Making the Forum better.

J Rogersposted 2 weeks ago

I am happy to keep the forum professional.

Let us all agree to some very simple rules.

1. No personal insults.

2. If a person says something you disagree with, then lets agree to ask questions, and lets agree to answer those questions. If I say 2+2 = 6, and Michelle says "John, I think it equals 4." and asks "how did you come up with 6?" I should ANSWER her. Not insult her.

3. We are obviously not all going to agree all the time. If a person/persons disagree, that should be GOOD, because a person can get a variety of opinions.

4. Civil debate is the key here. If a person steps out of line, lets ALL remind him/her to remain CIVIL.

5. Debate is healthy. Don't be insulted that someone disagrees with you. And lets treat people asking questions with respect. I understand some of us want business from this forum. But I think if someone asks a question, we should give them direct answers. In other words, if they wanted to ask privately, they would have done that. If its asked HERE, then put your answer HERE. Not "call me because that is a trade secret".

6. Do people want to hear about companies that are "bad apples"? I just got some very interesting information on Dominion Pardons. I don't mind bringing it forward so people can be aware. I don't fear reprisal because I check my sources and know the information is accurate. But do people care?

7. This will only work if others give an opinion. And help enforce compliance. If I step out of line, call me out. Call out ANYONE.

Did I miss anything?

Replies (recent first):


So your position is you will stay quiet, let people get ripped off, and you want me and Michelle to do the same. Buyer beware, let them lose their money. And this will help keep "decorum". Is that correct?

J Rogers replied 23 hours ago   #18

Well again people have to do what is best for themselves. It is entirely their choice if they choose to not pursue legal action. Filing a small claims suit is not that hard in B.C. I cannot speak for Ontario though and I believe that a lot of people get ripped off there. Ontario is full of these Discount Waiver Companies that are only interested in the quick buck.

So, I stand by the belief that you truly get what you pay for indeed. People come to us after using these places and get sticker shock. Some stay and some will leave since they have limited funding. I still say this will be a moot point after Oct 2, 2020 when the waiver govt fee goes up to $1400usd. There is really no need for me to debate this topic since it will not put any additional revenue in the pockets of the victims of Ontario Discount Waiver Companies.

Ken Scott
Senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst
888 908-3841
604 332-9213

KSCOTT replied 1 day ago   #17


People with criminal records do not want publicity or attention. Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit of any kind? Your making it seem simple...its is not. Even small claims involves putting evidence down in writing and paying a fee and then filing the case at the courthouse. I get many people who were ripped off for a LOT of money and they just EAT it. Protecting the public isn't about "go sue them". Its about "here is information BEFORE you get ripped off".

This is pretty inconsistent advice your giving people. "You only have a tiny chance to get a waiver for sexual assault and it will take years but we will keep trying" sends one message. "I knew these guys were scam artists but I let you use them and get ripped go sue them" sends a completely different message. Which one are you about?

Michelle and I are honest and we display our INTEGRITY as one of our MAIN features. We name NAMES. There is nothing ethical in letting "buyer beware". No one is more AGGRESSIVE in calling companies and the people running them out than me. NOT A SINGLE LAWSUIT. Not even a LETTER of warning. Why? Because I tell the TRUTH.

"“Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.”

Theodore Roosevelt

If people don't take a stand against injustice, the police officer who murdered George Floyd would still be a police officer today.

J Rogers replied 2 days ago   #16

Well, it will all boil down to what is important to people. There are enough appropriate legal means to seek compensation from these companies if you have truly been ripped off. It is just a matter if people want to spend the money or not. Too many people try to cheap out on these waiver cases and use these cheap waiver companies. So it is fully not the entire fault of the company if a person only wants to spend $499 on a waiver. What do they expect if they do such a thing? You truly do get what you pay for in this day and age. This may be somewhat of a moot point though after Oct 2, 2020.

Ken Scott
Senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst
888 908-3841
604 332-9213

KSCOTT replied 2 days ago   #15


"Hire a lawyer", most people will not, and most lawyers won't bother if there is not a big payout in the end. Small Claims court is $25 000 but most people don't have the expertise. I have actually APPEARED with clients in small claims to help them against other companies (as an expert witness) and even when they win easily its tough to collect.

There is only one way to combat bad companies. NAME THEM. The only person who benefits from silence is the SCAM ARTIST. So in the case your talking about, stop protecting them and NAME THEM. Send me a private message and I will name them I know all the scammers so I probably have a file on them already.

I am not afraid on ANYONE. I will take on a lawyer, and as long as I am telling the truth, they have not a single leg to stand on. Did you see my post about the Parole Board Member? He is a lawyer in St Catherines. I EMAILED him directly and have bashed him publicly. He can't sue me because if what he did came to light, he would be FINISHED. Disbarred.

When you are honest and are fighting the good fight, you have nothing to fear. If someone is dishonest, I will HOUND them until they are out of business.

Anyone disagree with this?

J Rogers replied 3 days ago   #14

I say that people with issues regarding these waiver companies need to confront the company themselves and possibly hire a lawyer if they want to file suit against them. I will also say that the problem may not fully be with the company since sometimes some of the people are possibly at fault themselves.

