Note that neither of those two incompetent rulings stipulated that they only applied to dating sites with less American women on them than foreigners.

The rulings were broad, as they would have to be, in order to justify what the judges thought they were politically being asked to uphold (so they could get nominated for the SC later on).

Do you think those rulings do not threaten you and everything the US Constitution stands for?

I have been in some arguments with very weird pro-IMBRA people...but never before has anyone pretended to care about the US Constitution while supporting it.

Everybody I argue with changes their minds and agrees the law has some flaws.

So keep arguing and you will understand that IMBRA does, in fact, stop innocent people from communicating over innocent bulletin boards and dating sites.

# Jim Peterson says :
23 October, 2007 [ 13:24 ]

What blows my mind is how Republican Judge Thomas Rose thought he would someday be nominated to the SC after saying "There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner".

# Jim Peterson says :
23 October, 2007 [ 14:30 ]

 1) IMBRA steals the right of anonymity from Internet communications. If someone is OK with laws that make it illegal to lie to someone on the Internet or cheat on one's spouse, the loss of anonymity would still be a huge loss. 2) Our plaintiffs will be the foreign women themselves. IMBRA takes away the right of foreign women to decide their own level of security. Women without email have the right to request to be phoned or telegrammed, both of which do not lend themselves to signing “written approval” of contact with a man. If this were a privacy issue, then the law would say that the foreigners should sign in writing that they are OK with being members of a social interaction site, but investigating the criminal backgrounds of the Americans goes way too far.  3)   IMBRA violates the Right to Assemble. It causes excessive delays. Russian women without email want to be contacted immediately and they have the right to allow themselves to be called or telegrammed at their home address. Despite district court rulings to the contrary, there actually is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner and, no, contacting a gun shop owner does not require a background check.  4)  As stated above, the book 1984 dealt with a government interfering with a relationship and “disclosing” important information to the woman in order to break up the relationship.  5) There is no such thing as a Marriage Broker. The IMBRA definition says it is a social interaction site with less than 50% American women on it.  6)      The Tahirih Justice Center at www.tahirih.org is the main author and defender of the law. They do not represent foreign women, but rather rake in some good salaries while they claim to represent some battered women. 7)      Domestic Violence is not an enumerated power of the Congress and it should have nothing to do with how people meet each other.  8)      One cannot allow the existence of new technology to make paper letter writing illegal. That would be like saying that riding a bike is illegal because the car was invented. 9)      IMBRA is like the 1907 Expatriation Act where a male-dominated Congress tried to stop American women from marrying foreigners without loss of US citizenship.  10)      You cannot take a subset of Americans and say they “tend to be violent” and take away their rights a priori. The government cannot enforce background checks on inner city black men who go to liquor stores and then use dating sites. One cannot ask gay men for AIDs test results before being able to say hi to gay men on Gay.com.  11)  The trend in extra-jurisdictional lawmaking has to be stopped. The use of the Internet by Americans overseas for non-criminal purposes cannot be regulated.

# I want the last 15 minutes back says :
23 October, 2007 [ 15:13 ]

I just spent 20 minutes reading this and the two people arguing the most with each other don't even seem to disagree.  Bizarre.

What is clear is that IMBRA is another unconstitutional nanny state law that should be repealed.  If criminal background checks are so important then I suggest you start up an online dating service, make one of your features a background check, and those who are on the site that have taken and cleared the check will get a little happy face next to their profile.  Those that don't get the check responsible women (and men) can take more caution.

This idea of sites with more foreigners than US citizens being regulated etc. not only sounds unconstitutional, but immoral and patronizing.  Sorry honey you are from Asia, you aren't allowed to compete with Betty Lou from Iowa for those men... just wrong.

# Groon says :
23 October, 2007 [ 15:38 ]

"This idea of sites with more foreigners than US citizens being regulated etc. not only sounds unconstitutional, but immoral and patronizing.  Sorry honey you are from Asia, you aren't allowed to compete with Betty Lou from Iowa for those men... just wrong."

____________________________________________

Wrong, fatally wrong.

The exemption language in imbra was the best the lawmakers could come up to isolate the so-called "foreign-women-majority" websites without damaging the Match.com's of the world.  They probably went through numerous versions before settling on this mental-giant work of genius.  Pity.

All that time, all that taxpayer money, all that fuss and...they still screwed it up.  Its embarrassing.  Now that they are unexpectedly being called on it, they spend even more time trying to defend, protect, coddle, stroke, and monitor those who dare push pins in it.  No, not in blogs or on fringe forums but whenever the issue gets into more mainstream media, there they are trying to frame the issue; reaching for the shaming-language manual of worn out kneejerk cliches. 

But I digress.

Lets cut the crap you Self Serving Disgusting Imbra Monsters.  Jana is dead.  Peru is watching and you have a real mess on your hands.

# Jason says :
23 October, 2007 [ 16:24 ]

This woman Jana was murdered by an American man she had met via an IMBRA-exempt site Match.com  If Tahirih Justice Center did not grant this special exemption to Match.com, Jana could very well be alive today. 

I am very concerned that Tahirih is still fighting to prevent any lifting of these exemptions for large domestic dating sites (such as Match.com)that could save lives of many women.  It's obvious that Tahirih has turned a blind and self-serving eye to these preventable tragedies.

If William Smith is found guilty of murdering Jana, I recommend to the parents and the family of Jana to consider bringing a lawsuit against Match.com and the Tahirih Justice Center for preventing any background checks of its American male members, which could have prevented this horrific tragedy.

