.jpg "Rosario Dawson Wallpaper 7")
alisa
01-03 11:34 PM
Could you point out the circular logic that I am using?
But doing circles doesn't make it any less complex...one long post or may be few more (if one had something new to say ) would be any day better than doing circles. Anyways suit yourself if you are getting a kick out of it.
Thank you.
But doing circles doesn't make it any less complex...one long post or may be few more (if one had something new to say ) would be any day better than doing circles. Anyways suit yourself if you are getting a kick out of it.
Thank you.
wallpaper Rosario Dawson Wallpaper 7
gcgreen
08-06 02:16 PM
But you see, what YOU think RollingFlood wants cannot be achieved through a lawsuit. From what I and pretty much most of us understand from the letter of the law is that it allows for earliest priority date. A lawsuit cannot change the law. Also remember that GCs in the employment based category are given based on SPONSORSHIP by an employer. So an EB3 got an earlier priority date based on a labor petition that existed at some earlier period in time when RollingFlood, I, and plenty of others decided we wanted to get a PhD instead. That was OUR choice.
Also, this is a free country. People who are really committed to get an advanced degree, can enroll in graduate school part time, which is what many people I know did. They hopped onto the GC line as EB3 and went to grad school part time. Some now have graduate degrees from places like Stanford.
Also note that the law accounts for really smart people to be unfettered by allowing for things such as EB2 National Interest Waiver and EB1 exceptional ability.
To say that just because someone was doing a PhD and therefore needs to get an earlier priority date that accounts for their graduate program is, to say the least, weird. It is mixing up the employment based system with a merit based system. In fact, one could argue a merit based system should not have any notion of priority dates whatsoever!
Also, just like you, I have no personal gain from this, one way or the other :-)
I don't think Rolling flood is debating the eligibility of 5 years experience post Bachelors for EB2. The point here is about porting which enables one to retain the priority date from the EB3 application which maybe required Bachelors + 0 years. To balance things out why not give a person who acquires a Masters or PhD a few years in terms of priority date.
Note that I have no personal gain from any of the above happening. :)
Also, this is a free country. People who are really committed to get an advanced degree, can enroll in graduate school part time, which is what many people I know did. They hopped onto the GC line as EB3 and went to grad school part time. Some now have graduate degrees from places like Stanford.
Also note that the law accounts for really smart people to be unfettered by allowing for things such as EB2 National Interest Waiver and EB1 exceptional ability.
To say that just because someone was doing a PhD and therefore needs to get an earlier priority date that accounts for their graduate program is, to say the least, weird. It is mixing up the employment based system with a merit based system. In fact, one could argue a merit based system should not have any notion of priority dates whatsoever!
Also, just like you, I have no personal gain from this, one way or the other :-)
I don't think Rolling flood is debating the eligibility of 5 years experience post Bachelors for EB2. The point here is about porting which enables one to retain the priority date from the EB3 application which maybe required Bachelors + 0 years. To balance things out why not give a person who acquires a Masters or PhD a few years in terms of priority date.
Note that I have no personal gain from any of the above happening. :)
gimme_GC2006
03-23 10:00 AM
ok..People its been more than 6 months since some adventure in my case :D
OK..today morning I got a call from a lady voice saying she is from Immigration services..
The call ended by the time I realized my senses..here is the short story
Immig: We are verifying your details and need from information to process
Me: sure.
Immig: WHo do you work for
Me: Blah Blah employer
Immig : Where do you work and who is your client
Me: Blah Blah
Immig: When did you first came to US. Where is Port of entry..
Me: blah blah
Immig: Do you have all of your IT contracts details.
Me: COntracts? Since they are property of my employer..I dont have.
Immig: We need to see your contracts with the clients..
Me: hmm...I can try but I dont know if I can get them
Immig: Well...It will help process your application..How fast we can process depends on how fast you can get those..
Me: OK..I will try..
Immig: Give me your email..I will drop in email with all info..you can reply back with copy of contracts
Me: Ok..blah..blah email
Immig: I need All phone numbers and all supervisors of all clients you worked with in US
Me: I gave all of the details..told her that I cannot vouch for the validity of phone numbers or emails, as I dont know if they work for the same company
Immig: Ok..done..I will send email..
Me: thank you
I this power play, I forgot to tell her that I already went through interview in aug08 and officer found everything correct. :confused:
Nevertheles..does anyone know what this is all about?
