ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed


Letters of the Week: Apr 29 - May 3

Rating: 27 votes, 5.00 average.
Please email your letters to or post them directly as "Comment" below.

Submit "Letters of the Week: Apr 29 - May 3" to Facebook Submit "Letters of the Week: Apr 29 - May 3" to Twitter Submit "Letters of the Week: Apr 29 - May 3" to Google Submit "Letters of the Week: Apr 29 - May 3" to StumbleUpon Submit "Letters of the Week: Apr 29 - May 3" to Reddit Submit "Letters of the Week: Apr 29 - May 3" to Digg Submit "Letters of the Week: Apr 29 - May 3" to

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
  1. Kenneth Rinzler's Avatar

    Dear AILA Colleague:

    I know this is incredibly long, but if you have a real interest in how AILA is governed you will read it. It is the only way I can effectively campaign, as the national office has banned me from the InfoNet Message Center because I have embarrassed them. This will become my record, my words, not what the ExCom falsely claims I have said and done. And whether I win or lose the election, at least this way I will have gotten my story out without distortion.

    On Friday, May 17, electronic balloting will commence for the election for officer positions for AILA's Executive Committee (the "ExCom"). The ExCom is the handful of people who really run AILA; the Board of Governors (BOG) is primarily window dressing. And a key person on the ExCom is AILA's Executive Director, Ms. Crystal Williams, who is the real power behind the AILA throne (and who received a compensation package of $276,792 in 2011 according to AILA's Federal tax return for that year; it probably approaches $300,000 as of now).

    Under Article III, Section 7B of AILA's Bylaws, the ExCom consists solely of the elected offices of the President, The President-elect, First Vice President, Second Vice President, Treasurer, and Secretary, plus the Executive Director as an ex officio non-voting member. The bylaws do not allow for any other persons to be members of the ExCom, even as non-voting members, but as with all things AILA the ExCom decided to ignore the bylaws and made the Immediate Past President and General Counsel non-voting members of the ExCom as well. This gross violation of the bylaws is keeping with similar violations, such as last year's nominating fiasco with Ms. Annaluisa Padilla, our current Secretary who is now the leadership's pick for Treasurer (the only contested position on the ExCom ballot).

    The ExCom has become a hereditary appointment. I have been a member of AILA since 1992, yet in all that time the nominating committee (indirectly/ultimately handpicked and controlled by the ExCom) has only ever nominated one candidate per office, thus virtually guaranteeing election in virtually every election. Although nominations by petition are allowed, and is how I am on the ballot this year, it is an extremely difficult way to be elected, and this is especially so when one is banned from utilizing the Message Center - as I am - during a campaign. (More on that later.) Once on the ExCom, normally at the entry-level position of Secretary, a person is guaranteed re-election for the next five years, going up the ladder, and then one more to assume the illegal membership as Immediate Past President - a total of seven years. Let me repeat that: if you are elected to the one year term as Secretary, you really are being "elected" to a seven year term to the ruling oligarchy. Make no mistake about that. And as normally there is only one candidate per office, these are not elections but appointments.

    In January of this year I qualified by petition to run for the position of Treasurer. It is the only time I have ever run for any AILA office at any level, and was not something I really wanted to do. But as will be explained below, I feel that AILA has become so incestuous, so wasteful, and - especially --so absolutely lacking in transparency in virtually everything it does, that I felt compelled to run to try to do my bit to address these concerns. And unlike other candidates throughout the history of AILA, I stated then and repeat now that I have no desire to remain a member of the ExCom and then Board of Governors until I need to attend meetings while in my 90's and on life-support; rather I intend to serve only a one year term and force AILA to adopt policies of transparency from which there would be no turning back. It's as simple as that.

    It was my desire to force the ExCom to adopt policies of transparency that I have spent a good deal of time the past few years posting on the InfoNet Message Center (the "MC") some of the abuses perpetrated by the ExCom in the running of AILA. It was the extreme embarrassment caused to the ExCom that was the real reason behind their decision to illegally ban me and fellow member Susan McFadden of London (for supporting me), the first and only bans ever implemented by AILA. Again, more on that later.

    Here are some of the issues and recommendations I have highlighted and why the ExCom has reason to be embarrassed at their improper governance of our organization:

    AILA's Federal tax returns (IRS Form 990). Returns of not for profit organizations such as AILA are required under Federal law to be made available to not only the membership, but the public at large. Despite numerous requests to Ms. Williams to post the returns on InfoNet, she consistently refused to do so until I obtained them from third party sources and published them myself. As it turned out, Ms. Williams had good reason to want to hide them. First, they were filled with inaccuracies (for example, ALA has stated year after year that it has no chapters), to the point where AILA even had to file an amended return. Second, they disclosed the insider loans which AILA utilized in the 1990's (ten years at 8% annual return) to finance the purchase of its headquarters, loans which even involved AILA borrowing money from its then Executive Director, Jeanne Butterfield, as well as the $100,000 royalty payment to a prominent member that AILA "forgot" to disclose in its initial filing. Third, they showed the high and top-heavy salaries paid to the top tier of AILA's staff ($276,892 in compensation to Ms. Williams as per the 2011 return, up from $248,257 in 2010; no doubt about $300,000 today considering the double-digit annual raises normally received by Ms. Williams - 27% in 2010 and 11.5% for in 2011). Fourth, it documented how AILA plays a shell game with its relationship with the American Immigration Council (AIC), including the fact that AILA subsidizes AIC to the tune of roughly $600,000 annually through the direct and indirect use of national and chapter dues, with a good deal of this money going towards advocacy efforts in the name of the membership (despite the fact that the membership is never asked what the advocacy objectives, if any, should be, but more on that later as well.) There were other issues as well, but you get the idea. It was because of my probing that AILA finally published its 2011 tax return on the website, although without making a commitment to continue to do so in the future.

    The wasteful spending on BOG meetings held outside of the U.S. In September 2012 it was Montreal, while in January of this year it was Panama. Not only is there no rationale whatsoever to hold BOG meetings outside of the U.S., especially when we have this expensive headquarters building in Washington, DC, but it virtually ensures that few people will bother to attend.