Shame on you, Tahirih Justice Center!

# LLLLLLL says :
23 October, 2007 [ 17:02 ]

Layli Miller-Muro again.

You infidels all miss the point. I had to exempt Match.com in order to get IMBRA sneaked into law. That doesn't mean I wanted to exempt them as you must remember one of us feminists' goals is to stop ALL foreign women competition from coming to America regardless of how they met American men. The Peruvian woman's death is good because it shows how ALL Introduction Services, I mean "Marriage Brokers", including Match.com that have foreign women need to be regulated via IMBRA since it is obvious, to easily brainwashed fools who believe my propaganda lies and fabricated "studies", that ALL American men who seek foreign women are muderers, premeditated torturers, pedophiles and serial abusers.

Therefore Match.com after seeing that they will have to do unwanted background checks on their male clients will simply have no other choice but to drop all their foreign women. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Let those men marry American women with traditional, old fashioned feminist values instead! Clean the house while I watch Oprah and stuff my face with chocolates. No more Superbowl Sundays. Work two jobs so I can go out shopping with the girls while bitching about our husbands. After the house is paid off I'll divorce you and soak you for every cent I can, get the house, car and kids and you will be forced to support me and my new boyfriends' drug habits for the rest of your life.

Of course since our ultimate feminist goal is to put all men on leashes, with all the millions of your tax dollars I get, I'll be sneaking IMBRA 2 into law. This will require domestic Introduction Services, I mean "Domestic Marriage Brokers" like Match.com, eharmony, etc. etc. to do background checks on all their male clients. Hey we all want to "protect women" right? Can't be too careful these days with all you male predators out there.

Then after Match.com, etc. is regulated too, we will expand to having criminal backgrounds checks anytime a man wants to say hi to a woman regardless if it is in Church, a bar, a party, a dance club, College functions, etc. You get the picture. Then expand it to criminal background checks (of men only again of course) when getting driver's liscense, passports, voter registration, ban accounts, etc. This will result in a nice government database of the violent histories of you infidel men so you can be regulated into submission.

Then WE Bahai Faith feminists take over!

And Ms. Corps or can I just call you by your first name Ameri? I assure you I am NOT poor like my unpaid volunteers at Tahirih Justice Center or those Peruvian prostitutes you see everyday. I am very wealthy I asure you. Thank you for falling for my fabricated label of calling Penpal clubs "Marriage Brokers." I know these services just enable their members to introduce themselves to each other. All they do is to provide the contact information and whatever happens after that is strictly between the men and the women. "Broker" marriages? Hah. Like what, they have parents of men and women coming in and paying them money to find a husband or wife for their children? Then the first time the couple see each other's faces is on their wedding day? They better hope the "Marriage Broker" or "Matchmaker" did a good job because they will be stuck with each other the rest of their lives? I'm glad you are naive enough to actually believe such a service could possibly exist in the USA. It makes my propaganda efforts so much easier when people like you believe this. These services are nothing more than Penpal Clubs for single adults or International Friendship Services since their members are only seeking friendship initially.

But what person in their right mind would want to regulate International Friendship? Well, besides feminists that is but I mean any normal person or politician?

# americorps says :
23 October, 2007 [ 20:26 ]

lll,

you are one very sick person, I pray you find the help you need before you harm yourself or others.  I pray to God you do not have children as you are derranged and probably a danger.

# Layli Miller-Muro says :
23 October, 2007 [ 21:50 ]

Layli Miller-Muro again:

Americorps, you have acheived my desired goal of feminist paranoia.

Americorps, I am so proud of you and the way you have absorbed my propaganda. No amount of these stupid male infidels' common sense can change your thinking that Match.com is different from Cherry Blossoms even though they are EXACTLY the same type of service except Cherry Blossoms solely features foreign ladies and both services probably share some of the same male clients. Your stubborness is to be commended. You will make a wonderful Bahai. Even though you know for a fact that these services don't "broker" or "arrange" marriages you still stand by these great feminist and Bahai approved comments below like:

"unscrupulous marriage brokers..people who arrange international marriages for money and often send women to a terrible fate. Online dating sites were not included because they do not arrange marriages and they are voluntary sites, no coersive groupls like marriage brokers."

Thank you for reading my propaganda and quoting directly from it. Please google me to find more propaganda I hope you will quote from more often to help my cause.

"A dating site is not a marriage broker, no matter how you want to spin it. This very website has ads looking for people, as does craigslist and the local newspapers."

Americorps, I am so proud when you say this and ignore the blatent name of MATCH.com as it is taken from the word MATCHMAKER as in "brokering marriages." After all we both know that the people who use Match.com are seeking friendship which could lead to potential marriage just like those people who use Cherry Blossoms and those other International Friendship Services, er I mean "Marriage Brokers." Shame on me! We mustn't forget to use that label of mine to imbed it in the public psyche like our feminist label for ALL foreign women of "Mail Order Brides." Those Peruvian women you see everyday? From now on please refer to them as "Mail Order Brides" even though we both know most of them are married to Peruvian men and will never come to America. It helps build up the resentment of foreign women by American women if we always refer to them all as "Mail Order Brides." Besides as I'm sure you know, most of those Peruvian women aren't even feminists. If you become a Bahai, I'll send you a bunch of taxpayer money and some of my Bahai propaganda speeches so you can start converting them. Maybe I can make you Queen of Peru after our Bahai takeover there.