Why would they need this kind of information..I am not worried as such since I was never on bench or anything and have all LCAs all blah blah details.
Just curious :confused::confused:
OK..today morning I got a call from a lady voice saying she is from Immigration services..
The call ended by the time I realized my senses..here is the short story
Immig: We are verifying your details and need from information to process
Me: sure.
Immig: WHo do you work for
Me: Blah Blah employer
Immig : Where do you work and who is your client
Me: Blah Blah
Immig: When did you first came to US. Where is Port of entry..
Me: blah blah
Immig: Do you have all of your IT contracts details.
Me: COntracts? Since they are property of my employer..I dont have.
Immig: We need to see your contracts with the clients..
Me: hmm...I can try but I dont know if I can get them
Immig: Well...It will help process your application..How fast we can process depends on how fast you can get those..
Me: OK..I will try..
Immig: Give me your email..I will drop in email with all info..you can reply back with copy of contracts
Me: Ok..blah..blah email
Immig: I need All phone numbers and all supervisors of all clients you worked with in US
Me: I gave all of the details..told her that I cannot vouch for the validity of phone numbers or emails, as I dont know if they work for the same company
Immig: Ok..done..I will send email..
Me: thank you
I this power play, I forgot to tell her that I already went through interview in aug08 and officer found everything correct. :confused:
Nevertheles..does anyone know what this is all about?
Why would they need this kind of information..I am not worried as such since I was never on bench or anything and have all LCAs all blah blah details.
Just curious :confused::confused:
2011 Rosario Dawson
.jpg "Rosario Dawson Wallpaper 4")
xyzgc
12-17 04:33 PM
I'm going to give green to all the good folks on IV.
more...
nojoke
04-15 04:02 PM
Are people seriously arguing that a child will not be happier in a bigger home, everything else remaining constant? Seriously, is someone actually arguing this?
And money can't buy happiness? Really? Are you saying everything else remaining constant if I gave you money it would make you sad? Seriously? Who is this person who would be sadder if I gave him money? I would like to meet him.
You people need to stop reminiscing about your childhood days and how happy your childhood was even though you had no money. I have a feeling that your child doesn't really care. Sure, give your child lots of love, but for Christ's sake, if you can afford it, don't make him / her spend his / her childhood in a small cramped apartment just because you had to.
You are confused. Money alone cannot buy happiness. People with less money are all not sad. There is a difference between what people are saying in this forum and what you are implying that they said.
Your child will be happy in rented house too. There are advantages with renting. There are various factors other than space alone. This does not imply that your child will be sad in a bigger house. As I said you are getting too confused.
And money can't buy happiness? Really? Are you saying everything else remaining constant if I gave you money it would make you sad? Seriously? Who is this person who would be sadder if I gave him money? I would like to meet him.
You people need to stop reminiscing about your childhood days and how happy your childhood was even though you had no money. I have a feeling that your child doesn't really care. Sure, give your child lots of love, but for Christ's sake, if you can afford it, don't make him / her spend his / her childhood in a small cramped apartment just because you had to.
You are confused. Money alone cannot buy happiness. People with less money are all not sad. There is a difference between what people are saying in this forum and what you are implying that they said.
Your child will be happy in rented house too. There are advantages with renting. There are various factors other than space alone. This does not imply that your child will be sad in a bigger house. As I said you are getting too confused.
Marphad
12-30 04:20 PM
I think I agree with quite a lot of what you say. But I think there is some truth in Pakistani fears that India is already supporting anti-state actors in Pakistan, like in Balochistan.
I don't think we all want that.
I don't think even all Indians want that.
I don't think its in the interest of India, or anyone else for that matter, to have a huge Afghanistan on its Eastern border.
Well my personal opinion, I don't believe it is true. Actually Pakistan doesn't need India for all this. It is capable by itself. By sheltering Dawood and Azhar Masood what do you expect? A university of peace?
I don't think we all want that.
I don't think even all Indians want that.
I don't think its in the interest of India, or anyone else for that matter, to have a huge Afghanistan on its Eastern border.
Well my personal opinion, I don't believe it is true. Actually Pakistan doesn't need India for all this. It is capable by itself. By sheltering Dawood and Azhar Masood what do you expect? A university of peace?
more...
ohpdfeb2003
06-27 01:50 PM
nothing you have said below answers my question. In 30 years if u are paying 1500 for rent that is 540,000 that is gone. Instead if you used that money to pay the interest, you canclaim that 540,000 as a deductible. Let me say it slowly so u can understand.