    Related to this, is the fact that substantive agendas are never published sufficiently in advance of these BOG meetings, despite repeated promises by the ExCom to do so. There is no reason for members to spend time and money to attend meetings - meetings where the fix is in anyway - when they don't even know what is to be discussed.

    Eliminate or greatly reduce insider transactions, and have all future ones brought to the attention of the general membership for input before possible acceptance. The ones I have highlighted over the past few months may have been technically legal, but they sure don't pass the smell test. Perception counts. AILA has no serious conflict of interests policy as it's the same select groups of people who ever get to pass on these things.

    Related to this, the idea that AILA's General Counsel, David Leopold, is a former past President and current member of the ExCom is simply laughable. He is issuing rulings on his own past actions, which is no one's idea of a best practice. We are a group of over 12,000 attorneys, and we have to select someone from the ExCom to be General Counsel? Another failure of the "smell test".

    Nominate more than one candidate per office, and announce the individual vote totals. Although the ExCom finally agreed to announce the individual vote totals for this coming election, they again gave a hearty slap in the face to the membership by only nominating one candidate per office for the upcoming election. Again, over 12,000 members, and they can only come up with six candidates for six offices? Can you imagine if American politics operated that way? No Presidential primaries, etc. And the only reason the ExCom ever gives for the way they do things is "because that's the way it's always been done; don't question us, we know best."

    Acknowledge that advocacy has become an overriding concern of the organization, and consider ways of recognizing the views of members who feel that purely political issues such as amnesty (whether standalone or as part of CIR) should not be presented to the outside world as representing the views of all 12,000 members, nor mandatorily funded by same. Yet despite repeated and loud cries for a poll of the membership, the ExCom has adamantly refused to consider same.

    Inform the general membership when the Executive Director intends to take a medical leave for an indeterminate period of time (about six weeks, and especially during the height of the debate over CIR), rather than having to learn about it through a voicemail, and advise as to who will be filling in during that period. Last, don't lie and say that this was a request for personal medical records; there was never such a request and yet the ExCom never acknowledges same (nor has ever published my alleged request for same).

    If you were to look at the MC threads under AILA General that deal with the above topics, you would see that they total in the tens of thousands of view. And if you spent the time required to really study these issues, and read the strings from start to finish, you would see that the postings made by some of the ExCom members, especially Ms. Williams and Mr. Leopold, are non-responsive, self-contradicting, rude, and occasionally childish. It is understandable, however, because the ExCom's bluff has been called, and they are acting like kids with their hands in the cookie jar attitude. They, and some of the ardent "AILA can do no wrong" supporters, have decided that since they cannot win on the facts, they will resort to ad hominem attacks on me (and my supporters), as well as trying to detract from substantive issues while complaining about the "tone" used on the MC.

    The ExCom complaining about tone is the biggest injustice and lie of them all - and not just to me or Susan McFadden or anyone else who has dared to speak out in support of me - but to all of you, the members. Allow me to elaborate, and now you will learn about why I have been banned from the MC.

    According to the ExCom, I was banned because I disclosed personal information about Ms. Andrea Chempinski, AILA's webmaster. This absolute lie by the ExCom has been exposed for exactly what it is, their desire to keep me from becoming Treasurer. The only information disclosed was Ms. Chempinski's highly self-publicized nickname of "Hoo", something she went to great pains on the internet to exhibit, as you will soon see.

    This all began because Ms. Chempinski is AILA's webmaster ("Associate Director of Online Services": "serves as the primary technical manager for AILA's web-based information services. Maintains public and private Web sites." - From AILA's website), and she runs a continuing thread called "InfoNet Top Ten", where she tracks the number of hits on documents posted on AILA's website. Although she posts the ranking, she did not post the number of hits themselves. I thus asked her to do so via this MC post:

    "Can we please have some context to this? How about posting the number of hits after each item, so that we get an idea of the number of viewers. It would be nice to know who is viewing what. Let me rephrase; we already know Hoo knows, but we'd like to know too.
    Sorry for the "who's on first" routine, but Andrea will understand."

    I also later posted:

    "Extremely strange that my post disappeared. It wasn't me. As I said, thank you and I wouldn't have guessed the numbers would be so high for some of these. Also your photography is impressive."

    Nothing rude. Nothing which wasn't easily and publicly available, due to the online publicity posted by Ms. Chempinski herself, and nothing insulting. Not even a mention of her multiple websites, nor the fact that "Hoo" is her nickname. In fact, a polite and genuine compliment to boot. But she apparently took offense.

    But that post soon disappeared. (Not before I saved it however, as I do with many of my posts, because I correctly don't trust the AILA leadership.

    And then the emails went flying.

    [But first, here is a paragraph from one of Ms. Chempinski's self-promoting websites, and note that she mentions what she does for AILA:

    "What do Hoo's do?
    Well Hoo's can do lots of things, but currently I am a website and graphics designer. I own the design company ConceptFish which specializes in clean, classic design, so if you're looking for a designer, check it out. And in case you were wondering, yes you did read the previous paragraph correctly - I am an attorney by training. But I decided that there were enough lawyers out there and turned my website hobbies my career. (and yes I can tell you "back in the day" stories of websites that didn't even allow colored fonts or backgrounds!) Currently I am the webmaster for the American Immigration Lawyers Association during the day and a freelancer at night. Previously I spent four years managing the website for the law firm Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll. I'm always looking for that "perfect job" so if you think you've got one to offer me, please check out my resume (Adobe Acrobat file). In addition to that I'm also a professional figure skating photographer. My work has been featured in numerous magazines and newspapers, as well as used by skaters and organizations for promotional items. You can see my work at"]" [Source:]

    Document 1 (Feb. 15, 2013, email from David Leopold):

    From: David Leopold []
    Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4:09 PM
    Subject: AILA Message Board Posting

    Dear Mr. Rinzler:

    On February 6, William Stock sent you an email message explaining that a posting you had made to the Message Center Board was not appropriate for that forum because of the manner in which it disclosed personal details of an individual staff member. That message, which was sent on behalf of the AILA Executive Committee, asked that you refrain from such postings in the future. On February 14, notwithstanding Mr. Stock's earlier message, you again posted an item that disclosed the personal nickname of an AILA staff member. These unconsented personal disclosures are contrary to the spirit of the Message Center Board and to the letter of its terms of use, which clearly prohibit "offensive" posts. Please understand that any subsequent violation of the terms of use, through the making of additional offensive posts or some other action, will be grounds for suspending your Message Center Board privileges.