"A marriage broker arranges marriage, a dating site is nothing more than a message board...if any marriages are arranged, it is by the ad poster, not the agency..that alone exempts them from the regulation you speak of, they do not arrange marriages."

You go girl! Keep insisting that Cherry Blossoms "arranges marriages" even though you know they don't nor do any other of these services.

"Paying a fee for the right to post a message is not the same as paying a fee to obtain a list of people who are presented to get marriage."

You go again girl! We both "know" (wink wink nudge nudge) that match.com does "not" provide for a fee a "list (i.e. email addresses) of people who are presented to get marriage."

However you MUST change your attitude when you make a comment like this about my concept of forcing ALL men to have background checks:

"I support the concept with all my heart, I just am not willing to destroy American freedom and spit on our Constitution to do so."

If I (and other good Bahai feminists) am willing to destroy American freedom and spit on the Constitution to do so then so must YOU! You call yourself a good feminist and a member of NOW? Get with the program ameri! I can just call you by your first name ameri? I mean we are "sisters", right?

You will never become a good Bahai until you complete your change of attitude. Freedom. The Constitution. Bah! American male Christian infidel ways of thinking. Who needs them when we can have the Bahai World Order with us feminists running the show?

Get with it ameri. You have been almost completely properly brainwashed well. It shows in your posts, but until you are ready to trade your Bible for the Bahai Writings you will never attain proper Bahai feminist Nirvana.

# Layli Miller-Muro says :
23 October, 2007 [ 21:58 ]

"you are one very sick person, I pray you find the help you need before you harm yourself or others. I pray to God you do not have children as you are derranged and probably a danger."

Oh ameri, how you jest! Megalomania is not the same as being deranged you know and besides if you worship me as much as I assume you must, then you must know I do have children. Just had a recent addition to the Bahai Faith in fact. Her name is Almira. In Persian it means "ruler" just as she will be the ruler of the World someday after my reign.

I'm glad you pray but I hope you are not one of those Christian infidels. Remember we Bahais think that the image of God as a man is sexist. You DO believe, like we Bahais do, that the proper image of God is that of a Iranian women don't you?

# americorps says :
23 October, 2007 [ 23:39 ]

Recognition and Treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder MARK F. EDDY, PH.D., and GORDON S. WALBROEHL, M.D. Wright State University School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio

Obsessive-compulsive disorder is relatively common; however, its actual incidence has only recently become clear. The neurotransmitter serotonin appears to have a central role in this disorder. Males and females are affected equally, with onset usually occurring in late adolescence. Symptoms include intrusive thoughts that lead the patient to perform repetitive rituals that interfere with daily living. Although patients are typically distressed by these thoughts and rituals, they seldom volunteer their symptoms. Successful diagnosis often requires specific questioning by the physician. Treatment is directed at symptom reduction; however, complete remission of symptoms is unusual. Pharmacologic therapy usually includes clomipramine or antidepressant treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, but in dosage ranges higher than those typically used in the treatment of depression. Behavior therapy has also been proved effective, both alone and in conjunction with pharmacologic therapy.

Recent advances in the understanding of obsessive-compulsive disorder have highlighted the role of the family physician in the management of this condition. At one time considered rare, obsessive-compulsive disorder is now recognized as relatively common, exceeding the lifetime prevalence of more visible disorders such as schizophrenia.^1,2 Consequently, most family physicians can expect to see patients with this disorder in their practices. Despite its earlier reputation as a disorder highly resistant to treatment, a number of effective treatment approaches now exist for obsessive-compulsive disorder.

 

http://www.aafp.org/afp/980401ap/eddy.html

# americorps says :
23 October, 2007 [ 23:40 ]

I hope you get the help you need before you have to be locked up you stupid lieing sack of fecal matter.

# A.K. says :
24 October, 2007 [ 00:41 ]

Ahhh, I dont get it...anyway, Im off to sue Mc Donalds for making me fat.

# Jim Peterson says :
24 October, 2007 [ 01:50 ]

Ameri,

Please refrain from personal insulting Layli Miller-Muro on this board and you might consider not blackening the name of a fine institution by pretending you represent them and that they support IMBRA. If you care about the US Constitution then just agree that a few clauses in IMBRA need to be restrained by the courts and move on with your life. You are clearly over your head in terms of your knowledge of a law that no US Senator or Congressmen even knows much about. It was buried deep inside another massive law which was buried inside the must-pass Dept of Justice Budget Reauthorization Act that needed to be passed at 5PM before Christmas vacation 2005 (or else FBI employees would have gone hungry for two weeks).

It is no great shakes to recognize that somebody pulled a fast one two years ago and now the courts need to settle things, unfortunately at great taxpayer expense.

The left wing agenda is fine when it deals with whales and wars and warming, but it touches the third rail when goes directly for the jugular of the supposed white male patriarchy by taking the right to say hello to women away.

If you want to know how foreign women feel about the US government forcing its own citizens to undergo background checks just to meet them, please watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE6dfxZ-5eQ

# Willoughby says :
24 October, 2007 [ 03:48 ]

This seems to be Americorps' argument.  A "marriage broker" is different than a matchmaking agency.  The simple fact of stating that establishes its reality.  Any person who doesn't accept the logic of this argument is a liar.

This person continues to refuse to define what a so-called "marriage broker" is and how it is different from a matchmaking agency.  We have the definition from the actual IMBRA law, but it simply refers to a "marriage broker" as a dating agency which charges fees and whose primary business is to introduce foreigners to Americans.

A "marriage broker" is obviously simply a majority foreign women dating site that introduces foreign women to American men.