540,000 of rent nets you zero in 30 years.
540,000 paid towards interest makes it a deductible. That is the difference. In the 28% tax bracket you receive an extra 5,040 a year in your tax refund. But if you are renting you receive zero. That amounts to 28% of that money u lose renting which is a whopping 151,200 in 30 years which is huge.
Again let me repeat 30 year rent of 1500/month is 540,000 down the drain. As a renter toy claim to save money while u are losing 1500/month. As an owner that 1500 goes to interet which I can get back 28% every year. You don't.
I'm not even calculating principal here.
When you rent the amount you save is the same as the principal+equity+property value of my home and savings combined. And in that case after 30 years i managed to get something back with that money you lose in rent. Even if u rent for 30 years the home you mightve wanted to buy 30 years ago at 400,000 is now 800,000. You cannot Afford to buy it anymore. And on top of that you blew 540,000 renting. I blew 540,000 on interest but guess what? I got 151,200 of that amount back in tax returns.
Why can you not see that? Your arguments do not display any financial sound to renting other than you like to throw 1500 a month away.
Looks like you dont read all the posts. Taxdeduction of mortgage interest is overrated. Everyone gets a standard deduction, not all your interest is tax dedcutible, only the difference between your interest payment and standard deduction if any( every one gets standard deduction:D).
so you thought you saved 151,200 in mortgage interest but guess what you arent even saving half of that. Renter's have the downpayment money invested elsewhere thats making more than inflation:) to cover more than the difference you saved
540,000 of rent nets you zero in 30 years.
540,000 paid towards interest makes it a deductible. That is the difference. In the 28% tax bracket you receive an extra 5,040 a year in your tax refund. But if you are renting you receive zero. That amounts to 28% of that money u lose renting which is a whopping 151,200 in 30 years which is huge.
Again let me repeat 30 year rent of 1500/month is 540,000 down the drain. As a renter toy claim to save money while u are losing 1500/month. As an owner that 1500 goes to interet which I can get back 28% every year. You don't.
I'm not even calculating principal here.
When you rent the amount you save is the same as the principal+equity+property value of my home and savings combined. And in that case after 30 years i managed to get something back with that money you lose in rent. Even if u rent for 30 years the home you mightve wanted to buy 30 years ago at 400,000 is now 800,000. You cannot Afford to buy it anymore. And on top of that you blew 540,000 renting. I blew 540,000 on interest but guess what? I got 151,200 of that amount back in tax returns.
Why can you not see that? Your arguments do not display any financial sound to renting other than you like to throw 1500 a month away.
Looks like you dont read all the posts. Taxdeduction of mortgage interest is overrated. Everyone gets a standard deduction, not all your interest is tax dedcutible, only the difference between your interest payment and standard deduction if any( every one gets standard deduction:D).
so you thought you saved 151,200 in mortgage interest but guess what you arent even saving half of that. Renter's have the downpayment money invested elsewhere thats making more than inflation:) to cover more than the difference you saved
2010 Rosario Dawson | Changr
file485
07-08 09:07 PM
I have been here 11 years. 4 different employers.
I have all my returns and W2's
why in the world would i keep every paystub?
makes no sense. of course little does.
UN thanks for the comments.
any predictions on where we are headed? my vested interest is in EB2 india...
btw why is everyone presuming that the 60,000 approvals went to India and China? EB3 ROW is retrogressed- all the extra numbers could have gone there. that would in any case be all the better for india/china in the longer term- the faster that backlog is finished, the greater the chance india/china lines will show meaningful movement.
also did you notice the cantwell-kyl compromise amendment in the failed CIR 2007 had a provision for 485 filing w/o visa numbers current?
paskal..
seriously thinking about sending an email to Oppenheim, Charles to consider moving the dates in the bulletin liberally so no visas r lost each year..before there is another debacle with the October bulletin..
maybe he is the right person to hear our misery..but not sure if they even consider our emails and tell us not to teach them what to do..
I have all my returns and W2's
why in the world would i keep every paystub?
makes no sense. of course little does.
