twowls

You really have to separate your fears of consequences for your own involvement from the importance of potentially protecting lives. He certainly does sound about eleven kinds of scary shady; he's treated you like something he stepped in, and you need to not worry about his well-being. Only your own, and those you might save some agony if, on the off-chance, your and your psychiatrist's hunch is correct. Breathe for a minute and think clearly about that. And anyway, you had no idea of his capabilities when you brought him over and now you'd be doing a huge service to alert authorities. Do what feels right. You're frightened of him, he's made violent threats, his behaviors could match those of an intending troublemaker on a larger scale. Act.
If he's innocent of the greatest of accusations, he won't be punished for them. If he's guilty, you will have done a major, major good thing.

It doesn't matter which city, so long as you contact the authorities very soon and tell them exactly what you've told us. It sounds like better safe than sorry is the way to go here.

Well if you had prepared a sponsorship packet, you would remember, yes? You have four or five days to get everything you can, for both your own packet and for your joint sponsor's packet. Contact your joint sponsor and see if he can find his tax returns and w-2s and anything else on the list and ship them overnight to you. You both need to print and fill out a I-134. Your joint sponsor also needs to include proof of identity--a copy of his passport bio page is fine. Get researching this right away and make sure everything that needs to be in that envelope, that you and he are able to gather, gets in there.
Your fiancee likely won't pass the interview without the sponsorship materials. I don't want you to freak out more than is necessary, but in my opinion it may be necessary to freak out a bit and turn into a one-pointed-focus, fast-moving sponsorship packet machine. Right now.

Wrong. There are plenty of people who do not have law degrees, and make a comfortable living advising and assisting people with immigration matters, and they do so legally. The only difference between them and a licensed attorney is that the attorney can legally represent a client in court.
You do NOT need a law degree to become a lawyer. You only need to pass the bar exam. Abraham Lincoln was a self-taught attorney. I was once represented by a self-taught attorney in a civil matter, and he was probably the best attorney I ever had.
Nope. A layman is just as capable of understanding the law as an attorney, and their interpretation is just as valid as any attorneys. FWIW, attorneys enter courtrooms every day, confident their interpretation of the law is correct, only to be smacked down by a judge who has a different interpretation. In many cases, understanding precedent law is just as important as being able to read and understand the law.

It should be noted that the OP has no immigration knowledge at the outset of the thread and probably little if any understanding of international travel. He's learning fast. He now realizes that "don't ask, don't tell" is not applicable because they DO ask.
His fiancee entered the USA illegally (without inspection) and is both ineligible to adjust status or obtain a spouse or fiancee visa AND is subject to a ten year ban on re-entering the USA. He can file for a waiver of that ban but there is far from any assurance that waiver will be granted. It's a lot to deal with in one day.
We have a whole separate forum dealing with waivers but essentially, to be successful, one must show a severe hardship to the US Citizen resulting from their loved one being denied the immigration benefit sought. Separation from a loved one, in and of itself is considered a "hardship" not a "severe hardship".
The OP needs to understand as well that "legal residence" and "citizenship" are entirely different animals and he will not obtain Honduran citizenship in six months. I think he was referring to filing a petition for spouse from Honduras which would require he live there six months, not that he become a citizen of Honduras.
Whether one considers it unfortunate or not, what millions people in similar situations do is simply go on with their lives as illegal aliens indefinitely in the hope some new law including some sort of amnesty will obviate the need to leave the USA indefinitely.

I think she meant that her husband and herself aren't working [out] as a couple.

I think she meant that her husband and herself aren't working [out] as a couple.

I think you're trying to change the subject.
It is a fact that contract law is not inviolate and cases of this nature go to court all the time.
The fact of the matter is that the woman was told explicitly that her pregnancy was "immoral" and that had she not gotten pregnant when she did that she would still have a job. This is blatant sex discrimination. There is no way around it.

It doesn't matter what examples you use - they are still ridiculous.
This is a married woman who got pregnant before she got married. That's hardly equivalent to having an orgy. Nor is it equivalent to your bizarre racism examples.
The fact of the matter is that this isn't a job that's high in the public eye (hence it isn't subject to the sort of scrutiny that professional athletes and politicians are subjected to).
Bottom line BY - a person can write a contract that says anything that they want, you can even sign it if you want. That doesn't mean that the terms and conditions are ironclad under employment law. I'm not even convinced that there was an explicit "no fornication" clause in the woman's contract of employment (I expect there was some very general reference to moral character) - and even if there were, there is absolutely no way that it could be legal.

The woman conceived a child before she was married. That hardly equates to the sort of criminal background checks that exist to preclude sex offenders from securing jobs working with children. Logic Fail? I'd say so.
It's one thread, BY - it's not a crusade. Don't get all hysterical.

What on earth are you smoking? I ask because you'd have to be on something to think that that makes sense.
Employers can't do anything they like, there is such a thing as employment law you know. How ridiculous you can be sometimes

Forgiveness is a fundamental principle of Christianity.