# americorps says :
24 October, 2007 [ 06:57 ]

Okay you stupid male infidels, you got me. I admit I'm an unpaid Bahai lesbian volunteer for Tahrih Justice Center living in Fairfax, VA not Peru. You think as a Bahai feminist I would want to live in a stupid country like Peru with so many non-feminist "mail order brides" in it? Geez, you must think I'm stupid or something. Besides Layli said that after she gets enough millions of your taxpayer dollars she may actually pay us minimum wage instead of just providing us volunteers with a bowl of gruel a day and a floor to sleep on.

I really believed you stupid ignorant infidel male pigs would fall for my propaganda posts but you are obviously smarter than Layli said you were. How this could be is beyond me as the Bahai Writings state that ALL men are ignorant predators that must be regulated. I can't believe there are actually men out there willing to stand up for their Constitutional rights and freedoms. It just can't be true.

I think I must seek the help I need and I know Layli will prescribe the drugs I need to continue brainwashing me. I know that as a stupid lieing sack of fecal matter I should really be locked up but my master Layli says I am just the right type to promote her agendas. Heaven knows I tried my best on this forum but you people just wouldn't fall for my posts saying that Match.com and Cherry Blossoms are different even though a 5 year old could see they are the same.

I don't know what I'm going to do. I'm lost. I need to find myself. Me Me Me. I hope Oprah or Dr. Phil can help with their programs today. Maybe if I watch Lifetime TV all day it will make me feel more secure and give me some badly needed self esteem.

You damn infidel male pigs. You may have seen through me this time but I will continue to monitor and propagandize blogs everywhere as that is what us volunteers are commanded to do by Layli. We will continue our mission of blocking knowledge of IMBRA and downplaying the effect it has on your mens' freedoms. The last thing we want is "unwanted public scrutiny" of IMBRA as even a stupid lieing sack of fecal matter like me knows how un-Constitutional and Un-American it is.

I am tired of being contantly "abused" on this forum. You all should be behind bars for the "abuse" you have done to me. I am only a helpless "victim" here merely trying trying to brainwash, er I mean convince you all that IMBRA is great and you "premeditatedly torture" and "serial abuse" me by not agreeing with me.

Thank Allah and Tahirih that we have more laws in store for you online predators and serial abusers.

# americorps says :
24 October, 2007 [ 07:40 ]

listen you syphilitic whore,

A coward who has to continue posting under various psudonyms and make up lies to support his/her point is simply fecal matter, you are no one and you never will be, when you die no one will mourn and specifically, you would be a terrible parent so if you have children, I hope someone calls social services.

You have nothing to offer the world, a waste of human skin.

when you can stop being a paranoid lying coward, then you will step up to the level of pond scum, but you will never be a human being becuase you brain has rotted to the point of no return.

Please do not breed.

# Jack Sanderson says :
24 October, 2007 [ 07:44 ]

Where did you say you teach English in Peru?

Peruvian children learn from you?

# Carsten Korch says :
24 October, 2007 [ 08:06 ]

Dear All.

To make this LivinginPeru.com BLOG service work well and be enjoyable to all our readers, I must insist that you stop calling each other names and use a proper language to communicate with each other.

I’m sure you’ll understand and respect this request.

Yours Sincerely

Carsten Korch
Editor-in-Chief/GM

# Groon says :
24 October, 2007 [ 09:35 ]

Carsten

You are correct.  Its a bit out of hand.  On behalf of everyone here, I apologize.

I also apologize on behalf of the National Organization for Women (for U.S. women, that is, since they have no positive interest in Peruvian women) and the Tahirih "Justice" Center for their outrageous negligence that allowed Match.com to pair up a criminal American man with an unsuspecting Peruvian woman.

Americorps does not seem to have a problem with the choices made by the N.O.W or the T.J.C. or the U.S. Congress.  But we have a problem with these decisions, and I believe that the Peruvian people do too.  Its time to act.  Its time to stand against these large American corporations and U.S.-funded Personal-Agenda Interest Groups like N.O.W. and the T.J.C.

# Layli Miller-Muro says :
24 October, 2007 [ 16:48 ]

Carsten,

You are correct. I apologize for americorps angry curses and profanity. It is so hard to find good free help these days at Tahirih Justice Center.

You must realize that her mission was just to downplay IMBRA and the excemption of Match.com and try to brainwash your readers into thinking that Match.com and Cherry Blossoms are different. That is why she had to continue to ignore the questions posed to her as she was just unable answer them to such an educated audience who obviously can't be easily fooled like the feminist blogs audiences.

Also you must realize that at Tahirih Justice Center part of our daily Bahai Faith rituals (including several prayer sessions for more money) include 2 hours of cursing and making profanities about men in order to be able to present ourselves properly in the media and to get sympathy from gullible politicians.

I promise I will increase her medication and hopefully after more posts bury her previous ones she will be able to fool new people into believing she is actually in Peru and believes in the Constitution and will stop making profanities at your highly educated readers again.

Again I sincerely apologize with all my heart.

Also let me know if you would like to sell this site as I really don't want word of IMBRA getting out there. I'll be flush with cash pretty soon and intend to purchase as many sites as I can that mention IMBRA and shut them down.

I'll make you an offer you can't refuse.

# tmac says :
24 October, 2007 [ 18:32 ]

  I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE MAJOR PLAYERS IN THIS COMEDY
I AM GETTING LOTS OF LAUGHS OUT OF THESE ABSURD RESPONSES.

