September Letter

Mike Gposted 7 years ago

Does this so called 'September Letter' exist as a permanent waiver to enter the US?

Replies (recent first):

@John Rogers

Keep barking like a dog. I have no more time to waste on a lowlife like yourself. I will use very harsh words to make you understand what kind of individual you are.

Look yourself in the mirror and start correcting that mouth of yours. You are annoying, unprofessional and childish. Your credibility is zero. Suddenly you feel the pressure.

This is my last reply to you because you seem to have taken this conversation to another level of stupidity. You wreak of desperation and its pathetic.

As for a conditional discharge, the Canadian law is clear. It is not a conviction and it is clearly stated in the Criminal Code. It doesn't mean that other countries will recognize it as such or obliged to. You are delusional and desperate for clients. I feel quite sorry for you and for everyone on here who has to go through your level of ridiculous. You clearly suffer from paranoia and you should get yourself checked.

May I please ask for a moderator to ban this guy. There is a word for you John and it's called troll.

I am based in the GTA for those who have

HatsBootsHatsBoots replied 5 years ago   #112


Your "tired" of me correcting you. Ken corrected something I said about the fee for Landed Immigrants recently. I looked it up, agreed he was correct, and pointed out why I thought it was something different. In no way was I bullied, or intimidated, the point was to get the correct information. Now everyone knows the correct information. That's the goal of the forum.

Your problem is you like to pontificate and hate it when someone with more practical experience points out when your wrong. Nothing wrong with being correct MOST of time. You just make a lot of mistakes. Your getting better though. You do tend to repeat the same mistakes, like Conditional Discharges seem to be difficult for you to "get".

John Rogers replied 5 years ago   #111

Its ok and I will save you the trouble.

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally
US Code
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–292, § 2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3459; Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, § 6703(a), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3766; Pub. L. 109–248, title I, § 141(c), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 603.)

KSCOTT replied 5 years ago   #110

Say what you want John...however, you were the one that knowingly and willfully violated 18 USC Section 2001(look it up) and may have to answer for such. So do not try to deflect the attention like trump. It is interesting that you always claim to be the expert but are very silent now on your 18USC violation...hmmmm. You do not even deny it...hmmmm

I still say that It is foolish for you to come on here and argue with people like HATS BOOTS or anyone for the most part. I do not care if you argue with me since I know your personality, where you are weak and you refuse to come on the air with me. I have always said let's take this off the forum but you always fail to comply. I suggest that you stop fighting with HATS BOOTS and everyone else since it hurts your credibility.

News flash is that you(nor I ) know absolutely everything about the waiver stop trying to act like you do when you clearly do not. I would be a fool to debate digital fingerprints with you because I would lose and I freely admit it...

Same goes for you in terms of resolving border crossing issues and me. Anyway, I admire and have never met him. I also would like to know which part of Canada does HATS BOOTS reside in.

KSCOTT replied 5 years ago   #109


Just curious... What part of Canada are you located in?

Samuel replied 5 years ago   #108

@John Rogers

I don't know who Ken is, neither do I know who you are. All I am is someone who does waivers as a side business for extra cash. I have read about US and Canadian law extensively. I'm not looking for customers and I'm definitely not here to argue with any of you. What you have with Ken Scott is between you and him.

I provide information to the general public time to time. A lot of people are fed up with your tactics and your silly arguments with your buddy, Ken Scott. Many people have ditched these forums because of your silliness and bullying.

Ask yourself this question John. I'm a really helping people or am I too greedy? Stop blasting everyone here. I think it would benefit us if you stopped posting for a while. Your silly accusations and your paranoia are driving you mad. Take a break buddy. I'm concerned about you.

I don't feel like taking sides with your silly games incolving Ken Scott. I also don't see why Ken Scott defends me. A moderator would have banned you years ago John. That is all I have to say.

HatsBootsHatsBoots replied 5 years ago   #107

@KScott how drunk were you when you typed all of that? Your usually feeling pretty good when you call me on Whatapp from the UK.

