In the old days one could google for an agency name, followed by the word 'scam' and get instaneous answer(s).
These corrupt agencies got wise to what we were doing so, for this reason only, they have put how they support anti-scam, or similar, on their websites so, nowadays, when one does such a search the first results are that agency's supposed supporting of anti-scam and one has to go through a page or few of search results before actually getting to the truth.
Yuriy helped my wife with all of her documents necessary for submission to the American Embassy in Moscow including certified translations and background checks. He also supplied his expertise on what to expect and how to avoid several issues that often arise during this process. Things went smooth as silk.
Jim has gone beyond editorial opinion. He has entered the world of libel. There is a legal difference. By doing this, Jim has broken the law as clearly and readily as the scammers he professes to protect us from. (I give full credit to the internet for the following information)
libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune for actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U. S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.
Bill if Yuri did that for you and your wife, he should be commended. He's in about the 5% bracket that will do that for their ladies.
As far as Libel, I think that's a stretch, especially if he has letters from guys that are complaining and he really doesn't have to turn that over. Though that being said, that is the problem I have with agencys and Anti scam lists. You can't rely on either one. Now the agencys are using anti scam in there search engine words and then claiming on their website they are now involved in anti scamming, which we know isn't true.
We both know and common sense dictates that these sites surely cannot do due diligence in researching the complaints. Who do you trust? Me, no one involved in this. Trust but verify.
Yuriy remains my trusted friend to this day. He and I write often and I get him all sorts of tech ideas on new stuff for Russia, currently he is starting a misting business (like KoolZone). He is steering away from the dating site though he still dabbles in it. He got in too late to make a fortune and I think he is too honest to make a killing. There are other fish to fry and he is trying his hand at those things.
Jim specifically stated that his letter was from a company that absolutely denied any connection with Yuriy. Jim's evidence is fabricated and because this can be proven, and it is intentional and malicious, it is libel. Still can't really do a thing about it. That's Jim's ace in the hole. The wonder of the internet.
Imagine my suprise when the bank information of a girl I have been seeing in Ukraine for nearly one year popped up on Jim's site. I happened to have googled her name last night and it popped up in his bank list with her banking information. Jim's list seems like a legitimate site but it blows my mind that this girl who I have gone to see five times would have her information listed there. I don't think she is a scammer (I have experienced this before) but who knows. Any thoughts?