# americorps says :
24 October, 2007 [ 19:49 ]

Don't really care if it is not apprecaited by the editor,

Carson, you are both stupid and foolish and dishonest.

You have nothing of value to offer.

# Groon says :
24 October, 2007 [ 20:21 ]

Mr. Korch

Please remove Americorps from the forum.  Her strategy (and her group's strategy) is to get this article and forum shut down.  She is provoking you to do that.  Why?  Because this great piece of journalism is potentially very damaging to the National Organization for Women and the Tahirih Justice Center - both greedy and politically connected lobby groups located near Washington.

Do not fall for it.  We support you and the exposure this conspiracy is finally receiving.  The result was murder and there is a smoking gun.  Sadly, no mainstream media outlet in the United States would touch this topic for fear of reprisal from the Fundamentalist Power Hungry Feminist groups.

Stand your ground Carsten.  Stand your ground. 

# Frank Johnson says :
24 October, 2007 [ 22:24 ]

Boy these immature feminists sure have a hussyfit when they don't get their own way or people don't agree with their inane attempts at propaganda or IMBRA damage control.

All men are stupid, foolish and dishonest with nothing to offer. Typical feminist thinking. Too bad male politicians don't realize this is what the feminists feel about them too while laughing when the "stupid" male politicians continue to give Tahirih Justice Center and other feminst "protecting women" rackets massive amounts of our tax dollars.

Nice to see americorps show her true Tahirih Justice Center and NOW colors. She could give a damn about the Constitution when it applies to male citizens but sure cares only about womens rights and freedoms though.

Sorry americorps, but it looks like Mission NOT Accomplished!

# americorps says :
25 October, 2007 [ 00:12 ]

your paranoia shows no bounds, nor does your stupidity.

I do not know the Tahirih justice center, nor am I a woman.  Many men are members of NOW and I have been a member since 1983, but in donation only.

I am a civil libertarian who supports and defends the Constiutution of the US, not a stupid liar and traitor such as yourself that will piss on the Constitution at the drop of a hat. That makes you, in essence, a bad American and a traitor as well as a liar and stupid.

# Jim Peterson says :
25 October, 2007 [ 00:36 ]

Americorps,

Please stop pretending you represent the real Americorps, a great institution. Please change your name because it is offensive to see you pretend to be part of that institution.

If you support the regulation of dating sites that have less than 50% American women on them, then you are so against the Constitution that our Iraq War vets deny you as a fellow citizen.

These guys who are fighting in Iraq do not see the few pro-IMBRA people as worthy of freedom.

# Frank Johnson says :
25 October, 2007 [ 07:18 ]

Americorps,

It is better to be thought a fool than to make such stupid un-American remarks and remove all doubt. You are only fooling yourself not the intelligent people here who can see through you like glass.

A member of NOW? F*****. Too bad you weren't back in WW II so you could hand your sac and freedom over to Hitler and say "Gee Mr. Hitler, I think what you are doing is swell. Please don't hurt me even though I'm Jewish."

You are a man? Why don't you act like one? Disgusting flaming traitor. You make a real man puke!

You sure do seem obsessed about this blog though. Guess you have nothing better to do or is that your orders from Tahirih Justice Center? If so, I think you better find another site to infiltrate as you have certainly failed here.

# Jim Peterson says :
25 October, 2007 [ 07:28 ]

I would have to admit that it is like a Jewish man joining the NSDAP in 1935 Germany and saying "I'm on your side guys".

But the Nuernberg Laws only made it illegal to sleep with a Russian women. IMBRA makes it illegal to say hello.

# americorps says :
25 October, 2007 [ 08:33 ]

Ben Franlin said "hose Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" and understand this to be essential to American Liberty.

The rest of you are the one's who would have turned in the Jews hiding to the NAZIs.

The rest of you are the one's who would have looked the other way when they gave blankets with smallpox to the American Indians.

The rest of you would not have minded different water fountains for blacks.

The rest of you simply are traitors to the very foundation of American Freedom and civil liberty.

# Jim Peterson says :
25 October, 2007 [ 08:37 ]

So I take it that means you are no longer OK with regulating dating sites that happen to have more than 50% Peruvian women compared to American women?

Please read the following and start helping us defend the Constitution:

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0111.html

# Redneck says :
25 October, 2007 [ 19:19 ]

"The rest of you are the one's who would have turned in the Jews hiding to the NAZIs."

Americorps, having known survivor's of the holocaust I find your comparison of message board posters to NAZI's utterly stupid.

# Delphi says :
31 October, 2007 [ 04:24 ]

Americorps, you are half right.  You are at least willing to admit that "free-will" meeting places where people can make their requests known openly and freely communicate with eachother are not "marriage brokers" and should not be regulated.

I think you are mis-informed about foreign dating sites, though.  You are of the popular misconception that these services actually coerce girls from foreign countries to join, and arrange their marriages to foreign men who "order them" through catalogues.  This is ridiculous and perposterous!  Even the die-hard feminist "Heather" (earlier in this thread) admitted that she could not find any services online that use that business model.

When you get right down to it, there IS NO DIFFERENCE between Match.com, Cherry Blossoms, FilipinaLady.com, the Want Ad personals, Cupid's Destiny, The Sheela Wood column and the Washington Post Personals.  THEY ALL DO THE SAME THING THE SAME WAY!  ****all**** of these services are FREE-WILL meeting places where people can make their requests known openly and freely communicate with eachother.  The owner or administrator has no role whatsoever in who meets whom or how they meet.  The owner therefore has no responsibility for the outcomes.