UN thanks for the comments.
any predictions on where we are headed? my vested interest is in EB2 india...
btw why is everyone presuming that the 60,000 approvals went to India and China? EB3 ROW is retrogressed- all the extra numbers could have gone there. that would in any case be all the better for india/china in the longer term- the faster that backlog is finished, the greater the chance india/china lines will show meaningful movement.
also did you notice the cantwell-kyl compromise amendment in the failed CIR 2007 had a provision for 485 filing w/o visa numbers current?
paskal..
seriously thinking about sending an email to Oppenheim, Charles to consider moving the dates in the bulletin liberally so no visas r lost each year..before there is another debacle with the October bulletin..
maybe he is the right person to hear our misery..but not sure if they even consider our emails and tell us not to teach them what to do..
more...
sayantan76
01-11 02:20 AM
Palestine was never a country. Even historian knows that there was a kingdom of Israel & Kingdom of Judah. The kings and the timeslines when the kingdoms were destroyed are also known. Due to numerous invasions there was a great diaspora of Jews to the other parts of the world. Even Jerusalem belongs to the Jews. The Romans under Titus burned down the Jewsish temple and killed entire tribes of Jews during the Jewish revolt against Rome in AD. 70. The modern state of Israel was in fact simply returing the ancient land of Israel to the Jews. Kashmir belongs to India. Pakistan has occupied Kashmir.
I hate selective use of historical context to justify certain acts.
First - going by your logic - we should perhaps consider returning entire Europe to Italy (since it was all Roman Empire) and also returning pretty much entire West Asia and parts of South Asia to Macedonia (Remember Alexander's campaign?). Kingdoms expanded and contracted based on the power and territoial ambitions of the ruling sovereign - ancient legends should not form basis for modern map drawing.
Second - since when have religious groups started having monopoly over a piece of land?....a geographical entity belongs to the natives of that area.....the natives may follow the same of different religions....Native Jews and Native Palestinians (you may not want to believe it - but Palestinians or philistines as a distinct population group existed even before the advent of Islam) have lived in the modern Israel + Palestine since time immemorial and the land belongs to these natives.....
To blame only Palentinians for the current aggressions is not really fair......and honestly, there is no moral victory or military superiority on display here on part of Israel here either......no one wins when innocent civilians and children die
I hate selective use of historical context to justify certain acts.
First - going by your logic - we should perhaps consider returning entire Europe to Italy (since it was all Roman Empire) and also returning pretty much entire West Asia and parts of South Asia to Macedonia (Remember Alexander's campaign?). Kingdoms expanded and contracted based on the power and territoial ambitions of the ruling sovereign - ancient legends should not form basis for modern map drawing.
Second - since when have religious groups started having monopoly over a piece of land?....a geographical entity belongs to the natives of that area.....the natives may follow the same of different religions....Native Jews and Native Palestinians (you may not want to believe it - but Palestinians or philistines as a distinct population group existed even before the advent of Islam) have lived in the modern Israel + Palestine since time immemorial and the land belongs to these natives.....
To blame only Palentinians for the current aggressions is not really fair......and honestly, there is no moral victory or military superiority on display here on part of Israel here either......no one wins when innocent civilians and children die
hair Rosario Dawson Wallpaper 4
anilsal
11-12 11:59 PM
Now i remember about my Indian friend who passed through the "H1B turned GC holder" route bad mouthing about US h1 policy ( that time there was an attempt to hike the quota by some 20000 and he was deeply upset by that ).
It is not about your Indian friend alone. There are a large number of people who have got GC/Citizenship via some form of immigration (mostly family) and are bad mouthing H1B holders/quota etc. In addition, since some of them run businesses, guess which party they love. ;)
It is not about your Indian friend alone. There are a large number of people who have got GC/Citizenship via some form of immigration (mostly family) and are bad mouthing H1B holders/quota etc. In addition, since some of them run businesses, guess which party they love. ;)
more...
copsmart
09-26 07:49 PM
I am a big supporter of Obama and I really want to see him as the next president, but this message about the EB issues are really shocking to me.
Obama as promised will cut outsourcing and create more jobs here in US, which in turn will create more demand in the job market.
Moreover, I strongly believe that Obama has mentioned the EB backlog issue in one of the debates. So, we can expect some good thinks from his government.
I am not sure how much the Durbin guy is going to influence in any of his decisions?
But in general, I think the country will be in a better shape if Obama is elected as a president.
Let�s hope for the best.
BTW, don�t you guys think the Left party support the EB immigration compared to Right? Zoe Lofgren for instance.