My office is quite large actually and consists of a large main office, and 2 smaller offices. Remember when you thought you partnered with our "fingerprinting affiliate?" LOL Maybe you should come back to Canada and check it out?

I can advise anyone to do anything I want. Its a public forum and I tell Canadians the truth about how the system works. They can decide what to say at the border. Knowledge is power.

The last person I would be worried about "ratting me out" is Ken Scott, who makes so many fraudulent statements its baffling that anyone trusts you. Thanks for confirming for everyone your a "rat" though, it shows all your "I have so many gang members as clients" talk is simply talk.

Clients are going to trust you after writing what you just wrote? Seriously, give your head a shake. You may want to check out what ICE actually does, since you apparently have no clue.

Why don't you explain that the reason you could not get accreditation to fingerprint is because the RCMP have major problems with your past? We won't judge you.

@HatsBootsHatsBoots you are Kens buddy. Are you fake calling Homeland Security as well? You want to be associated with his brand of "fake expert?"

John Rogers replied 5 years ago   #106

JOHN ROGERS you often do not know what you are talking about and are pissed that I and HATS BOOTS know our stuff. You are not the superior one in any kind of way. It is also irrelevant where I since we are global my friend with locations in Canada and UK. You are in a 1 room building in Brampton(working also as a part-time Utility Consultant) going on the forum to try to bring recognition to yourself. Please stick to what you know and that is how to do digital fingerprints.

I am disappointed that you told that other guy on a public forum to knowingly lie to a CBP officer in regards to admitting to smoking Marijuana. Now the world has seen what you posted and you cannot wiggle out of it nor deny it. Again, please stick to what you know which is digital fingerprinting. You cannot even give accurate information in the room in general. You were stupid enough to go onto a public forum and knowing, wilfully and encourage him to lie to CBP in regards to not smoking Marijuana. You also attempted to circumvent us immigration law by telling him to get it pardoned first and they deny the Marijuana smoking if asked.

What you don't know is that you actually did a violation under 18 U.S.C, Section 1001 in doing so. I showed a paper copy to a buddy who is an I.C.E Special Investigator in BC for his opinion. He agreed with me and said even more that I won't post here. I also asked 2 people that work in a law enforcement capacity with 2 USA federal agencies their opinion. They went into greater detail. What you did was a criminal offence bottom line. Don't take my word for it....Anyone call CBP and ask the question in regards to what you did. So how can anyone take you seriously when don't even have the sense to not post material encouraging criminal activity. You also did the same thing with a woman on the forum.

You also do digital fingerprinting which requires a special licence from the RCMP. The RCMP would not take kindly to a Canadian digital fingerprinting agency encouraging people to violate USA federal law by Conspiring, Aiding & Abetting and encouraging people to violate American immigration law by providing materially false statements to a CBP officer in the performance of his official duties.

So feel free to take care of your own backyard first before you go spouting off as the "expert" and proven to be the fool. I do not think HATS BOOTS is trying to get any clients here as nor am I since most here will not like the fees that we charge anyway.

So you do not have a leg to stand on my friend.

KSCOTT replied 5 years ago   #105

@John Rogers

How about you take a little walk time to time. It might change your thoughts a little. We are all human after all and we all do mistakes.

HatsBootsHatsBoots replied 5 years ago   #104


If my imposition of facts, as opposed to your meandering essays on the state of US-Canadian relations "intimidates you", I think that qualifies you as a bit of a princess. Facts can't hurt you. I sense I have hurt your feelings by correcting you, but don't take it personally. I am just making sure everyone gets the proper information.

John Rogers replied 5 years ago   #103

@John Rogers

You are not 100% correct and you have no knowledge about US and Canadian law. Now you are calling me a princess. Are you sane? What you say is based on opinions, not facts. You know that but you keep trying to impose your opinions through intimidation. Its great to see that you waste most of your time coming back on this forum looking for confrontation trying to make yourself look good.

HatsBootsHatsBoots replied 5 years ago   #102


Rebutting you "isn't going to great lengths to get clients". Its making sure people are getting accurate information. You give out helpful information, which I support, but you have been wrong about certain things, which I have corrected. I am happy there are a number of voices to give opinions and have said so repeatedly.