If a girl marries an abusive man who murders her, and their initial meeting was at a nightclub in Georgetown, is the club owner responsible for her murder because they met in his establishment?

# Scallion says :
31 October, 2007 [ 11:09 ]

"When you get right down to it, there IS NO DIFFERENCE between Match.com, Cherry Blossoms, FilipinaLady.com, the Want Ad personals, Cupid's Destiny, The Sheela Wood column and the Washington Post Personals."

If that is really true, then imbra must be applied to all sites that provide "dating services" OR NOT APPLIED TO ANY SITE that provides such services.  Therefore, not only is imbra unconstitutional in terms of free speech restrictions, it does not provide equal protection.   

The Tahirih Justice Center and the National Organization for Women continue to vehemently insist on selective application of the law based on the "foreign women majority" clause with NO explanation.  Therefore, these groups are irrational, irresponsible, negligent, fraudulent, and self serving.  

This muder of Jana is a test case that may force Match.com to fight regulation under imbra.  Now, wouldn't that be interesting...

# Jim Peterson says :
31 October, 2007 [ 11:12 ]

You are aware that a woman was murdered two days ago by a male client of Craig's List...

It happened in Minneapolis.

She was answering an ad for a nanny and a 19 year old male killed her for sport when she arrived.

# 100% American Male says :
31 October, 2007 [ 23:57 ]

I am an American man who has fallen in love with a beautiful Peruvian woman..We found each other on the internet and, I have been to Lima every month for the last year..I intend to bring her to the USA in early 2008..I am relatively handome, work for a Fortune 500 company and have 7 figure net worth and, I do not have criminal background..I specifically searched for a woman of culture that respects, honors, and is faithful to her man..Although possible in the USA, the probability is low. The Latina's culture is exaclty what I was searching for..

I stumbled on this website because I found it sad that a peruvian woman was murdered by a man from Harrisburg Pa (1 hour from my city of birth in Hazleton Pa)..And you stupid idiots took a perfectly good blog of condolences to the family of the girl and, turned it into a Woman liberation forum..

As a divoced American male, I have been with many single / divorced American woman 35 - 55 and everyone of them were feminists..Good luck to you all - you've lost one "good catch"..

My heart goes out to the family of the Peruvian girl that was murdered and, if you are truly reading this - my sincerest apologies for these worthless bastards who have nothing better to do with their lives than to argue on this forum..

An American in love with a peruvian..

# Jim Peterson says :
1 November, 2007 [ 01:54 ]

Buddy,

There is only one worthless feminist male, Americorps, that ruined this thread by promoting a feminist law designed to badly hurt men like you (IMBRA). When you try to bring you bride back to the USA, IMBRA will ruin at least 3 extra months of your life as the feminists in the US government do background checks on you.

The others here had no choice but to fight the insanity of what Americorps said in supporting IMBRA. This is because Google searches pick up on such discussions and a federal judge will be reading this some day.

Unfortunately, as with what is happening on the forums about the recent Craig's List murder, the element of a discussion that deals with consoling a bereaved family, must by nature disappear.

This is sad, but your Constitutional rights are at stake. More than that, your rights as a male are already gone because of IMBRA.

We cannot allow the tragedy of a woman being killed to turn into new laws to regulate men, especially in terms of the ability of a man to say hello to a woman.

If you make 7 figures, please consider putting $15,000 into defeating the feminists in a court challenge.

My email is Veterans at Veteransabroad dot com.

Please respond. Even if you don't care in general about men's rights, a quick win in court (restraining order on IMBRA) can shave 3 months at least off your fiance's immigration.

You don't have to go public or do much case writing either. We are just struggling without funds at the moment. The plaintiffs and the paperwork are mostly ready.

# Delphi Programmer says :
5 November, 2007 [ 23:51 ]

This story is a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the family and friends who suffered this tragic loss.  The perpetrator of this heinous act deserves swift and severe justice.

However, as Jim Peterson pointed out, the responses to this thread are in reference to a news story and not necessarily directed toward those personally involved in this incident. As time goes on, and as the family heals and moves on, the focus of this thread will naturally shift from consoling the loved ones to a focus on issues raised by the event.  That is only natural in a story like this.

We don't believe that civil activist groups, lobbyists and government officials should use a story like this to take away more and more of our rights and freedoms.

Would you want international marriage through Internet dating sites banned altogether?   Do you want Uncle Sam telling you that you can't look overseas for a "woman of culture" because they don't trust your motives and think your intent to marry is a fraud?  Or that you're an abuser who just wants a weaker woman to "exploit"?  Would you want to answer to a public health or immigration official for your reason for marrying, and possibly spend years defending your innocence, before you're allowed to be with her?  This is what we're up against!

If you want to continue to enjoy the freedom to do what you're doing, then you owe it to yourself to look into what is being done to take those freedoms away, and decide if you want to get involved.

# cj5108 says :
6 November, 2007 [ 04:55 ]

im from vermont, and i was visting some friends in lima when the girl was found. they said it was the earthquake that broght the her back to shore. well if anyone didnt know there was an 8.0 earthquake, and the next morning she was found. well there was a big thing on the news about that like a week after she was found. after that, everyone looked at me funny and acted different to me, it was like they thought all americans do that kind of stuff to people. this was a really big thing for them.

# Jim Peterson says :
6 November, 2007 [ 05:00 ]

Worse: The feminists in the US government are trying to let the world know that everyone around the world should fear and despise American men. They are using our tax money for this.