    Very truly yours,

    David W. Leopold
    General Counsel, American Immigration Lawyers Association

    Document 2 (Feb. 6, 2013, email from William Stock, plus email correspondence between Susan Quarles and me):

    From: William A. Stock []
    Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:14 PM
    Subject: FW: Postings to AILA Message Center


    On behalf of the ExCom, I am sending you this message to follow up on Susan's Quarles' email to you about why your messages on the "Infonet Top Ten - 2013" thread were deleted from the Message Center, and your reply to Susan. We are doing you the courtesy of replying in this format rather than publicly.

    In your posts, your decision to use Andrea's personal nickname, and stating "Your photography is impressive" relating to a personal web page that Andrea maintains, may have been intended as a joke. In that case, we want you to understand that it was not taken as such. Clearly, we understand that Andrea's nickname and skating photography are quite accessible on the Web through a Google search. Inserting the information from an AILA employee's personal web page in an unrelated professional forum, however, was understood in a different light than it might otherwise have been intended, given your past public vitriol towards members of the AILA staff and leadership, and your inappropriate public demands for personal medical information about AILA's Executive Director. [The ExCom with their standard lie. - Ken R]

    While you have a right to your opinions and, as a member of the Association, you are free to communicate with other members and seek to persuade them to your point of view, this most recent exchange crosses the line. Leaving aside your differences in opinion with you us about AILA governance, however, in this specific instance we want to be clear: While you may believe your message may seem is innocuous enough, in the context of your prior communications over an extended period of time, but it was is perceived by Andrea, the AILA staff, and ExCom that you had made a particular effort to obtain and post personal information about a member of the AILA staff that was completely unnecessary, and is both inappropriate and quite frankly disturbing in the context of your prior communications. [Again, implying that I had done something beyond the pale. - Ken R]

    Your continued attacks on AILA staff and the work they do have colored how they perceive any communication from you. We want to be clear that your searching out and including personal details of individual AILA staff members in your message center postings crosses a line. Therefore, we ask that you refrain from such postings in the future.

    William Stock

    From: Kenneth Rinzler []
    Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:36 PM
    To: Susan Quarles
    Subject: RE: Postings to AILA Message Center


    First of all, that was wit, plain and simple.

    Second, paying someone a compliment about their professional commercial skills, which they make every effort online to sell, is not inappropriate. I can Google whomever the hell I want, and she is all over the web with her multiple websites and the fact that she works for AILA and has won employee awards multiple times. In fact, she brags about it on everything from LinkedIn to you name it. So you are jumping on the wrong person. And last time I checked, AILA does not own the web.

    AILA's censorship efforts are getting ridiculous, as members are pointing out more and more.

    Last, this continuing shunning where you people only answer emails when it suits you is simply poor form. Just once you might want to contact me first when you perceive a problem, instead of doing it your way. It seems to me that AILA likes to escalate things.

    But you continue to do what you think is right, and I shall do the same.

    Kenneth Rinzler

    From: Susan Quarles []
    Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:21 PM
    Subject: Postings to AILA Message Center

    Ken - I instructed Andrea to delete two of your postings from today. You have been given wide latitude in posting highly critical comments about AILA, its leadership, Crystal and myself, but I have to draw the line at including comments to and about a staff person that has nothing to do with their job at AILA. Your post "Let me rephrase; we already know Hoo knows, but we'd like to know too. Sorry for the "who's on first" routine, but Andrea will understand." that you posted at 2:50am today and then the one this evening - "Thank you. I would never have guessed that much for many of them. And your photography is impressive." are simply inappropriate. Googling AILA staff to find out information totally unrelated to their job and then using it in a public forum, regardless of your intention, are over the line.
    Susan Quarles
    Deputy Executive Director

    Document 3 (Feb. 6, 2013, reply to William Stock's email):

    From: Kenneth Rinzler []
    Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 1:55 AM
    To: 'William A. Stock'
    Subject: RE: Postings to AILA Message Center

    Dear Bill:

    On February 1 I sent you and the other members of the ExCom an email asking for three things: 1) an update on the BOG meeting and agenda, 2) some sort of announcement as to the prolonged absence of AILA's Executive Director, and 3) an effort by the ExCom to reach out and start having a fruitful interaction with the membership. Not one of you bothered to respond.

    On February 2 colleague Susan McFadden sent the ExCom a follow-up email, reiterating my principal request and asking for a response. Again, the ExCom did not bother with the courtesy of a reply.

    Today, however, in keeping with the ExCom's practice of selective communication and the selective release of information, you send me your obnoxious email, with the strange comment that you are giving me the "courtesy of replying [privately] rather than publicly." I don't know whether to laugh or cry, whether to take it as a veiled threat or simply another example of the ExCom acting like a dictator in the bunker who doesn't realize his government is about to fall.

    Upon receiving Susan's email I forwarded our exchange to colleagues:

    "look at the websites I found in about 30 seconds' worth of effort (including where she's "looking for that perfect job", which contains the second attachment), consider my attempt at wit and my genuine (she is damn good) compliment of Andrea's photography skills which she commercially markets (possibly to a certain extent on AILA time, but that's not an issue for me) and Susan's "You have been given wide latitude in posting highly critical comments about AILA, its leadership, Crystal and myself..." as if I were being scolded by my kindergarten teacher, and form your own opinion, especially as regards AILA's increasing effort to censor what the members say.

    I'm starting to feel like Ralph Nader when General Motors had him followed for blowing the whistle on their unsafe cars. I point out all these serious problems with AILA and this is how the Deputy Executive Director (the chief operating officer according to the AILA website) responds? God forbid somebody would have picked up the phone and called me first, instead of waiting for me to discover my posts were being deleted and then to get this email. When did AILA buy the world wide web and Google for their exclusive use? Could someone please send me that press release, because I never got it? And if paying someone a sincere compliment about a skill they obviously WANT people to know about, or if using some innocuous word-play offends AILA's sensibilities, well that's just too damn bad."

