Joey Foley
June 23rd, 2005, 04:05 PM
I checked out the latest in your gallery here, looks great! :)
Thanks, I had to deal with a lot of rain and REALLY foggy lenses.
Thanks, I had to deal with a lot of rain and REALLY foggy lenses.
wallpaper Kristen Stewart as Joan Jett,
techbuyer77
07-09 06:44 PM
I am the principal beneficiary and my husband is my derivative, however he got his fp (On july 12) and I haven't received mine!
Should I go with him and try to get fp? I am afraid they wont let me do it, because I only have the case #'s from the back of the checks, i dont have receipts yet!
The only thing we got so far is hi fp notice
Very weird the way uscis works
Should I go with him and try to get fp? I am afraid they wont let me do it, because I only have the case #'s from the back of the checks, i dont have receipts yet!
The only thing we got so far is hi fp notice
Very weird the way uscis works
patiently_waiting
04-16 05:42 AM
Hi.
My Wife is currently in H4 Visa and in US now. She has total of 11 years IT experience. She lastly worked with a Company X from May 2004 to May 2008 for about 4 years. Currently she is not an employee of Company X and also not working anywhere.
If the same Company X gives an US offer, Is it possible for the Company X to file L1 visa for her so that she can start working for that company immediately ? ( I have read in immigration forums that the L1 Visa Eligibility is that the person should have worked for that company for atleast 1 year within the last 3 years)
Experts, Can you pls give your opinion and suggestion on this ? If so, how long the process takes place for transfering from H4 to L1 visa ?
Thanks alot.
My Wife is currently in H4 Visa and in US now. She has total of 11 years IT experience. She lastly worked with a Company X from May 2004 to May 2008 for about 4 years. Currently she is not an employee of Company X and also not working anywhere.
If the same Company X gives an US offer, Is it possible for the Company X to file L1 visa for her so that she can start working for that company immediately ? ( I have read in immigration forums that the L1 Visa Eligibility is that the person should have worked for that company for atleast 1 year within the last 3 years)
Experts, Can you pls give your opinion and suggestion on this ? If so, how long the process takes place for transfering from H4 to L1 visa ?
Thanks alot.
2011 Also coming up for Kristen is
vishu_gupta
02-07 08:52 PM
Hi,
I have a question regarding dependants. I have a L1A Visa. I am going on a long trip to UK next month. Can my dependants stay back for 2 -3 months before joining me in UK. Their L 2 Visa and I 94 are valid till Feb 2009.
Thanks in advance,
Vishal
I have a question regarding dependants. I have a L1A Visa. I am going on a long trip to UK next month. Can my dependants stay back for 2 -3 months before joining me in UK. Their L 2 Visa and I 94 are valid till Feb 2009.
Thanks in advance,
Vishal
more...
Photogenius
04-16 11:52 AM
ITs good, but the image of the person is a bit blurry
Steven-T
February 25th, 2004, 01:52 PM
It's just down the road. Does anyone think they'll give me a tour (on assignment from DPhoto.us) and allow me to photograph the joint with a 1D and 1Ds...
:-)
Rob
I think this is just the assembly plant. Is most of the parts from Taiwan?
I can offer an even exchange of my F2AS and F5 with your 1D and 1Ds. Someone is talking.
Steven
:-)
Rob
I think this is just the assembly plant. Is most of the parts from Taiwan?
I can offer an even exchange of my F2AS and F5 with your 1D and 1Ds. Someone is talking.
Steven
more...
pd052009
04-04 10:13 AM
Countdown: 27 More days to go (Incl. today)
Required Yes Votes : 5000
Read from the below link for more details
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/2243885-post2.html (Support Thread for "I485 filing w/o Curr. PD" initiative)
Required Yes Votes : 5000
Read from the below link for more details
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/2243885-post2.html (Support Thread for "I485 filing w/o Curr. PD" initiative)
2010 Kristen Stewart Goes Jett
wayne3alford
07-30 07:21 AM
There should be some action taken!!!!!!!
more...
Lucky7
01-05 06:32 AM
I talked to my attorney yesterday about converting my April 2001 TR (EB3 India) to RIR regarding the "hold Harmless" rule and he told me that AILA is going to get more info on the 10th next week regarding more info and would it be safe to convert or not.
The thing holding him back right now is the fact that some of his other DBEC LC clients sent e-mail request 2 weeks ago and have still not received anything back about Prevailing wage or any ammendments.Once you send the e-mail your case is RIR only and all paper work has to be sent by April 01 or your case is closed.Now say you send for RIR conversion 15th January and it takes DBEC 1 month to get back to you and that leaves a very tight window to get all Recruitment report together by April 01.
I will post next week after the 12th and see what he says.
As far as the September 2007 date he told me that AILA has allready found out that both DBEC and PBEC have got an extension and funding till Febraury 2008 but do not want to annonunce because the pressure all people who are stuck writing to their Senators and Congress.
The thing holding him back right now is the fact that some of his other DBEC LC clients sent e-mail request 2 weeks ago and have still not received anything back about Prevailing wage or any ammendments.Once you send the e-mail your case is RIR only and all paper work has to be sent by April 01 or your case is closed.Now say you send for RIR conversion 15th January and it takes DBEC 1 month to get back to you and that leaves a very tight window to get all Recruitment report together by April 01.
I will post next week after the 12th and see what he says.
As far as the September 2007 date he told me that AILA has allready found out that both DBEC and PBEC have got an extension and funding till Febraury 2008 but do not want to annonunce because the pressure all people who are stuck writing to their Senators and Congress.
hair Kristen Stewart as Joan Jett
tabletpc
09-03 03:19 PM
H1b from non-cap to cap cannot be transfered. In order for you to work in private companies, you need to get new H1b by filing in on april 1 st 2009 which will ahve start date of oct 2009. Untill then you are stuck ..!!!