# Fash says :
6 November, 2007 [ 10:46 ]

This murder (along with the circumstances surrounding it) is the smoking gun regarding the regulation of sites that provide "dating services" (as defined in the IMBRA law).  

Its a sure bet that Match.com, the National Organization for Women, and the Tahirih "Justice" Center know about this case and are looking out for any negative press.  That is not paranoia; it is logical political and business practice.

Based on this case, there are two mutually exclusive outcomes that should be promoted aggressively in the press.  Either all sites that provide "dating services" are regulated under IMBRA or none are regulated under IMBRA.  IMBRA-type regulation is in direct and clear conflict with the exemption provided in the Communications Decency Act (CDA).  The CDA is what enables Match.com and numerous other dating-service providers to not be legally responsible for what their members do to each other.  The CDA is a good law.  Why sites that provide dating services that have more than 50% non-Americans as members are not provided equal protection under the CDA has never been logically explained.

# Jim Peterson says :
6 November, 2007 [ 10:56 ]

Please write to www.epic.org about this. They supposedly stand for freedom of the Internet.

# mahesh chauhan says :
3 January, 2008 [ 03:16 ]

<h2>Premier Singles - TulsaSingles.org launches local dating service in Tulsa</h2>




Dating Service Opens Second Office

Just weeks after the successful launch of its dating service in Oklahoma City, Premiere Singles has opened another office just up the I-40 turnpike in Tulsa. Jason Breakey, the CEO and co-founder of the matchmaking site, says the satellite office, TulsaSingles.org, has become a tremendous hit in the short time its offices have been open.

 “The reception we received in Tulsa exceeded my expectations by a long shot,” said a surprised Breakey. “A lot of the success has to do solely with the people we hired to run our office. They are exceptional individuals who not only take the time to listen to our clients, they take a personnel interest in their social lives as well.”

Alicia Spinozzi is the Director of Sales and Marketing for Tulsa Singles. She is teamed up with Claele Smith, who was recently promoted to National Training Director in the sales division.

“We have two amazing people working for us in Tulsa,” commented company president Barrett Stone. “Claele’s energy is contagious, and her positive attitude is constant. As far as Alicia goes, you really can’t measure how important she’s been to our company in words. Her actions in Tulsa have spoken louder than anything I could possibly say.”

Recently, two members of Tulsa Singles announced their engagement. It was a thrilling moment for the Tulsa office, says Stone.

“Claele and Alicia were instrumental in getting these two lost souls together,” said Stone. “They met at one of our social events, hit it off, and were constant companions after that. The girls were thrilled to get the phone call announcing the engagement, and were especially please they were singled out for their role in bringing the two together.”



Jason Breakey is the President of Premier Singles and Barrett Stone is the CEO. tulsasingles.org is part of the PremierSingles.com network.



TulsaSingles.org is a division of PremiereSingles.com. The offices are located at 7181 S. Braden Avenue. For more information, visit the website at www.TulsaSingles.org or call 918 / 794-9623 to set up an appointment.

# Rev says :
3 January, 2008 [ 04:06 ]

As we start the New Year 2008 again let us acknowledge the Family of Jana Claudia Menendez and  their Lost and Jana also,and all Those who have been Lost to Tragedy Event in 2007. May you ses Rest in Peace & Always be Remembered.

# Bob says :
13 June, 2008 [ 18:54 ]

I re-iterate these word.  I think there is nothing more tragic and debilitating that the sudden loss of a loved one.  This is particuarly true if that loved one is in the prime of life!  My thoughts and prayers are with this family as they try to move forward from this senseless event.  God has a bigger plan, and one day we will all know what that is.  Until then, all we can do is trust in His grace.

God bless the family and friends of Jana.

# pingon says :
16 November, 2008 [ 21:47 ]

  I COULD ACTUALLY SAY THE SAME THINGS THAT EVERYONE HAS SAID, BUT I WOULD NOT DO THAT BECAUSE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO THIS INDIVIDUAL ,AND WE WILL NOT BRING THIS POOR YOUNG GIRL BACK TO LIFE.
  IT IS INDEED A GRUESOME CASE OF COLD MURDER, KEEP ON MIND THAT THIS IS WRITTEN BY A PERUVIAN AND NOT AN AMERICAN. THE U.S GOVERNMENT WILL NOT COOPERATE TO BRING JUSTICE TO THIS PERUVIAN FAMILY. THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT THE WELL BEING OF THEIR CITIZEN AND NOTHING ELSE.
  I COULD BET MY LIFE THAT THIS CRIMINAL WILL NOT EVER SERVE A DAY ON THIS MURDER AND TIME WILL BE MY WITNESS. TO ALL PERUVIANS I MUST JUST SAY ONE THING THAT IS VERY TRUE, IF THERE IS A PERSON AND THIS IS REGARDLESS OF THEIR NATIONALITY, IF THEY ARE HURTING YOUR LOVED ONES, DON'T GET MAD , JUST GET EVEN!! BECAUSE INTERNATIONAL LAWS WILL NOT HELP YOU AND THIS IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE.
  SOME MAY SAY THAT THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT, OR PERHAPS THAT I MAY BE UNEDUCATED, ETC. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU ON THIS FAMILY'S SHOES.  ONLY THEN ,YOU MAY HAVE A RIGHT TO TALK.  