    [And by the way, Bill, in case you and the rest of the ExCom are so isolated in your leadership tower that you didn't even grasp the reference to "Who's on first?", it refers to a very famous skit by Abbott and Costello. Perhaps if you watch this YouTube video (with over 9 million hits) it will enlighten you:
    (In case you're pressed for time due to your censorship duties, the fun part starts at about the one minute mark.)]

    Upon receipt of my email, one colleague immediately responded to me with the following: "Geez, if Googling people is "going over the line," then we need to dismantle the internet right away. Don't we all Google people, places, and things? Isn't that what it's for? And you are correct: if she didn't want to be found on the internet, she certainly shouldn't have created so many places to be found." Of course I couldn't agree more.

    As I've said, the compliment was sincere and it wasn't improper. It was neither rude, sexually oriented, nor otherwise inappropriate. And if it was taken otherwise, that is not my fault nor do I feel guilty about it. And while your comment about my "past public vitriol" towards AILA is correct, my attitude towards AILA is based upon the opaque and hypocritical and damaging way you and the other members of the ExCom run AILA. There, too, I make no apologies.

    I do, however, take great issue with your comment about my "inappropriate public demands for personal medical information about AILA's Executive Director". As you well know, I have not asked for private medical information; what I have asked for - as have many members of the association - is an official public announcement regarding the extended leave of its Executive Director, rather than relying upon a voicemail. And, by the way, since you seem to be so fond of criticizing my use of Google, I did find this newspaper article from when AILA appointed Crystal as its Executive Director back in October 2009:

    The article not only mentions the fact that Crystal and then President Bernie Wolfsdorf share the same October 7 birthday, but goes on to say that Crystal is a "five year survivor of breast cancer." Now it's possible that the article was completely wrong on one or both of those interesting points, and it's possible it was correct because the reporter was a psychic, but the rational inference is that those two pieces of information were accurate and that such personal health information was probably provided to the reporter by the principal involved because it served her purpose to do so. In effect, it was likely the selective disclosure of personal information by Crystal Williams herself, not some lucky coincidence by the reporter.

    Now I don't know if it's true or not, and I don't really care other than that like all decent people, I don't wish cancer on anyone. But I mention this because it is floating around on the web from what appears to be a credible source, and coupled with AILA's continued silence on her absence - which was only discovered inadvertently through a voicemail - despite repeated requests by members and the fact that normally a professional organization announces the extended absence of its high-profile chief executive, it just perpetuates AILA's practice of only selectively releasing partial information, and only when under duress. This practice didn't benefit Apple and Steve Jobs, it isn't working for Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, and it's not working for AILA and its members.

    So stop trying to make me into an evil and/or deranged person. It is not professional and frankly makes it seem like the leadership will do anything to cover up their sins, of which I have already documented a goodly number.

    Your opinion that I have "crossed a line" is just that, an opinion, and I think an ill-informed one. I did not make a "particular effort" to obtain information about Andrea; it took but a few minutes and I did it because I was curious about why AILA was censoring Matt Udall's comments on AILA's Facebook page, so I did my research like I always do. Getting AILA tax's returns and forcing AILA to post them and to own up to the insider loans, now that was a "particular effort." Writing letter after letter and post after post for hour after hour in an attempt to force AILA to become more transparent; that, too, is a particular effort. But finding Andrea's too numerous to count websites, making a joke using publicly available information and paying a sincere compliment? That was no effort at all.

    So I think it doesn't behoove the image of Crystal Williams or AILA for her to falsely accuse me of lying on the Message Center, and it doesn't do you or AILA any justice to send an email which implies that my behavior is disturbing. But you know what, Bill? It's a free country, and as I said to Susan, you continue to do what you think is right and I shall do the same.

    Kenneth Rinzler

    As I have stated many times, I - and others have agreed - find the MC rules to be overly broad, never properly adopted, and enforced selectively. That being said, unless one lives in a cave it is simply common knowledge that if you post something on the Internet about yourself, you have no expectation of privacy. As if there haven't been enough political scandals to demonstrate this ad nauseum, this is especially true for a person who prides herself on being a lawyer and a tech-savvy individual. For the ExCom to ban me over this is ludicrous, but it gets even better.

    As I have also stated in the past,

    "I think Mr. Leopold is incredibly small minded to put his name to a letter when he is subject to such an apparent conflict of interest: for as an ExCom member himself for many years now, as well as a Past President whose tenure encompassed many of the things I have exposed, for him to issue such a pompous and ill-conceived threat as General Counsel is yet but another example of the poor decision-making and laughable standards which governs AILA and its leadership. Both intelligence and common sense dictated for him to counsel the rest of the ExCom that trying to curtail my rights as a member simply because I have used publicly available information was neither wise nor helpful to an organization which is losing its credibility drip by drip, day by day. And to also drive home the point of the hypocritical "standards" being cited by Mr. Leopold, here is arguably what is his most famous MC post, which like all of his offensive posts was directed towards yours truly, and which generated a significant number of calls for him to stop being offensive. The emphasis is supplied in bold, just in case Mr. Leopold's memory is faulty, and I'd be happy to provide the MC screen shots which contain his posts:

    "Ken, as an outsider, in a small office, in a small chapter, who also happens to be AILA's immediate past president, I can tell you your assumptions about AILA politics are flat out wrong. AILA leadership is open to anyone who is willing to work hard for his or her fellow members. But more fundamentally, your statements about AILA's positions, and your consistent use of the ugly language of the fringe restrictionists, lead me to believe that perhaps it is not the AILA's advocacy you disdain, it is AILA's positions. That is your right, and it is your right as a member to express your point of view as forcefully and completely as you wish. But please don't make the unfounded assumption that you represent the majority of your peers. To the contrary, the membership is comprised of a diverse group who are passionate about what they do and the clients they represent.
    Indeed, AILA's advocacy positions are hotly debated by the Board of Governors before they are voted on. They reflect the opinion of an overwhelming majority of AILA's members. You are certainly entitled to be as angry as you wish, but your above reference to "pointless and ineffective activities" more accurately describes the antics of a serial complainer who refuses to offer a positive contribution than those who direct their energy toward making AILA the best it can be.

    To close on why I feel the fix is in...