Obama as promised will cut outsourcing and create more jobs here in US, which in turn will create more demand in the job market.
Moreover, I strongly believe that Obama has mentioned the EB backlog issue in one of the debates. So, we can expect some good thinks from his government.
I am not sure how much the Durbin guy is going to influence in any of his decisions?
But in general, I think the country will be in a better shape if Obama is elected as a president.
Let�s hope for the best.
BTW, don�t you guys think the Left party support the EB immigration compared to Right? Zoe Lofgren for instance.
hot Rosario Dawson
gcisadawg
01-03 02:20 AM
My dad was a never govt employee but I'm sad that Govt folks were so much underpaid!
When they get bribes, why bother about pay? Sorry, I've no respect for these low lifes who take bribe and make common man run from pillar to post.
When they get bribes, why bother about pay? Sorry, I've no respect for these low lifes who take bribe and make common man run from pillar to post.
more...
house Rosario Dawson Rosario Dawson
GC_Geek
08-02 10:26 AM
I read this thread ONLY to not to miss any single word from US, no wonder.. his advises are indirectly helping many others like me in getting more understanding about what we are doing..
Long live UN(even chain smoke cant distroy you ;) )
Coming to my situatation,
I came in July 2000, got job in Nov 2000. in 2002, I left for India to help my Dad who was hospitalized for Cancer. I came back in Dec'02 and have been on the payroll till today without fail.
Once when I am applying for a H4 for my spouse, the US consulate at India issued a 221(g) to give the details about "Why the employee was paid less then the LCA promised wages?" In fact the officer didnt check all of the paperwork submitted, I had shown that I used FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) to assisit my Dad. My spouse went on the next day, pulled out the same letters and my Dad's hospital bills and Doctor letters etc and shown, and got the Visa approved..
So, folks who got their payroll significantly showing the gaps, please show the real reason, if you start covering up something, you will end up in the Original poster's spouse of this thread.
Once again, thanks UN...
-Geek...
first i'll tell a brief story.
I am a chain smoker. my brother is a ph.d who researches cancer. He told me I would die one day of cancer (thanked him for that advice). I told him that you gotta die one day.
he is the only person who had this comeback. He said that is what everyone says until they are on their death bed.
now; why is this story relevant? How comfortable are you in arguing this. I remember a long time ago a person had this query; and he responded that he was on medical leave. USCIS came back and asked for verification with medical records. Others tried to get letters from their employers saying they had extended absences, etc. but employers won't give the letters because they think they will be on hook for payment of wages to you if they give such a letter.
It is not an easy thing to overcome or argue as one may think.
Long live UN(even chain smoke cant distroy you ;) )
Coming to my situatation,
I came in July 2000, got job in Nov 2000. in 2002, I left for India to help my Dad who was hospitalized for Cancer. I came back in Dec'02 and have been on the payroll till today without fail.
Once when I am applying for a H4 for my spouse, the US consulate at India issued a 221(g) to give the details about "Why the employee was paid less then the LCA promised wages?" In fact the officer didnt check all of the paperwork submitted, I had shown that I used FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) to assisit my Dad. My spouse went on the next day, pulled out the same letters and my Dad's hospital bills and Doctor letters etc and shown, and got the Visa approved..
So, folks who got their payroll significantly showing the gaps, please show the real reason, if you start covering up something, you will end up in the Original poster's spouse of this thread.
Once again, thanks UN...
-Geek...
first i'll tell a brief story.
I am a chain smoker. my brother is a ph.d who researches cancer. He told me I would die one day of cancer (thanked him for that advice). I told him that you gotta die one day.
he is the only person who had this comeback. He said that is what everyone says until they are on their death bed.
now; why is this story relevant? How comfortable are you in arguing this. I remember a long time ago a person had this query; and he responded that he was on medical leave. USCIS came back and asked for verification with medical records. Others tried to get letters from their employers saying they had extended absences, etc. but employers won't give the letters because they think they will be on hook for payment of wages to you if they give such a letter.
It is not an easy thing to overcome or argue as one may think.
tattoo Rosario Dawson sexy hot pics
NKR
07-14 09:48 AM
Eb2- I people are wrong when they think any steps taken by EB3-I are because of jealousy.
I am an EB2 I applicant and my PD became current this month. If I do not care, I wouldn�t even be checking out this thread. I understand your pain and frustration, I was stuck too for a long time in the old labor process before perm came.