# pingon says :
16 November, 2008 [ 21:48 ]

  I COULD ACTUALLY SAY THE SAME THINGS THAT EVERYONE HAS SAID, BUT I WOULD NOT DO THAT BECAUSE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO THIS INDIVIDUAL ,AND WE WILL NOT BRING THIS POOR YOUNG GIRL BACK TO LIFE.
  IT IS INDEED A GRUESOME CASE OF COLD MURDER, KEEP ON MIND THAT THIS IS WRITTEN BY A PERUVIAN AND NOT AN AMERICAN. THE U.S GOVERNMENT WILL NOT COOPERATE TO BRING JUSTICE TO THIS PERUVIAN FAMILY. THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT THE WELL BEING OF THEIR CITIZEN AND NOTHING ELSE.
  I COULD BET MY LIFE THAT THIS CRIMINAL WILL NOT EVER SERVE A DAY ON THIS MURDER AND TIME WILL BE MY WITNESS. TO ALL PERUVIANS I MUST JUST SAY ONE THING THAT IS VERY TRUE, IF THERE IS A PERSON AND THIS IS REGARDLESS OF THEIR NATIONALITY, IF THEY ARE HURTING YOUR LOVED ONES, DON'T GET MAD , JUST GET EVEN!! BECAUSE INTERNATIONAL LAWS WILL NOT HELP YOU AND THIS IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE.
  SOME MAY SAY THAT THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT, OR PERHAPS THAT I MAY BE UNEDUCATED, ETC. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU ON THIS FAMILY'S SHOES.  ONLY THEN ,YOU MAY HAVE A RIGHT TO TALK.  

# mericorps says :
17 November, 2008 [ 01:55 ]

Pingon said (twice and in all caps for some reason) I COULD BET MY LIFE THAT THIS CRIMINAL WILL NOT EVER SERVE A DAY ON THIS MURDER AND TIME WILL BE MY WITNESS. TO ALL PERUVIANS I MUST JUST SAY ONE THING THAT IS VERY TRUE, IF THERE IS A PERSON AND THIS IS REGARDLESS OF THEIR NATIONALITY, IF THEY ARE HURTING YOUR LOVED ONES, DON'T GET MAD , JUST GET EVEN!! BECAUSE INTERNATIONAL LAWS WILL NOT HELP YOU AND THIS IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE.

uhmm, he is in jail and it appears he is going to be extridited to Per, so I am not sure what you are trying to say?  Vigelante Justice?  wow, you are just as lawless and violent and hateful as the murder, you both should be locked up forever.

# DelphiPro says :
17 November, 2008 [ 15:48 ]

I knew it wouldn't stop with IMBRA.

Feminists so-called "scholars" with degrees in law (scary!) are publishing reports saying that men meeting women through free-will message boards should be defined as "traffickers" and banned.  Yes, banned, not regulated!  These feminists won't stop until they achieve total communist rule.

Some are even saying that men who use these services are dating women "inappropriately young" for their age; therefore the whole operation should be shut down.  Two points on this:

1. Not all men who meet women internationally are seeking women half their age, and not all women are willing to accept men that much older.  In fact, most are seeking people within 5 to 15 years of their age.  Should these people be punished too?

2. It's none of government's damn business if someone seeks someone their age or 50 year older or younger.  Government is not the moral police.  People over 21 are old enough to be responsible for  their own choices and don't need government to be "mom" and approve or dissaprove their relationships.

Regardless of what you agree or disagree with regarding relationship choices, the constitution was written on a foundation of freedom and individual liberty.  Are we going to promote these principles, or create a nanny state?  As has been stated earlier in this blog, bad things sometimes happen but we pick up the pieces and move on.  It's fascist to think that any government should try to regulate worldwide dating.

# Jack Sanderson says :
18 November, 2008 [ 05:28 ]

The person who wrote the title of the article was either an older woman or a younger adult male who had every reason to feel resentful of the idea of a gorgeous young woman marrying an older male. This is why males must not relinquish too much power in the governments of the world and, if they must, they can relinquish that power to younger females, not the bitter older kind like Queen Victoria was.

We all know what Queen Victoria did (and she did it because Prince Albert was fooling around).

# DelphiPro says :
18 November, 2008 [ 09:34 ]

A NOTE TO THE EDITOR

I like to participate in this forum and be notified when people respond to posts.  However, the notification email that gets sent when people respond has a link at the bottom to unsubscribe, and I'm always clicking on it by accident.

Please either remove that link or make it obvious that it is an "unsubscribe" link (make it bold, ALL CAPS, etc.) so I don't have to keep re-subscribing.  Thank you.

# DelphiPro says :
18 November, 2008 [ 09:51 ]

The founding fathers deliberately set up a system that separated the church from the government.  They did this to prevent laws and regulations from being dicated by someome's moral belief. 

We have a basic foundational code of ethics and laws that protect people from the most agregious acts of maliciousness and harm.  However, it was never the intent that government dictate moral beliefs.  This happened in 1907 when a buch of nannies decided that American women shouldn't marry foreign men, and passed a law stripping them of their U.S. citizenship if they did.  Later, in 1920, we had alcoholic prohibition because of hype and hysteria linking alcohol to -- what else? -- violence and abuse against women.  Both of these laws were colossal failures and lead to more harm than good.

Now we have a belief system called "radical feminism" (which is just like a church!) and a bunch of it's members are infiltrating the government and passing laws based on their moral beliefs.  This is absolutely wrong and is a violation of everything America has historically stood for.

Name

Email

Notify me via e-mail of new comments to this entry

Code :

Comment

• These comments are the property of their respective authors.
• Currently we only allow english comments.
• Por ahora solo se permiten comentarios en ingles.