    In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections. It is composed of six members, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. By law, no more than three Commissioners can be members of the same political party, and at least four votes are required for any official Commission action. The structure was created to encourage nonpartisan decisions.

    If only AILA oversaw its elections the same way, but it doesn't. AILA elections are controlled by the ExCom, and the fix is in.

    As if the above improprieties weren't bad enough, however, we have the special nature of this year's election. This year, one candidate and one candidate only is prevented from competing on an even playing field due to his being banned from the Message Center under a pretext. This order was issued by the ExCom, AILA's equivalent of the FEC, the people responsible to ensure a free and fair election is carried out. In the interest of brevity, let's look at just five - a majority -- of these AILA "FEC Commissioners".

    First Vice President Leslie Holman. This is the person who on February 21, 2013, sent an email to the entire Rome District Chapter (RDC) in which she falsely accused me of "taunting" Andrea Chempinski, AILA's webmaster, for using her self-promoted nickname:

    "What you said is exactly 100% the case. You can't read the posts since the information about her was removed, but he was taunting her. We never asked him to stop posting about us or even Crystal's medical leave (which I think that he did so was gross). Only a staff member who was just doing her job."

    When Leslie was contacted by Susan McFadden to let Leslie know that she (Leslie) had sent the above email to the entire RDC rather than the single recipient she had obviously meant to send it to, Leslie replied to Susan as follows (and keep in mind that Leslie was instrumental in having Susan also banned from the MC just a few days later):

    "Please know that I am very sorry. The last thing I ever wanted to do was to make things worse. I really mean that. More than anything I don't want people hurt. Anyone. It is not my nature. I promise you that."

    A classic case of where one's actions don't match the words.

    In short: Leslie Holman cannot be impartial in this election and should have played no role in it after her vote to censor the MC. By banning Susan and me from the MC, Leslie ensured that no independent candidate will be heard in the run-up to June's election, thereby continuing AILA's 'deck-stacking' policy.

    General Counsel David Leopold. This is the person who on March 3, 2013, went on the MC and alleged that Susan McFadden and I had engaged in what could only be viewed as criminal behavior towards Ms. Chempinski:

    "To allow members of our staff, particularly those whose positions do not make them public figures, to be subjected to unwanted and irrelevant public exploration of their private lives is to severely damage our ability to recruit and retain top quality personnel. We all live our lives online these days. That does not mean that that information should be [obtained] by people who don't know us and posted gratuitously to others for no legitimate institutional reason."

    In addition, he has already demonstrated an arguable conflict of interest in that he gives legal advice to the ExCom on matters in which as an ExCom member he was personally involved. This deprives AILA of what it needs: advice from an attorney who, with no need to protect himself, demonstrably has only the association's interests in mind.

    As is the case with Leslie Holman, David Leopold cannot be impartial in this election and should have played no role in it after their vote to censor the MC. By banning Susan and me from the MC, Leslie and David ensured that no independent candidate will be heard in the run-up to June's election, thereby continuing AILA's 'deck-stacking' policy.

    Executive Director Crystal Williams. Hard to know where to begin with her. From the multiple times she has posted on the MC that I make things up (to put it charitably), to her continual attempts to withhold information that the membership has a right to have, to doing her utmost to avoid the ever-increasing desire for a poll of the membership, to the fact that she planned a six week medical leave which was only officially announced to the membership right before it began and only after it was first accidentally discovered via her voicemail, to her fervent support of Ms. Chempinski in this charade, Ms. Williams has shown - in the words of that famous Groucho Marx ditty - that if I'm for it, "she's against it".

    As is the case with Leslie Holman and David Leopold, Crystal Williams cannot be impartial in this election and should have played no role in it after their vote to censor the MC. By banning Susan and me from the MC, Leslie, David and Crystal ensured that no independent candidate will be heard in the run-up to June's election, thereby continuing AILA's 'deck-stacking' policy.

    Secretary Annaluisa Padilla, my opponent in this election. As a member of the ExCom, she was also given the opportunity to vote on my being banned from the MC. As that is an obvious conflict of interest she should have recused herself from any deliberations and vote having to do with this issue, but there is no indication that she did. But of course why would she, as she procured her nomination under questionable circumstances from the very ExCom she now belongs to.

    By allowing her name to be put forward for the position of Treasurer under these circumstances, Ms. Padilla has accepted an unfair advantage in this campaign. If she has any integrity she should be the very first one to call for the reinstatement of all of the membership rights of Susan McFadden and myself so that a fair campaign can be undertaken by all.

    Treasurer William Stock. This is the person who, on February 5, 2013, sent me an email in which he calls my past criticism of AILA "public vitriol" (fair comment) but then goes on to lie and state that I demanded "personal medical information" about [Crystal Williams]:

    "Inserting the information from an AILA employee's personal web page in an unrelated professional forum, however, was understood in a different light than it might otherwise have been intended, given your past public vitriol towards members of the AILA staff and leadership, and your inappropriate public demands for personal medical information about AILA's Executive Director."

    As is the case with Leslie Holman, David Leopold and Crystal Williams, William Stock cannot be impartial in this election and should have played no role in it after their vote to censor the MC. By banning Susan and me from the MC, Leslie, David, Crystal, Annaluisa and William ensured that no independent candidate will be heard in the run-up to June's election, thereby continuing AILA's 'deck-stacking' policy.

    The above shows how a majority of the nine members of the ExCom have such a clear bias against me, to the point that they not only have banned me from the MC but have also banned Susan McFadden, who dared to speak out in my support, that it is now impossible for me to communicate effectively with the membership and to run a fair campaign. I can point out the biases of some of the other ExCom members as well, but there's no need. The ExCom will say and do anything to win. The fix is in, and the general membership has bought into it for too long. It's time to say that we are not going to stand for this treatment anymore. The best way to do that is to vote for me.

    Here is my official 100 word (auto)biographical statement:

    "Raised by a single public high school ESL teacher mom in NJ, Ken Rinzler is a Georgetown and Seton Hall Law graduate who has worked as everything from a stablehand to a county prosecutor's law clerk to a staffer for a Democratic Congressman on Capitol Hill for ten years before becoming a solo practitioner. Having been to 40 countries and counting many State Department employees as his friends, he has real life knowledge of how the Federal Government operates and the ineffectiveness of AILA within same. Ken has always believed in transparency and elections with meaningful choices on the ballot."