EB2 I people do not think EB3 I people are jealous. I do not think Rolling Flood is from India, let alone being an EB2 I applicant. He just rolled in thinking he can open a flood gate of arguments and counter-arguments, let�s just prove him wrong.
I am an EB2 I applicant and my PD became current this month. If I do not care, I wouldn�t even be checking out this thread. I understand your pain and frustration, I was stuck too for a long time in the old labor process before perm came.
EB2 I people do not think EB3 I people are jealous. I do not think Rolling Flood is from India, let alone being an EB2 I applicant. He just rolled in thinking he can open a flood gate of arguments and counter-arguments, let�s just prove him wrong.
more...
pictures Rosario Dawson Hairstyles
pappu
07-13 11:37 AM
My thougts are, writing letter would not help, It will go to deaf ears. EB3-I status is not hidden to any one DOS/USCIS/DOL, but looks like no one is doing any thing for that.
When USCIS can interpret so many things why cant they interpert to recapture unused visa numbers ?
I guess they will find some other way to mess up.
IV already met DOS, USCIS on visa recapture during our admin fix campaign. IV even met this official mentioned in the first post this thread in the letter. There was a long conversation with this official. IV even went higher up in the hierarchy of DOS to meet officials. Visa recapture needs to be done via a bill at this time.
When USCIS can interpret so many things why cant they interpert to recapture unused visa numbers ?
I guess they will find some other way to mess up.
IV already met DOS, USCIS on visa recapture during our admin fix campaign. IV even met this official mentioned in the first post this thread in the letter. There was a long conversation with this official. IV even went higher up in the hierarchy of DOS to meet officials. Visa recapture needs to be done via a bill at this time.
dresses News About: Rosario Dawson
Macaca
10-14 11:06 AM
Getting Around Rules on Lobbying: Despite New Law, Firms Find Ways To Ply Politicians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301275.html?hpid=topnews) By Elizabeth Williamson | Washington Post Staff Writer, October 14, 2007
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
more...
makeup Rosario Dawson was born May 9,
unitednations
03-26 08:04 PM
With regards to h-1b processing; if you file an h-1b and you are silent as to the work location on the i-129 and you get an lca for your h-1b office location and then USCIS gives you an rfe for a client letter.
You get a client letter in a different location and did not have an lca for that location prior to the receipt date of the h-1b filing then USCIS will deny the h-1b saying that it wasn't approvable when filed. Therefore, because of this USCIS is essentially saying that you are only getting h-1b approval for the work location specified in the petition when it was filed. It does not include a blanket approval to work at multiple locations.
Therefore; one should always amend the h-1b for different work location. Everytime you amend; you have to pay uscis/lawyer fees and are at risk of getting rfe everytime.
With regards to greencard. You don't have to work at the location required in the labor until the greencard gets approved. Most labors state job location is "various unanticipated locations across usa". If it has this statement then you are covered and don't have to locate to the office of the company; you can work in any location.
If there is not such an annotation in the labor then to make it 100% legal you should go and work in the location covered by the labor. However, as the baltimore decision stated; you can use ac21 for a different locaiton with same employer. Therefore, if 485 is pending more then six months and greencard gets approved; you have essentially used ac21 without even knowing it.
I do know a few cases where attorney did labor in location of where persons client was located. However, if person has shifted to another location then it would be impossible to justify it legally that you will go back there when greencard gets approved because that job would no longer exist.
There are a lot of complexities involved in this. It just goes to show that on a whim; uscis can do a lot of things to make peoples lives miserable.
You get a client letter in a different location and did not have an lca for that location prior to the receipt date of the h-1b filing then USCIS will deny the h-1b saying that it wasn't approvable when filed. Therefore, because of this USCIS is essentially saying that you are only getting h-1b approval for the work location specified in the petition when it was filed. It does not include a blanket approval to work at multiple locations.
Therefore; one should always amend the h-1b for different work location. Everytime you amend; you have to pay uscis/lawyer fees and are at risk of getting rfe everytime.
With regards to greencard. You don't have to work at the location required in the labor until the greencard gets approved. Most labors state job location is "various unanticipated locations across usa". If it has this statement then you are covered and don't have to locate to the office of the company; you can work in any location.