Keep providing useful information, and when you are correct, I will support what you say. When you are wrong, I will correct you. No "spitting". Your a little bit of a princess when it comes to being corrected, try and be mature and simply admit when you are wrong. Am i supposed to spare your feelings and allow people to take bad advice? No. People want accuracy. If you disagree with a point of fact, challenge me on that fact.

Again, I don't see why someone like yourself would do this business for a living. If you have a family to feed, go find a real job. You will make more dough. Believe me. You can do waivers as a side business for extra cash

I am able to feed my family doing what I do, but thank you for the career advice. Again, you point out that this is a hobby for you, which is why you are sometimes not correct. This isn't my hobby, its my career. I love my job.

@KScott. As usual almost 100% of what you have said is fictional. Your not even in Canada right now and haven't been for a couple of months at least. You are an expert in one thing which could MAKE you a waiver applicant in the future. Its not a compliment.

You understand that 100% correct means ALWAYS correct, right? Which means if you had to correct HATSBootsHatsBoots before....he is not 100% correct. Can we also assume when you assure people they will get 100% of their money back you mean "well, except for the one time I don't"? Does 100% mean something different in the UK? Is there an exchange rate we aren't aware of?

John Rogers replied 5 years ago   #101


It's very upsetting that someone like yourself would go to such great lengths to get customers.

You like confrontation and as I explained to you, I have more important things to do than waste my time with you.

I come here time to time to provide useful information. If you want to spit on that and you feel threatened I might steal your clientèle, then you must be a very desperate man.

Again, I don't see why someone like yourself would do this business for a living. If you have a family to feed, go find a real job. You will make more dough. Believe me. You can do waivers as a side business for extra cash.

That is all.

HatsBootsHatsBoots replied 5 years ago   #100

Btw...HATS BOOTS is also right when he said a Diversion may result in a person not needing a us entry waiver. I did not want to say this but we actually got a September Letter on a client that got a diversion in a Cocaine Possession case and does not need a waiver now.

:: @K SCOTT added on 16 Nov ’18 · 11:51

So yeah I gotta give it to HATS BOOTS..He does have a lot of knowledge in this field and almost seems like this is his actual profession. Impressive since even a lot of us immigration lawyers don't know what they are

K SCOTT replied 5 years ago   #99

Umm I have to say that we have actually seen/worked on more waivers/border crossing events here than anyone else. We worked on immigration removal cases in Washington State with a former associate. I have said before that I got into this field around 1995 and then progressed to waivers. I have received formal legal training. I let people make that determination themselves whether they consider us experts.

I will say that HATS BOOTS is usually 100% accurate and I only disagreed on 1 very minor thing that he had said. He is someone that I wish was on my team. I will say that someone that calls themselves an expert is not one. An actual expert is one designated by their peers and the industry. They are recognised by their training, experience, and achievements.

I can say that we all have some positive information to contribute to the common good.

I think the topic of convictions may be a moot point since a person may need a us entry waiver if they have a relevant conviction and have no other forms of relief available. An admission of guilt of committing the actual act regarding a relevant criminal charge(where no conviction exists), could render the person inadmissible to the USA since this is stated in the act.

HATS BOOTS is definitely right when he says a lot of people don't know the difference between a charge and a conviction.

K SCOTT replied 5 years ago   #98


I am not confused at all. "Convicted" clearly means "found guilty".

A Conditional Discharge means you were convicted. An Absolute Discharge means you were convicted. You plead guilty. You have a criminal record for 3 years and 1 year minimum.

Diversion means you were NOT convicted.

Many times, the media reports that an accused was convicted and given a discharge. Yet, they say they will not have a criminal record. Once you get convicted, you get a criminal record but if you are not convicted, then you don't get a record. The media is confused about the word conviction.

The media, like yourself, sometimes say inaccurate things. I do not. Because I am an expert.

If I am not an expert, then who would be? I do waivers, I have many contacts who are in the process of a waiver, I see forums and Facebook pages like this one, and for 6 days a week I immerse myself in talking about, or working on, waivers. I have been doing so since 1998.