    And here is my first campaign statement, which was posted on the MC by a colleague but which was probably not seen by most of you:

    Rinzler for Treasurer Campaign Statement #1
    What AILA Needs

    I do not know Annaluisa Padilla, but I do not question the quality of her legal services, her substantial pro bono work, or her contributions to the community. She has won awards, served in AILA leadership positions, and presented at AILA conferences. As an immigrant herself, she brings unique personal experience to the practice of immigration law and presents to the public a positive image of which any organization would be proud.

    While the above qualities are admirable, they are not what AILA needs in its Treasurer

    As many of us know by now, AILA is ill, suffering from lack of transparency and accountability, wasteful spending, overpriced conferences, leaders that take members for granted, top staff who receive annual raises of unconscionable size, emphasis on advocacy at the expense of membership services, refusal to poll membership about AILA priorities, "insider trading" of committee appointments and other perks, and an Executive Committee that ignores bylaws at will, including stripping of membership rights of members who vocally oppose the status quo.

    The right Treasurer will cast much-needed sunlight onto AILA administration; I am the right person, at the right time, and prepared for that responsibility

    I wish to serve in this position only. Rather than rise unchallenged through the standard seven years of "elected" ranks, my exclusive purpose is to initiate transparent practices from which there can be no subsequent retreat. Although ExCom membership has, since I joined AILA in 1992, constituted a virtual lifetime appointment, I do not believe in that system or its value to the organization. And since I live in Washington, DC, I would as your elected fiscal representative frequent AILA's headquarters, scrutinize every financial record, and share findings with the membership as comprehensively as law permits. I will be fair and professional, but also as tenacious as necessary.

    Some examples of where transparency is needed:

    Annual conference. Members have the right to know the disposition of conference proceeds, including benefits provided at no charge. Although this information has been treated as "classified" to date under the thin pretense that "no one would deal with us anymore" if the truth were disclosed, I have opposed such secrecy and am determined to end it.

    Contractors: Members have a right to know what is paid to contractors from their payments for dues and services. AILA's 2011 tax return, for example, open by law to the public, shows payment of the following:

    o $405,000 to Global Village Publishing of Alexandria, VA, for "software and hosting services";
    o $197,000 to ASAP Mailing and Fulfillment Center of Sterling, VA, for "advertising services";
    o $181,000 to Tasco of Waldorf, MD, for "warehouse and fulfillment services";
    o $132,000 to The Novick Group of Rockville, MD, for "insurance".

    Members should know - and demand the right to know -- how these contractors were selected and whether AILA's contracting procedures ensure such standard protections as competitive costs of services and avoidance of conflicts of interest.

    Insider Loans: Select members and the then Executive Director were given the private opportunity to make loans to the Association at an 8% annual return for ten years. These loans were not disclosed to the membership at the time (except on the tax return as required by law), and only became truly public as a result of my research. The general membership was never allowed to participate.

    Legal Services: Conflict of interest should not be tolerated of any appointed or elected AILA representative, least of all any individual charged with legal determinations to protect the organization. For example, although currently so, it is unreasonable if not unconscionable for a General Counsel to rule on the ethics of ExCom member services while serving as a member.

    Advocacy: If members support use of their organization's resources to advocate, they should have a prominent role in identifying the outcomes to be advocated. To date, this most basic right of determination has been refused in favor of the opinions of ExCom members who have run virtually unopposed for office and elected by approximately only 25% of the membership, and staff whom the ExCom selects.

    As a campaign progresses that will challenge the status quo and current power balance, I appeal to you to think about what AILA-of-the-future needs rather than what AILA-of-the-present wants. I am your opportunity for a representative who is as fiercely dedicated as he is fiercely unbiased and unbeholden to anyone. Having spent the last few years documenting deficiencies and advocating improvements, I know what must be done and am dedicated to doing so diligently, thoroughly, and fairly, to facing down obstacles along the way, and to asking for your input and support as my efforts proceed. AILA is composed of legal professionals of high standards and must not only be held to the same high standards, but be responsive and fully accountable to its members. I am committed to that goal.

    If you have read this far, thank you.
    I ask for your vote, but whether you give it or not, I hope that you will add your voice to those who feel that AILA needs to be made a more transparent and responsive organization. The national leadership of AILA has no regard for the members; it simply sees you as a cash cow and a means to accomplish its advocacy ends. Whether they continue to govern this organization of lawyers as their personal fiefdom, punishing those who dare to speak out, is up to you.
    I have given it my best shot. And I will continue to sleep well at night, knowing that I have created a lasting record of the hypocrisy that has come to define AILA.
  2. Paul O'Dwyer's Avatar
    Your article, "Equality not yet", insisting that LGBT rights must not intrude on the possibility of immigration reform, is a disgrace. The much-discussed amendment to require immigration benefits for same-sex couples has not yet even been proposed, yet you have all behaved like giddy rats who suspect a potential sinking ship and can't get off quick enough.

    Your argument that a discussion of this issue will "embitter" and jeopardize debate on the senate floor, underscores the urgency of the need for such a debate in the first place. If indeed the topic of LGBT rights is likely to cause this reaction in the Senate (and I don't believe it will), shying away from this debate for this reason ensures that it just festers and gets worse, not better. The gains we have made over the last 20 or 30 years didn't happen because we avoided potentially "embittered" debate, but instead because we had those debates and as a result, we won them. Silence = Death. Action = Life.

    Your next argument is that unlike other groups such as F-4 visa holders, siblings of US citizens and Indian IT professionals, we will eventually get our benefits (just not now), so we should just be thankful we are gay and not computer programmers from Bombay. I think you miss the point here. Being gay is a bit more than an immigration classification, and denying immigration benefits to a whole class of people because of their sexual orientation can hardly be equated with tightening the rules for H-1 workers, or no longer allowing US citizens to sponsor their adult siblings for permanent residence.