I spoke to a gentleman (aka church gentleman) the other day that wants to use us but does not have any money. He paid a waiver company that same day and said that he had no idea what he was paying for. Nice guy but he did not understand why he paid and the fact that they provided absolutely no service whatsoever. They then wanted to charge him another $800 to do a pardon but never completed the first one. They also tried to push a US Entry Waiver on him at a discounted price of $200 off. Luckily, he listened to me when I told him to tell the owner that his conviction does not necessarily need a waiver. Apparently, the owner then back tracked and said oh ok well only if the border says you need a waiver.

This is one of the things that burns me up about these cheap waiver companies. They do not understand or care about the impact a US Entry Waiver will have on a client's future. If you have a US Entry Waiver for a relevant conviction it can cause future U.S. immigration problems. If you “actually need” a US Entry Waiver, then that is 1 thing.

A U.S. Entry Waiver can make it hard for you to get a future Green card from being sponsored by an American. You likely then would need an I-601 immigrant waiver and they can sometimes be hard to get. We got a lifetime clearance for a gentleman that years later got sponsored to the USA.

We saved him years of money and headache since we showed that his convictions in his case should not deemed him inadmissible to the USA. We had to document on paper why he qualified for the lifetime clearance since other people have had to get waivers for the same conviction, but he did not. This certain waiver company kept pushing him to file for a waiver, but he listened to me and told them to kick rocks. Later, he got his green card and his wife thanked me for helping him.

The church gentleman is an example of a waiver company likely cheating a guy, but I will not publish the name and give them publicity. Also, because I have no written proof that this has happened and can only go on the word of the gentleman. This is a very disgraceful thing that this waiver company did to this guy but he also should have asked them more questions.

Ken Scott
Senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst
888 908-3841
604 332-9213

KSCOTT replied 4 days ago   #13

@Jazzsax1 There have been complaints made to the admin and I have even pointed out that some of the adds were from companies that were not ethical, and there has been no response. So I doubt you can do anything to get banned.

I would be happy to have one of the regulars "moderate" discussion in its place. You, Michelle, I don't really care as long as its functional.

J Rogers replied 4 days ago   #12

I was going to suggest we start a new forum but I will probably get banned by the admin for even suggesting. LOL

(I would totally start it - I have the tech skills)

jazzsax1 replied 4 days ago   #11

Trucker said that "bickering" combined with the fact he doesn't think anyone needs help to do a waiver was his issue.

I have never heard anyone complain about real concerns about businesses that might be misrepresenting themselves.

I am willing to listen to anyone who disagrees, does anyone else have an opinion?

J Rogers replied 5 days ago   #10

Do what you want but I will not engage in exchanging information/gossip that cannot be fact checked. I think people come here for waiver info only. You notice that there are not as many people engaging now and I think it has a lot to do with what Trucker had previously said.

Ken Scott
Senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst
888 908-3841
604 332-9213

KSCOTT replied 6 days ago   #9


I will use pardons as an example to not ruffle feathers.

If "Steve" says "I can get you a pardon in 6 months". Michelle and I know that is false. Steve is promising something he cannot deliver on.

It would be HELPFUL to people to know Steve is not being truthful. We both know Steve won't sue me when I bring this up because if he did, he would not only lose, he would spend considerable money taking action, for something he KNOWS isn't true, just to have me EMBARRASS him in a courtroom.

If I say the TRUTH, based on my expertise, there can be no consequences. Michelle and I have disagreed on CPIC before, we both gave our opinions, but we made it clear that she worked with CPIC, where I was only giving a results based opinion on my experiences.

If you say something I disagree with, I can disagree with you, we can both give our opinions, and leave it at that.

The forum has a purpose. Information. People WANT differing opinions so they can make real decisions. If all the experts sing the same tune, that makes the forum as useless as unneeded conflict.

Maybe someone else could give an opinion on decorum?

J Rogers replied 1 week ago   #8

Number 6 is the reason why I am not going to use the forum for endless public debate that will not solve a problem or produce tools to use as such. This is why I have consistently said that you can be a guest on our internet talk radio show and all of the issues can be on air and actually debated. This ties into what trucker said about the forum being a useless site now. I suspect that people coming here do not want to see endless debates but want answers to relevant questions. So, I put the offer out to out again regarding the show.

There is a legal liability stating negative information about a company that cannot be fact checked. It is a risky thing to do since I have seen cases where businesses were sued for defamation for making unproven statements. Anyway, this is Civil Law 101.

It seems that very few people come here now to ask questions. People should not really use this forum to answer 100% of their waiver questions anyway since they should contact a professional to ask specific questions. This forum should only be for basic information/questions regarding to info sharing of relevant US Entry Waiver issues.

Ken Scott
Senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst
888 908-3841
604 332-9213

KSCOTT replied 1 week ago   #7

@J Rogers agreed about Pardons Canada. They took money from me a year ago and they won’t even talk to me on the phone. If I ask questions their answers are one line replies. They give no guidance and have no feedback. I would never recommend them if I knew someone looking for a pardon ar travel waiver.