So from what I've read there was no specific morality clause in her contract, at least according to her. Also isn't asking a woman's conception date at work bordering on sexual harassment?

guess nobody in the administration, teachers, etc. has never broken a commandment ...

She ought to sue the school on the grounds that such a rule is not enforced on male teachers.
Gender discrimination. Imagine that.

I take it then, that reading abilities decrease as you post more and more?
All you said on your first sentence is incorrect. Even if I have a few posts, if I hear quacking, and it looks like a duck, my knowledge tells me we are not talking about a turkey. It's just not me that I use to base my opinion of you. All I know is what you type, which in rare occasions is reasonable, but even so, I have no bearing over your views. I call 'em like I see 'em, noob or not.
You are right, "you not too familiar" with anything Latin.
The "virtue" that these new posters you speak about have that I don't, is that they let go rather easily when dealing with someone like you. It's a shame that one man's fun is another's yawn...
Food for thought, why would I attack you because of your country of origin? Don't feel attacked, by all means don't! If you feel that I attack you for being from such a beautiful country, and because of your academic accomplishments, you PROBABLY (I don't know, don't care to find out) don't have anything else worth bragging about. You could be from Mexico for all I care and still have the same opinion about you.

What kind of person asks seemingly random questions rather than make the statement that those questions signify?

Says who?
Well, what it'll do is food that's hauled across the country more expensive than locally produced items. The consumer will likely respond choosing locally produced food over stuff that was hauled thousands of miles to reach the store near you. Less trucking of stuff and hence less fuel consumption (aside from less road congestion). Long distance hauling is done in a much more fuel efficient way on the rail anyways - I forgot the exact number but you can haul a ton of stuff several hundred miles on a single gallon of fuel. Trucks (and cars and buses) can be alternatively powered by natural gas. That ain't some futuristic stuff either - it's done all over the globe already.
Bottom line is that we depend on oil because we choose to. It's becoming ever more clear that it's the wrong choice.

Many of us had no immigration experience and many had little international travel experience before becoming engaged or married to foreigners. The question indicates such lack of experience as well as some confusion. Passports are issued by the country of citizenship and visas are affixed to passports. A K1 visa holder is more than three years from any potential of being a US Citizen or having a US passport.
Costa Rica will issue a passport BEFORE any actual application for a visa is filed but no passport is needed at the time of petition filing. The passport is not needed until after the petition is approved but getting it a comfortable amount of time in advance of the interview is a very good idea.

She can marry but not stay and adjust status. That would be fraud.
If she marries on this visit, her 19 year old will have no immigration path in the next several years.
If it is important for the 19 year old to come to the USA, the only available path is the K1 and K2 visa route and that needs to get started as soon as possible or will run out of time too. That means no marriage until after the K1 is in hand and back in the USA.

It's perfectly legal to get married in the US on a tourist visa. It's also legal to apply for a green card after marrying in the US. Planning to do both of these BEFORE entering the US is not legal. Most immigration attorneys would recommend waiting at least 60 days after arriving in order to avoid the automatic presumption of "preconceived intent". If USCIS determines she had preconceived intent to immigrate, and that she misrepresented her intent either when she obtained the visa or entered the US then her green card could be denied, and she could be found inadmissible to the US because of fraud.
There is no visa category her new husband could use to apply for her son because they weren't married before the child turned 18.
Once she gets her green card, she could petition for an F2A visa for her son. Unfortunately, F2A's are taking about 2 years from the Philippines, so he'll turn 21 before the visa is available. She'll need to file a new petition for an F2B, which is currently taking about 10 years.
A better option would be a K1. She would have to return to the Philippines to interview for the visa, but the son is eligible to get a K2 derivative visa until he's 21. However, he MUST adjust status and get a green before he's 21. The Child Status Protection Act, which is meant to protect against children aging out before their green card is issued, does NOT apply to K2's.
She must apply for AOS. Getting married doesn't automatically get her a green card. It only makes her eligible to apply for one. The chances of denial are a bit higher than if she came with a fiance or spousal visa.

You mean shooter and dominion, right?
OP, sorry about your situation. People here have recommended Marc Ellis as a good attorney, and Jim's knowledge and advice are pretty much always solid. Ellis' name on here is ellis-island if you want to send him a message. He may have a referral for someone in your area.

Could you both possibly move to Australia?

I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive, but if you are going to post all that information on the internet, you are bringing this melodrama upon yourself. That may be how you work, but you don't need to broadcast that personal information to the world. A word document with a password would have the same cathartic effect, without all the melodrama, unless the drama and attention is in fact what you are craving.

Once again, you are not going to get help from people here (which is what SOME were trying to do) if you continue with your bombastic stance.
Learn some humility, Julian. Really. You are moving to America. A lot of the men here don't do well with condescension. I have a feeling that if you don't learn to modify your behavior, some good old boy will modify it for you against a brick wall.