    The last point of your argument, stuck somewhere in your patronizing and slightly weird overview of partisan politics and the American civil war, seems to be that (a) unlike you, LGBT advocates don't really understand how politics work, (which may or may not be true, but given that immigration reform seems to only happen once every thirty years, it seems we are not the only ones), and (b) we are only concerned with "equality" whereas real immigration reform (which we are standing in the way of) will relieve "tremendous, daily, unremitting, inhumane indignities" that we apparently do not suffer from. Now either you are completely unaware that same-sex partners of US citizens can be and are detained and deported from the US, which is a tremendous, daily, unremitting, inhumane indignity, or else you are aware of it but you think it's fine. Either way, you've gotten it wrong. This isn't the misery Olympics, with green cards given to the most oppressed. Recognizing same-sex relationships for immigration purposes is either right, or it's wrong. It's not a comparative analysis.

    You conclude by saying that "perhaps immigration advocates have a plan to stab the stiletto into the LGBTQQI community's back at the right moment. If so, we commend them for possessing the smarts necessary to ensure that CIR becomes an Act of Congress at long, long last."
    Whether or not this was meant ironically, or as some weird attempt at humor, it is really offensive and homophobic. Suggesting that you commend whoever "stabs a stiletto" into our backs, when so many of us in the LGBT Community have been literally stabbed, in the back and other places, is just disgusting. And your reference to "stiletto" is just as offensive. These sentiments display an underlying and slightly vicious homophobia that you would do well to address. In the meantime, you should stop posting such inflammatory and hostile essays.
  3. Kenneth Rinzler's Avatar
    Oh Ms. Pai, Why, Why, Why?

    Dear Colleague:

    For the nth time, let's see if I can try to address the misconceptions, distortions, and downright lies which emanate from Ms. Pai, using her numbering system:

    1. "Mr. Rinzler is against CIR". As I have yet to see any widespread agreement as to what CIR should or does encompass at this point, that is a meaningless statement solely designed to mislead and agitate people. I am against amnesty. But to say I am against "CIR", without defining what CIR means, is worse than useless and is certainly not part of a "thoughtful reply". Are we talking business changes instead of family, eliminating the DV lottery, STEM changes, H-1B and L-1 changes, retirement visas, what? How can I be against something which has yet to even be defined? (Now of course if we had polled the membership...)

    2. "Mr. Rinzler wants to Wikileak documents and then in the same sentence, 'by law'". Again, what a ridiculous display of ignorance. Yes, I want the membership to have greater access to documents that they are entitled to have, but Wikileaks involved - by definition - a crime, to wit, the stealing of classified documents. So using Wikileaks as an analogy here is just plain stupid. But I am used to that by now.

    3. "Mr Rinzler requested information about Crystal Williams' medical leave because of concern about her absence during CIR [but that must be false because he opposes CIR.] Taking into account my comments about CIR in point one above, my request for information centered about the Executive Director's extended absence, period, and was just highlighted by the fact that it was during the beginning of the CIR debate - a debate which AILA headquarters kept making such a big deal about.

    4. "Mr. Rinzler makes bad comments about AILA leadership." As has been explained many times, when my legitimate requests for information we are entitled to have are ignored, and when I and other members are treated poorly simply for inquiring, that's what you get in return.

    5. "Mr. Rinzler is friendly with a State Department employee". I am friendly with many State Department employees, in fact, probably with more of them than with AILA members. The last time I checked, freedom of association is allowed under the U.S. Constitution. Do we share tales of our respective experiences with immigration attorneys? Yup. Are we disappointed with the general lack of knowledge and intelligence as regards consular experience as is exhibited by people such as Ms. Pai? Yup. Nothing to hide there. In fact, I have had the rubber chicken in the State Department employee cafeteria more times than I care to count. The gift shop is cool, however.

    6. She left out 6. Add a deficiency in math to everything else. But we already saw that when she posted that World War Two ended in 1946, and it was obviously not a typo.

    7. "[Mr. Rinzler has compared amnesty to assualting your mother.]" I was talking about the definition and implemntation of the word "amnesty" when one is forgiven for crime, regardless of the crime, but we have seen how quite a few AILA members are quite careless with the standard definition of various words. See, for example, "taunting", "stalking", etc.

    8. "Mr. Rinzler has disparaged many of the vulnerable groups we work with." As with everything else, taken out of context.

    9. Possibly my personal favorite - "Mr. Rinzler has been unwittingly used by FAIR". I don't know what's more stupid: that she thinks she's beng charitable by claiming I'm being used "unwittingly", or the basic pemise that because a third party quotes me, I am being used like Jane Fonda going to Hanoi.

    10. "Mr. Rinzler thinks the MC rules are stupid" - she's got me there - and "that's why he won't stop posting personal information aout AILA staff". As I did nothing wrong, I have nothing to apologize for or promise not to do again. Again, for the nth time, posting a nickname that someone goes to great efffort to publicize is not my problem, especially when it was that staffer who made an issue of it.

    11. "Mr. Rinzler is a participant of a potential lawsuit against AILA, an organization he seeks to exercise fiduciary duty over." So now I am not allowed to be a witness in a civil case? As an officer of the court, I not only have such a duty, it is for AILA's benefit to ensure that the officers of AILA do not continue to act so erratically.

    12. "Despite #10, he's running for Treasurer." Despite Ms. Pai screaming for weeks now that there is no lawsuit, and despite the fact that as of yet I am not even an officer of AILA, so now my choice is to either give up my civil rights and legal duty to be a witness in a court case or not even run for the possbility of being elected? I think not.

    Apparently one can only support transparency or translucency.

    Me, I prefer ribbed. Say goodnight, Gracie.

  4. Ione Foster's Avatar
    Thank you for allowing me to discover you as a news source. It is excellent.
  5. Roger Algase's Avatar
    I can understand Paul O'Dwyer's frustration over the fact that marriage equality, in all likelihood, will be left out of any CIR bill with any chance of passage this year. As I indicated in my May 2 ID blogging, more emphasis on principle rather than expediency would be welcome in the CIR battle.

    However, we should remember that America is not a full democracy. The House is controlled by Republicans who won less of the total vote than the Democrats, and who owe GOP control to gerrymandered districts.

    In the Senate, Wyoming, with only half a million people, has the same clout as California and other states with many times that population. This makes the battle against both anti-gay and anti-immigrant bigotry more difficult.