BackToUSA replied 1 week ago   #6


What is it about #6 that you do not like?

So for example, when I write that many clients of Pardons Canada come to me every week and PAY me to do part of the pardon because they make the client do most of the work, and Pardons Canada has adds of THIS site, don't you think that is a "buyer beware" that will help people here?

I feel COMPELLED to tell the truth about companies that are being deceptive, as a consumer, and as a person that knows that many people who have criminal records are taken advantage of. Remember, Waiver Applicants are NOT the same as Pardon applicants. Waiver applicants are doing a waiver to TRAVEL. Yes, sometimes truck drivers, or other people get waivers because they NEED them. But many waiver applicants want them because of financial "ability" to travel.

Many pardon applicants are in very dire financial situations. To see them, many of them single moms for example, ripped off, is painful for me.

I never post anything I cannot back up, and I think you should be onboard with helping consumers not be taken advantage of. Can you express your concerns so I better understand?

J Rogers replied 1 week ago   #5

I pretty much agree with everything except #6. I think it will take time for the forum to go back to normal.

K Scott replied 1 week ago   #4


I only suggested these rules to give a "framework". The point was to agree that there was a problem with decorum, and commit to making it better.

As you can see, the thread was started to promote discussion of the issue, and allow you to suggest ways to shape it. Did you have an alternate set of suggestions?

J Rogers replied 1 week ago   #3

Everything here is good in principal indeed, but I only have a few issues. All of the information that you have posted about us in the other rooms is incorrect. I definitely can agree on the principals here but I have a real issue with anyone(including my staff members) that make statements that are factually incorrect and that they cannot fact check or prove in black and white. Everyone has an opinion, and this is part of life. I can agree in principal on everything here and yes, I would like to make this forum better.

Nevertheless, all of our info to include my bio and more is 100% correct. I think a lot of this started when you saw our box on the site and did not understand why it was listed. I will go into detail why we do not give out our locations unless the person has signed up and been screened.

The Lower Mainland of BC is different than other parts of Canada like Toronto. I have heard from people that Surrey BC is the Chicago (Southside) of Canada. The Lower Mainland is smaller than Toronto, heavily connected, has an exceptionally large degree of organized crime and people mentally unstable. I am used to this kind of environment from the USA and East London. We deal with a lot of people that have had violent crime convictions and they will not be happy if they get a waiver denial. I have to consider the other tenants in our buildings though.

Too many people in the Lower Mainland know someone who knows someone that has this involvement. This is why you really have to screen whom you decide to take as a client since I have refused some cases. Vancouver people hate driving out to Surrey and this is why we have them go to the Vancouver location instead and see Mr. Tran.

- An example is that a young guy from Langley said he got expelled from school twice for bringing pipe
bombs to school. He sounded extremely mentally unstable and I declined his case. He got angry and
tried to come down but could only find the box.

- Another client wanted to come in and he had pages of theft, B & E and disorderly conduct type
convictions. He indicated that people were always after him, sounded mentally disturbed and said that he
carried a gun for protection. We declined his case.

- Another individual got past the screening and said things in person that I do not want to put in writing. We declined his case.

- Another individual arrived late and had initially refused to leave.

People in BC know all about the lower Mainland and especially the potential danger in Surrey. Usually, some people in Surrey will tell people that they live in Vancouver. I will post links below of what I mean when I say that this is a fact check of Surrey. Again, you really have to carefully screen whom you take on as a client in the Lower Mainland.

I used to see it when I worked in the office of my East Van associate that used to do Canadian Immigration. He used to take walk in clients and there were way too many times that we had to ask people to leave or call VPD because they were troublemakers. This is why we only list our box until we have screened the people. Note that this area is much more different than your area. Saskatchewan is also probably mostly potash miners and farmers, so Michelle would not have the same issues as we do.

He also had the problem of people upset because of their case disposition/status and they had friends/associates involved in certain things that would come in and muscle flex. Eventually a lot of it stopped after he declined walk in clients. I assume that you can agree that you have more knowledge of Toronto living than I do. Hence it would be the same for the Lower Mainland for me.

So, I ask you not to make statements on things that you have no actual proof of or that can be fact checked. I will also endeavour to refrain from words that constitute #1. I really do not desire fighting with anyone on here since it really serves no useful purpose.

I say that the 3 of us are the professionals and have a duty to set the standards of excellence for people here. I also think #6 is a bit of a land mine since our words can be used against us if we cannot prove/fact check statements. I just think opens up a person to legal liability if they cannot prove the allegations that they have made.

So yes, we would like to make the forum better.

Ken Scott
Senior U.S. Immigration Law Intelligence Analyst
888 908-3841
604 332-9213

KSCOTT replied 1 week ago   #2


Were you not interested in this?

J Rogers replied 1 week ago   #1

Reply to this thread

There is no need to “register”, just enter the same name + password of your choice every time.

Pro tip: Use to add links, quotes and more.