If there is not such an annotation in the labor then to make it 100% legal you should go and work in the location covered by the labor. However, as the baltimore decision stated; you can use ac21 for a different locaiton with same employer. Therefore, if 485 is pending more then six months and greencard gets approved; you have essentially used ac21 without even knowing it.
I do know a few cases where attorney did labor in location of where persons client was located. However, if person has shifted to another location then it would be impossible to justify it legally that you will go back there when greencard gets approved because that job would no longer exist.
There are a lot of complexities involved in this. It just goes to show that on a whim; uscis can do a lot of things to make peoples lives miserable.
girlfriend Style: Rosario Dawson Gets
alterego
12-27 11:23 AM
Ofcourse its Pakistan's responsibility since we created them. But the question is, where do you go from here?
There is about twenty to twenty five years worth of infrastructure and intellectual capital built in the unofficial 'non-state' militant/jihadi circles.
So, its going to take time for this infrastructure to go away.
The challenge for Pakistan is to dismantle this infrastructure. A hostile or unfriendly India doesn't help. Ironically, it makes reliance upon this infrastructure attractive.
I think much of India understands this perspective. India is generally a very secular and tolerant country. However this is something that has been going on for many years now. The worlds patience is wearing thin. Terrorism should invoke a ZERO TOLERANCE response from all states towards "non-state actors" acting within their territories. More promises, seldom achieve anything tangible is unacceptable. Given the past track record of Pakistan on such issues, India and the world has decided to keep up the pressure this time, and not a moment too soon. Innocents get killed and harmed and unnecessary harm is inflicted on a nations psyche and internal diverse harmony with such events.
Zardari has no real power in Pakistan. The military has a mind of its own there and are not there to serve the civilian adminstration. That is the problem.
The world cannot be expected to wait for 15-20 yrs and suffer through these sorts of attacks, while Pakistan decides if they want to "dismantle their jihadi infrastructure".
The pressure will continue on Pakistan and they will have to demonstrate more action to the world. Of course war will not be good for either country, arguably worse for Pakistan, however even absent war Pakistan could end up losing if they fail to act. The country will not thrive under this pressure and economic uncertainty and isolation, the economy already on the brink will collapse and the people will face unnecessary hardships, ala North Korea. The choice is up to Pakistan. We all hope Pakistan chooses rationally.
We would all love to see a thriving, prosperous and terrorism free Pakistan, rather than one controlled by a military strong man(ala Zia Ul Haq) and begging/manipulating the sugar daddy of the day be it the USA or China at the time.
Pakistanis need to figure out what they want for their future.
There is about twenty to twenty five years worth of infrastructure and intellectual capital built in the unofficial 'non-state' militant/jihadi circles.
So, its going to take time for this infrastructure to go away.
The challenge for Pakistan is to dismantle this infrastructure. A hostile or unfriendly India doesn't help. Ironically, it makes reliance upon this infrastructure attractive.
I think much of India understands this perspective. India is generally a very secular and tolerant country. However this is something that has been going on for many years now. The worlds patience is wearing thin. Terrorism should invoke a ZERO TOLERANCE response from all states towards "non-state actors" acting within their territories. More promises, seldom achieve anything tangible is unacceptable. Given the past track record of Pakistan on such issues, India and the world has decided to keep up the pressure this time, and not a moment too soon. Innocents get killed and harmed and unnecessary harm is inflicted on a nations psyche and internal diverse harmony with such events.
Zardari has no real power in Pakistan. The military has a mind of its own there and are not there to serve the civilian adminstration. That is the problem.
The world cannot be expected to wait for 15-20 yrs and suffer through these sorts of attacks, while Pakistan decides if they want to "dismantle their jihadi infrastructure".
The pressure will continue on Pakistan and they will have to demonstrate more action to the world. Of course war will not be good for either country, arguably worse for Pakistan, however even absent war Pakistan could end up losing if they fail to act. The country will not thrive under this pressure and economic uncertainty and isolation, the economy already on the brink will collapse and the people will face unnecessary hardships, ala North Korea. The choice is up to Pakistan. We all hope Pakistan chooses rationally.
We would all love to see a thriving, prosperous and terrorism free Pakistan, rather than one controlled by a military strong man(ala Zia Ul Haq) and begging/manipulating the sugar daddy of the day be it the USA or China at the time.
Pakistanis need to figure out what they want for their future.
hairstyles Rosario Dawson
krishnam70
08-14 11:32 AM
Hi UN,
Sorry to post here. I have posted in some other thread but no response.