    While, arguably, ID's May 1 editorial may have somewhat underestimated the importance of enacting immigration marriage equality, and its calling that issue a "poison pill" may have been overly dismissive, nothing justifies Mr. O'Dwyer's accusation that ID is "homophobic" merely for pointing out certain political realities.

    Nor is Mr. O'Dwyer's claim that if immigration marriage equality is not in CIR now, it will take another 50 years to enact it, is, to put it very mildly, a gross overreaction. Rhode Island just became the 10th state to enact same sex marriage.

    Before long, this number may increase to 20, 25, or even more satates. Justice Scalia, the High Court's leading homophobe, will not be there forever. The days of bigotry against same sex couples are numbered, no matter what happens with CIR this year.

    Those of us who are fighting against bigotry should be supporting each other, not calling each other names. Otherwise, we will be impeding and delaying our own victory over prejudice and hate in all its forms.

    Roger Algase
  6. Roger Algase's Avatar
    Correction: At the beginning of my third from last paragraph, the words "Nor is" should be deleted.

    Roger Algase
  7. Roger Algase's Avatar
    I also wish to correct the spelling of "states" in my next to last paragraph. I am sorry for the typo.

    Roger Algase
  8. Matthew A. Streff's Avatar
    Dear Editor,

    Your article on the Uniting American Families Act is, at its core, offensive. ( To believe that we should subordinate the civil rights of one oppressed group to another belies any notion of justice, fairness, or humanity.

    You mention the "tremendous, daily, unremitting, inhumane indignities" that immigrants undergo. I agree that many immigrants are effectively humiliated daily. Gay individuals experience similar degradation by existing as second-class citizens in this country. Only very recently has the gay rights movement achieved de-criminalization, and we'll hope that the specter of removal proceedings will someday be a thing of the past for law-abiding New Americans. Both gays and immigrants can experience fear, trepidation, and discrimination in the workforce. The histories of immigrants and gays are both filled with cruelty and violence. I sought a career in immigration to confront the hatred to which our communities have been subjected.

    We should be coming together to advocate both causes on the tide of the very recent political trends favoring both immigrants and gays. This is not the time to be divisive.

    Please retract this article and issue an apology.
  9. Roger Algase's Avatar
    I fully agree with Matthew A. Stref's letter, except for the first and last sentences. There is no reason to believe that either Immigration Daily or any other pro-immigrant advocates are insensitive to or do not care about gay rights or marriage equality.

    As Mr. Stef's own letter graphically points out. anti-gay bigotry is still rife in the United states, and is still the dogma (for lack of a better word) in one of America's two major parties, a party which controls one of the two Houses of Congress and is able to block any legislation it is oppose in the other through the filibuster.

    I strongly support marriage equality. As I have also stated in my latest blogging, I also think there is good reason to be concerned about how eager immigration supporters have been to cave into Republican anti-immigrant bigotry in the CIR negotiations.

    But I cannot see how either immigrants or same sex couples could benefit from an all-or-nothing approach which would almost certainly lead to a Goetterdaemerung-style ending in which both causes go down in a flaming defeat this year.

    The only people this would make happy are the right wing bigots who hate both gays and immigrants. Why should we hand them a victory? Immigration marriage equality is obviously the wave of the future in America, and perhaps the very near future, depending on how the Supreme Court rules on DOMA next month.

    It does not make any sense to put CIR at risk over this issue, and it is unfair and inaccurate to throw verbal brickbats at Immigration Daily or anyone else who points this out. We are all on the same side on both issues, and we should not let disagreements over strategy disrupt the unity of all of us who are fighting against prejudice.

    Besides, this whole issue may be moot next month. It is not at all certain that the homophobes on the Supreme Court will carry the day. Can't we at least wait until then to see what happens before beating up on each other over an issue, namely marriage equality, that all of us support?
  10. Marvin's Avatar
    Immigration is big problem world wide with all business countries. If any illegal immigrant come than government has to deport him and do all legal stuff. But if any come through a correct visa it will help a lot. Like In USA eb-5 attorneys visa is for those people who want to invest in business or want to start some new kind of business and they have enough money to run that business.
  11. Marvin's Avatar
    Immigration is big problem world wide with all business countries. If any illegal immigrant come than government has to deport him and do all legal stuff. But if any come through a correct visa it will help a lot. Like In USA eb-5 attorneys visa is for those people who want to invest in business or want to start some new kind of business and they have enough money to run that business.
  12. eb-5 attorneys's Avatar
    Immigration is big problem world wide with all business countries. If any illegal immigrant come than government has to deport him and do all legal stuff. But if any come through a correct visa it will help a lot. Like In USA eb-5 visa is for those people who want to invest in business or want to start some new kind of business and they have enough money to run that business.
  13. alikhan's Avatar
    juegos de hill climb racing Why do only so much written on this subject? Here you see more. clash of clans hack android deutsch
  14. aahad's Avatar
    I am overwhelmed by your post with such a nice topic. Usually I visit your blogs and get updated through the information you include but today’s blog would be the most appreciable. Well done! get a lot of followers on instagram | buy cheap likes review
  15. alikhan's Avatar
    buy twitter followers It's late finding this act. At least, it's a thing to be familiar with that there are such events exist. I agree with your Blog and I will be back to inspect it more in the future so please keep up your act. youtube views
  16. RamJordynn's Avatar
    It is and so wonderful in addition to resourceful. I just now appreciate this colorings in addition to the person who obtains the item from the send will likely be happy.
    Jual PC HP
  17. japan.comp234's Avatar
    buy twitter follower

    buy view youtube
  18. japan.comp234's Avatar
    This blog is so nice to me. I will keep on coming here again and again. Visit my link as well..

    buy instagram followers

    buy instagram likes
  19. Unregistered689's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by japan.comp234
    This blog is so nice to me. I will keep on coming here again and again. Visit my link as well..

    Firefly TV Box

    wintel w8
    I most likely appreciating each and every bit of it. It is an incredible site and decent impart. I need to much obliged. Great employment! You all do an incredible blog, and have some extraordinary substance. Keep doing awesome.
  20. japan.comp234's Avatar
    Wonderful article, thanks for putting this together! This is obviously one great post. Thanks for the valuable information and insights you have so provided here.
    . buy instagram followers buy instagram likes
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: