Who is `Liz?' A number of
State and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Have Been Asking and are About to
Find Out of they havent Already!
`Liz' is an alias adopted and used here by Susan B. Henner, an immigration
lawyer in White Plains, New York. Given her checkered
reputation, both among her colleagues, former associates, and a number of
prospective associates (see: usacomplaints.com news article by a female from
Yugoslavia who wrote Henner up in July), Henner prefers to use the alias
so as to avoid the (`oh well, if its coming from her, so its got to be another
one of her scams, stories, or both' type of reaction from those who know her
best, thus discounting the substance of the latest story or scam she fabricates
and seeks to peddle here and elsewhere as gospel.
According to a previous Henner associate who could barely contain themselves
when advised of Henner's choice of aliases, we were advised that `Liz' was a
popular term around the office and had many meanings. Henner employed it to
mean anything from `lies' when describing a fabricated story emanating from her
clients, scenarios which she offered as the basis for relief in the U.S., or with the twist of a
sexual innuendo in the context of female clients whom she generically referred
to as `Liz (s).'
Who is Susan Henner? Biographic content on any number of her web sites changes,
not unlike her stories have a habit of changing depending upon her objectives
and target audience. Who she purports to be and the credentials she invokes
are, like the story she peddles here about pards.org radically inconsistent
with at least one (1) state attorney licensing entity and documentable (by she
herself and her associates and disseminated to PARDS in writing) historical
fact.in the context of Henner one is presented with and left to ponder the age
old chicken and egg question, did she become an accomplished liar prior to
becoming an attorney, or was it an skill/license she picked up following
admission to practice in one (1) state of the two (2) in which she has not yet
been suspended from practice (in spite of what she advertises on her web
sites).
What is PARDS.org? A private, fee for service, research agency founded in 1993.
The agency's mandate has been/remains: Objectively and authoritatively discern
and document the meritorious nature of asylum, withholding of removal,
Convention Against Torture (CAT), VAWA, NACARA, Cancellation of Removal, and
other types of U.S. Based immigration claims. Our methodology: Objective,
internationally known and respected, country-specific experts with
claim-relevant expertise. The agency conducts diligent searches for proposed
experts and our clients are provided opportunity to thoroughly vet them through
a three (3) party, three (3) phase, mandatory agency sponsored introductory
conference call, prior to hiring and soliciting their assistance.
Agency fees are calculated on the basis of the services sought and how little
time we are given to perform. We require (1) A complete written assistance
request cover letter, (2) Complete copy of all claim documents, and (3) Payment
in full of the applicable service-specific, deadline-sensitive agency fee.
Which ever comes last, we begin counting from that business day forward, up to,
and including the performance deadline specified in the complete written
assistance request cover letter. Expert fees, where charged, and related travel
expenses are additional.
In the context of the instant case, the third submitted to the agency in the
past few years by Henner, she specified: Country expert for Colombia with
claim-relevant expertise regarding the issue of conscription generally,
government's attitude toward and treatment of Colombian males who fail, either
to register, and/or serve in the military, and the anti-government guerrilla insurgent's
attitude toward and treatment of those Colombian males who, either register for
conscription, and/or actually go on to serve in the Colombian military. Henner
was seeking a written, claim-specific critique in the form of an affidavit to
support a `Motion to Reopen and Reconsider' which she intended to file with the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Henner then provided a specific performance
deadline which she subsequently felt free to unilaterally change, not merely
once, but twice.
Among the documents received from Henner was EOIR Form 27, `Notice of Entry of
Appearance as Attorney or Representative Before the Board of Immigration
Appeals' in the matter of Colombian male petitioner at issue and dated November
16 (Thursday) which she subsequently filed with the U.S. Government, some
ten (10) months prior to contacting PARDS in the context of her Colombian
client and two (2) years (approximately October) after contacting the
agency in the context of an Ethiopian female client.
Knowing from past experience that a petitioner presenting a meritorious claim
was more likely than not to benefit from assistance from an internationally
known and respected country expert, both to discern and document petitioner
credibility and claim merit plausibility, ten (10) months subsequent to signing
on as the attorney for the Colombian male petitioner, Henner finally contacted
PARDS.org again, this time for assistance on behalf of her Colombian client via
email on September 8 (Friday). One is left to ponder why Henner
squandered ten (10) months before seeking out a country expert unless, and as
coincidence would have it, the claim was actually fraudulent and would be
condemned as such by an self respective Colombianist.
It should be noted that Henner's filing deadline for the `Motion to Reopen and
Reconsider' to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) started during the month
of August. However, without explanation, or justification, Henner sat on
the case for fifteen (15) days prior to contacting PARDS. Again, if one has
reason to believe that the news they are going to end up with is bad news, why
not put it off until the eleventh hour to learn it. And that's precisely what
Henner did and received.
We responded by providing Henner fair notice of the agency's requirements,
policies, and procedures again, both in writing, and a series of detailed,
follow-up calls, just as we had done previously in the context of other cases.
Specific reference to and emphasis was made regarding the issue of `fraud.'
There is NO REFUND available where fraud is uncovered.in the context of fraud,
the Colombianist whose credentials we provided Henner and which she both
acknowledged receipt of and accepted him as such without reservations (complete
with their office and home phone and fax numbers, business, residential, and
email addresses), found the claim to lack merit and predicated that conclusion
based upon the real life experiences of two (2) Colombian national sons.
Henner's written assistance request dated September
14 (Tuesday) was a withheld from PARDS until the following day, September 15 (Wednesday), more than fifteen (15) days
subsequent to the start of the clock on her filing deadline with the BIA.
It should also be noted that Henner's compliance with agency policy and
conveyance of the agency's second require item, complete copy of all claim
documents, was not satisfied until September 24 (Friday), less than one
(1) business day prior to the first deadline she imposed.
It should also be noted that Henner failed to pay the applicable
service-specific, deadline sensitive agency fee in full: Expert Affidavit per
1 business day performance deadline.
In an email received from Henner she claimed her filing deadline with the BIA
was September 30 (Thursday) and
therefore, the expert's affidavit was needed by September
25 (Saturday). Henner subsequently moved the deadline back to
September 27 (Monday) and then September 28 (Tuesday), and then back to
September 25 (Saturday). However, under oath in a NJ court, Henner claimed she
does not work on Saturdays.
Under oath in a NJ court room, Henner claimed she needed the expert's affidavit
in order to prepare a legal brief on the case.in fact, it was the expert's
opinion that she needed. Had the claim been meritorious, the agency expert was
prepared to spend the few hours it would have required to prepare and convey
one to her via pdf attachment to an email, and a hard copy via FedEx for her
receipt prior to submission of any `Motion to Reopen and Reconsider.'
For days, but without success, the agency had tried to engage Henner in the
mandatory agency sponsored introductory conference call with the Colombianist
we found, in point of fact, the country's foremost expert on Colombia whose
whose two (2) son's in-country experiences failed to generate any personal
security concerns, let alone rise to the level of persecution, torture, or
death argued by Henner and her client. Following receipt of the negative claim
merit assessment offered by the country expert, she refused to communicate with
them. To learn from the nation's leading Colombianist that the claim, not
merely lacked merit and failed to rise, let alone exceed, the applicable
minimum legal standards, but was fraudulent, any decision to proceed with the
aforementioned `Motion' based upon the rationale presented to and condemned by
an individual Henner knew to have been regularly consulted by the U.S.
Government as an expert, would constitute a fraud, both on the part of her
client, and herself as his attorney with privileges to practice before the
Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) and Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA).
Already benched from legally practicing law in the State of New Jersey several years ago, only
license left being that of New York, Henner put the one
remaining license she had on the line for sake of a buck.
Subsequently, under oath, in a New Jersey court room, Henner
argued that her client brought her cash money to pay the agency for its expert
search.
Under oath, in a New Jersey court room, Henner argued that, following receipt
of her client's loot, she wrote a check made payable to PARDS for said search.