I even look at waivers I did NOT work on, about 40-50 a week, when I go to the airport.

Please explain how seeing more waivers than anyone else in Canada makes me NOT an expert? Now, you, like Cliff Claven in Cheers, SOUND like an expert, but are not.

I am sure you are very qualified in whatever else you do for a living.

John Rogers replied 5 years ago   #97

@ John

I have stated you are no expert, none of us are. Laws keep changing with new administrations. We try to help people as we can with our experience. Canadian and US law are two different animals. You are confused about the definition of the word conviction. Many times, the media reports that an accused was convicted and given a discharge. Yet, they say they will not have a criminal record. Once you get convicted, you get a criminal record but if you are not convicted, then you don't get a record. The media is confused about the word conviction.

Canada has many alternatives to avoiding a formal criminal record after pleading guilty to an offence. The US does not have these alternatives and does not recognize them.

How you view and feel about the whole matter is based on your opinion and not facts. What I stated is based on facts.

Many people misinterupt canadian law. How can you expect US officials not to do the same?

HatsBootsHatsBoots replied 5 years ago   #96


HATS BOOTS is 100% correct in what he says as usual. It is very detailed information and very impressive. I am not going to rehash everything HATS BOOTS and JOHN said. However, a conviction is essentially a finding of guilt by the criminal court

He is not 100% correct as I have shown. If you look at what he writes, most of it is based on an internet search, and not experience. And that is ok, as long as people who take his advice understand that. I am constantly correcting him, because being 85% correct is not the same as being 100%.

Also, a Diversion case may not necessarily need a waiver as we have processed those before and obtained September Letters on those cases. September letters are still indeed given out but now are more heavily scrutinized

Diversion is an ALTERNATE to a conviction. Here is where your lack of experience in Pardons shows. You don't get convicted and given diversion. The word "diversion" even means:

"an instance of turning something aside from its course.

a diversion of resources from defense to civil research

synonyms: rerouting, redirection, deflection, deviation, divergence

the diversion of 19 rivers

So of course they do not need a waiver, they were never convicted. Arrested but not convicted, given diversion. The waiver did not need to be filed.

***The most important thing about this forum is that it be ACCURATE. If someone answers a question, and its accurate, then I don't bother answering. If whats being told is NOT accurate, then we ALL have an obligation to speak up. As I have said many times, if you disagree with something I have said, then please respond. I also point out when something is FACT, and when it is just my OPINION.***

John Rogers replied 5 years ago   #95

HATS BOOTS is 100% correct in what he says as usual. It is very detailed information and very impressive. I am not going to rehash everything HATS BOOTS and JOHN said. However, a conviction is essentially a finding of guilt by the criminal court.

This finding is obtained in various ways and I will not spell out all areas since we would be here for years debating it as such. Obviously, if a person pleads guilty then they could be found guilty. However, there is something else where a person pled guilty due to the incompetence of the lawyer. Convictions can be reversed in these cases.

The big thing here though in terms of convictions....A Conditional Discharge is not recognized by CBP and the person may still need a waiver. An Absolute Discharge is not a determination of guilt by CBP.

Also, a Diversion case may not necessarily need a waiver as we have processed those before and obtained September Letters on those cases. September letters are still indeed given out but now are more heavily scrutinized.

Plus, seems they no longer do the narrative/analysis in the decision letter on why a person is being issued the letter.

The bottom line is that the guy may still qualify for the September letter. Would love to do the analysis to see if he would indeed qualify. Does not make sense having to apply for unneeded waivers for the rest of your life if there is a chance that you are eligible for other forms of relief.

KSCOTT replied 5 years ago   #94

I am an expert. Pleading guilty were found guilty.

Did you shoplift? "Well I plead guilty but got a discharge".

Did you shoplift "Well I plead guilty and got probation".

Do you have a criminal record? In both cases yes. Were you punished? In both cases yes.

The difference is ONLY in how you get RID of the record. One requires a pardon, one does not.

Its ludicrous to say you plead guilty of a crime, but were not "convicted".

John Rogers replied 5 years ago   #93

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.