I just got my FP notice for Aug 23rd for myself,spouse and 8yrs old son.My wife and son is in India, we cancelled our trip back in May for my 485.We waited till we got our receipts,they went to India for some important work.At this point they cann't make it by Aug 23rd. They both have valid H4 I797 with them.
Can you please advice, what is the best procedure to follow here.
1. Can I take my FP and request to postpone of my wife & son ?
2. Postpone for all three members, and request for a later date ?
3. Can we go after Sep3rd with the old receipts dated for Aug 23rd 2007?
Thanks In Advance,
kSR
There is another thread in this section that somebody posted that has the answers. You can take the Fp and request re-scheduling for your family giving the travel iternary copy and date(s) when they would be available
Sorry to post here. I have posted in some other thread but no response.
I just got my FP notice for Aug 23rd for myself,spouse and 8yrs old son.My wife and son is in India, we cancelled our trip back in May for my 485.We waited till we got our receipts,they went to India for some important work.At this point they cann't make it by Aug 23rd. They both have valid H4 I797 with them.
Can you please advice, what is the best procedure to follow here.
1. Can I take my FP and request to postpone of my wife & son ?
2. Postpone for all three members, and request for a later date ?
3. Can we go after Sep3rd with the old receipts dated for Aug 23rd 2007?
Thanks In Advance,
kSR
There is another thread in this section that somebody posted that has the answers. You can take the Fp and request re-scheduling for your family giving the travel iternary copy and date(s) when they would be available
xyzgc
12-26 01:04 PM
India is already at war with the terrorist state of Pakistan! Just that we never realize it and try to talk about peace all the time...you can see what Pakis have done to curb terrorism! Are the peace talks working? Did they ever work?
Mark my words, there are going to many more attacks in the future, disrupting Indian business and economy...killing innocent civilians...is that anything short of a war?
If India leaders don't take any concrete steps to put a lid on this, they are the greatest fools on this planet.
Mark my words, there are going to many more attacks in the future, disrupting Indian business and economy...killing innocent civilians...is that anything short of a war?
If India leaders don't take any concrete steps to put a lid on this, they are the greatest fools on this planet.
gcisadawg
01-07 04:39 PM
Yes Nanavati commission found Madresa in Godhra was responsible!
Congress Spokesman on Nanavati Commission
“We are not surprised at all the findings. It cannot be called a bonafide investigation. The way the committee was set up, its tenure was extended, large numbers of witness, deposed expressed their disappointment it creates ample doubts on its findings,” said Shingvi.
BJP Spokesman on U.C Banerjee Commission.
“It has now been proved that the truth has come out. Banerjee had rushed to its findings without taking into account other facts. It was ill-prepared and ill-conceived. UPA has even tried to prove that the burning of Sabarmati coaches were indeed an act of mass self-immolation by the karsevaks. Lalu Prasad yadav had also tried to prove it as accidental.”
“However, these findings has vindicated that it was not accidental. We now request any further proceedings should now be taken taking Nanavati Commission’s findings into account,” said Prakash Javedkar.
Meanwhile, The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted time till December 31 to the R K Raghavan Committee to complete the probe into the Godhra train burning incident.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/26godhra.htm
The bottom line: We have all kinds of report. Nobody knows which is closer to the truth. What would a common man do?
Congress Spokesman on Nanavati Commission
“We are not surprised at all the findings. It cannot be called a bonafide investigation. The way the committee was set up, its tenure was extended, large numbers of witness, deposed expressed their disappointment it creates ample doubts on its findings,” said Shingvi.
BJP Spokesman on U.C Banerjee Commission.
“It has now been proved that the truth has come out. Banerjee had rushed to its findings without taking into account other facts. It was ill-prepared and ill-conceived. UPA has even tried to prove that the burning of Sabarmati coaches were indeed an act of mass self-immolation by the karsevaks. Lalu Prasad yadav had also tried to prove it as accidental.”
“However, these findings has vindicated that it was not accidental. We now request any further proceedings should now be taken taking Nanavati Commission’s findings into account,” said Prakash Javedkar.
Meanwhile, The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted time till December 31 to the R K Raghavan Committee to complete the probe into the Godhra train burning incident.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/26godhra.htm
The bottom line: We have all kinds of report. Nobody knows which is closer to the truth. What would a common man do?
No comments:
Post a Comment