Under oath, in a New Jersey court room, Henner
argued that PARDS failed to produce an expert.
Under oath, in a New Jersey court room, Henner
argued that PARDS stole her client's money.
Under oath, in a New Jersey court room, Henner
argued that she didn't drive down out of New York to go home empty handed.
Under oath, in a New Jersey court room, Henner claimed never to have agreed to
any agency policy or procedure, and that they meant nothing to her, in spite of
the fact that she had been provide them in writing, not merely in the context
of one, but previous cases.
Under oath, in a New Jersey court room, Henner
produced a six (6) page email exhibit consisting of only a few of the total
emails and documents which we exchanged in the context of the Colombian case.
Following examination of the six (6) page email exhibit I identified altered
content where Henner had obscured references to multiple Word Document
attachments which contained the agency's policies and procedures, including its
fraud policy and refund consequences, and withheld said attachments from the
judge. After being confronted with the anomalous alterations, Henner yelled in
protest, `But Your Honor, I'm an officer of the Court' (extreme emphasis
added).
But while under oath, Henner withheld from the judge and record the fact that
she was then, and had been for years, on the New Jersey State attorney
`ineligibility' (SUSPENSION) List' with intent to disbar her in September
for cause. So I volunteered the information in light of her silence on the
subject.
This point is significant in that:
(1) Henner added $500.00 attorney's fee to the judgement which she sought for
her presence and acting on behalf of her client.
(2) After advising the judge that Henner was then and had for several year been
on the State's suspension list, she was thus practicing law in the State of New Jersey illegally. After Henner
invoked her being an `officer of the court' to explain away any possibility of
her lying or committing a fraud against the courts (imagine that, an attorney
whose ethical standards prevents their deviation from the truth), the judge
offered her legal advice and instructed her `Don't say that!!!).
(3) Henner advertises her admission in New Jersey and ability to represent
clients in New Jersey court rooms, the latter of which she added in the months
following her being caught practicing law illegally in January in a New
Jersey court room.
Moreover, Henner advised that this Colombian national had entered the U.S. As a minor without
inspection, while accompanying his two then majority parents.
Henner advised that while in Florida, her client's parents hired an attorney
who agreed to misrepresent their date of last entry into the U.S. (but by only
a few years) in order to make it appear that they were eligible for asylum (365
filing deadline from the date of last entry into the U.S.). Both adults were
granted asylum based upon that fraud.
When asked if she had reported their fraud to the immigration court she said
hell no! They're paying my fees to represent their son, so why would I report
them?
Henner's current Colombian client was not of majority age when his parents
filed the claim with the help of Henner's Florida based colleague, but by the
time the case was adjudicated, he was considered an adult and would thus have
to file a separate claim in his own name (with the help of Henner's imagination
about country conditions as she insisted an expert claim them to be, rather
than the way they actually are).
Henner doesn't like being told to go to hell and has less respect for those
like PARDS and its experts who are unwilling to bend their opinions in favor of
her clients under the weight of her checks.
Henner's mouth sounds like a toilet and her ethical standards smell no better!
Her capacity and inclination to lie, under oath, boat about it in writing, and
ethical relativism are incompatible with the ethical and professional standards
of my agency. We hold those who seek to benefit from PARDS to an elevated
professional and ethical standard. Some of those who failed to satisfy those
standards are including on the PARDS Attorney Do Not Call, Will Not Assist
List. Following receipt of written notice from Henner about the fraud she
and her Colombian client were attempting to pull and his parents already had,
and her failure to follow agency policies and procedures, we added her ass to
the list.
PARDS fraud policy remains unamended and in effect. If you attempt to commit a
fraud against this agency, its experts, its associates, your client's, or the
U.S. Government, you waive your right to a refund and you will be reported to
the attorney licensing agencies in the states in which you practice, as well as
to the U.S. Governmental agencies before whom you practice.
In the case of Henner, she filed a false complaint with a NJ law enforcement
officer, false swearing, practicing law while on the NJ State Lawyer's
suspended list, fraudulent concealment, multiple counts of perjury, fraud
against the EOIR, and BIA. Henner attempted to involve this agency and its
expert in fraud.
Henner is now free peddle her fabricated claims and commit perjury to any
adjudicator gullible enough to buy them, on behalf of the fools who sought her
assistance, and with the help of any expert she can find not encumbered by the
ethical standards of my agency.
As for her false swearing, fraudulent concealment, perjury in the NJ court
room, practicing law in NJ while suspended, fraud against the U.S. Government,
you're about to be neutered by any number of state and federal governmental
agencies.
A Couple of Footnotes Regarding
her Specific Assertions
(1) The fee was not $2,500. Regarding that which
Henner send, the figure is inflated. Regarding that she she owes the agency,
she's guilty of an understatement.
(2) Henner produce a fraudulent claim, accepted
the agency expert's credentials without reservations, but refused to file an
affidavit from said expert who would condemned her client's claim due to the
absence of merit. Henner failed to produce a meritorious claim. She refused to
communicate with the expert. On the date and at the hour we had agreed to
conference with the expert she allegedly locked herself out of her apartment.
Before that, she took Thursday and Friday off work... Something to do with all
of those long lines at the BANK and Tifany's.
(3) We don't provide legal advice. As stated on
the web site, we are a supplement to, not a substitute for a competent,
ethical, and diligent immigration attorney. And we don't act as attorneys in
court rooms of those states in which we are not licensed to practice, Henner
has that monopoly. So Henner lied on this point also.
(4) `Government Conspiracies?' That's a lie also.
But we're willing to discuss the one's she's involved in against the EOIR and
BIA with additional federal law enforcement officers who want to listen,
know more, and review the litany of documentation which Henner was so gracious
and thoughtful to provide us.
(5) Malign government Attorneys? Not quite. So
long as any U.S. Government employee feeds at the public trough their
activities are subject to public scrutiny. Those who violate a petitioner's
rights, the law, or ethical standards imposed by their agency employer, they're
vulnerable, just like Henner, to being called upon the carpet for it and when
presented with objective, independently verifiable, and empirically based proof
evidencing it, I guarantee we will see to it that it is exposed.
(6) We don't and nave have referred to anyone as a
`bad attorney.' Henner fabricated the phrase. Are there attorneys whom we will
not assist? Hell yea and Henner's one of them. One has to make a concerted
effort to end up on the `Do Not Call, Will Not Assist List.' This is a
private research agency with ethical and professional standards which Henner
failed to measure up to. Service is limited to petitioners presenting
meritorious claims and ethical and professional attorneys who represent them.
(7) `Judges who decide against his cases are also
listed there.' Judges who deny meritorious claims, deny relief, order
petitioner's deported who are then torture, or killed deserve credit for the
fruits of their `good work' while on the bench, not unlike Henner's good work
in the context of the instant case and her deceptive advertising regarding
where she alleges to be licensed to practice.
(8) Can not call me because I will not pick up the
phone? My agency offers and provides service 24/7 and have since the early
1990s, just like it says on each of our emails to Henner. So she lied on this
point also. Henner takes Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays off. When she has a male
Colombian national with a filing deadline to the BIA, she takes the preceding
Thursdays off also and will tell you, as she did me, I'm not working on
weekends, and as she testified under oath in a NJ courtroom, `we don't work on
Saturdays' and `I have kids to take care of.'
(9) Not accept mail at a P.O. Box unless you call
in advance. Wouldn't you want the intended recipient of highly confidential
bearer-specific claim documents and payments to know you're sending something
so that they can advise in a timely manner, if they didn't receive it? What
responsible person would not?
(10) Closed a back account? For better interest
rates and lower banking fees elsewhere.
(11) Don't use my agency? We're over worked as it
is. One client engaged in fraud, is one too many. So Henner and her clients
have always been free to look elsewhere. We have ethical and professional
standards. If anyone harboring ambitions of using this agency do not, contact
some else.
See: http://usacomplaints.com/attorneys-legal-services/susan-henner-attorne/susan-henner-attorney-at-law-35a66.htm
0 comments