However you can transfer your present H1b to another non-profit h1b. I know the rules sucks..I ahve been in your place and got H1b this time. Can't wait to to get freedom on oct 1st.
However you can transfer your present H1b to another non-profit h1b. I know the rules sucks..I ahve been in your place and got H1b this time. Can't wait to to get freedom on oct 1st.
more...
san3297
06-19 09:36 AM
HI All,
I currently work for a desi consulting company and applied for H1B Extension.I applied H1B Extension with Current Client Letter and also a copy of PO.But my contract may end in a month or so.I am near to finalising a new contract oppurtunity which if seleted needed to join immediately.Now if i change the job does it effect my pending H1B extension.
I am not changing my consulting company who holds visa i am only changing client.As i already submitted client letter and PO i am kind of nervous if i get RFE regarding the current client, which i may not be able to answer it.Waiting for your valuable feedback.
I currently work for a desi consulting company and applied for H1B Extension.I applied H1B Extension with Current Client Letter and also a copy of PO.But my contract may end in a month or so.I am near to finalising a new contract oppurtunity which if seleted needed to join immediately.Now if i change the job does it effect my pending H1B extension.
I am not changing my consulting company who holds visa i am only changing client.As i already submitted client letter and PO i am kind of nervous if i get RFE regarding the current client, which i may not be able to answer it.Waiting for your valuable feedback.
hot Joan Jett in quot;The Runaways
Macaca
09-06 05:22 PM
Leaders Look to Protect Freshmen (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_22/news/19853-1.html) By Jennifer Yachnin | ROLL CALL STAFF, September 6, 2007 Thursday
In an attempt to dissuade the Republican minority from offering contentious procedural amendments tied to the hot-button issues such as immigration, Democratic leaders are discussing how to give their lawmakers a vote that would inoculate them against such pressure in the future.
The discussion comes as a new House select committee prepares to investigate an Aug. 2 vote that Republican leaders allege the Democratic majority mishandled, resulting in the defeat of a GOP-authored procedural measure that would have amended the fiscal 2008 Agriculture spending bill by prohibiting illegal immigrants from accessing certain federally funded programs.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he has discussed the issue with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), and leadership staff from both offices are working on a proposal.
"I'm particularly concerned that these motions to recommit are tinged with a bit of ... let's just say this whole issue of immigration, it's too serious an issue for us to ... have it used as a wedge issue," Clyburn said, and later added: "We ought not be using this very serious issue in this way."
Neither Clyburn nor Hoyer would provide details for any potential proposal, including whether the measure would be new law or a nonbinding resolution.
"We're talking about a lot of options and I don't want to prejudge what options we're going to choose," Hoyer said.
The Maryland lawmaker added that because the Republican amendment at the heart of the August incident would have restated existing law - a point the GOP refutes - Democrats could opt to ask the executive branch to enforce statutes already on the books.
"We may just reiterate the law," Hoyer said. Democrats also have pre-emptively discussed expanding the new effort to other hot-button legislative areas targeted by the GOP.
One Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said the plan has been presented to some Members as a blanket measure that would prohibit the use of taxpayer-funded programs, such as food stamps, by immigrants in the country illegally.
"The idea is to reject them out of hand because they'll be clearly redundant," the Democrat said. "They'll come up with some other ridiculous avenue to use, but hopefully this takes that off the table."
But House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) spokesman Brian Kennedy immediately dismissed the Democrats' new plan, saying, "It's certainly a very clear indication of just how effective Republicans have been in using the motion to recommit to affect legislation."
The procedural motion is one of the few options available to the minority party that allows it to offer legislative alternatives when a bill reaches the House floor, and it is used immediately before a final vote on legislation takes place.
During the first half of the 110th Congress, the Republican minority has offered numerous motions - winning on 11 to date - that present difficult political decisions for Democrats, particularly the large number of freshman lawmakers in competitive districts.
The National Republican Congressional Committee also targeted five Democratic freshmen in their districts Wednesday over the controversial August vote, more than six weeks after the incident. In press releases, the NRCC accused Democratic Reps. Jerry McNerney (Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Zack Space (Ohio), Harry Mitchell (Ariz.) and Nick Lampson (Texas) of helping to steal "a vote in the dead of night," citing the lawmakers' decision to change their votes and oppose the Republican procedural measure after initially voting in favor of it.
During the vote, three Florida GOP lawmakers, Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart, similarly switched their ballots to support the measure.
House Democrats have thus far opted against issuing a blanket edict to rank-and-file Members to oppose the Republican motions, instead instructing lawmakers in April to object only to "killer" amendments that would shelve legislation.
Despite the failure of nearly 20 Democrats to initially abide by those guidelines in early August - prompting some of the last-minute vote changes that contributed to the apparent disagreement on the House floor - Clyburn indicated that Democrats have no immediate plans to otherwise change their strategy on such motions.
"I don't think anybody on our side confuses the issue - we know these are procedural issues," he added.
But at his weekly press conference, Hoyer said he would speak with those Democrats who voted in favor of the Republican motion.
"It presented a big problem. We are working on it. I am going to continue to work on it," Hoyer said, and later added: "In terms of the Members, the consequences are [that] I'm going to talk to them."
In the meantime, the new House select committee established to investigate the disputed August vote is expected to soon hold its first meeting, following the appointment of its three Republican members Wednesday.
Republican Reps. Mike Pence (Ind.), Steven LaTourette (Ohio) and Kenny Hulshof (Mo.) will work along with Democratic Reps. Bill Delahunt (Mass.), Artur Davis (Ala.) and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.). No meeting date was set Wednesday, but the committee is required to file an interim report Sept. 30, with a final report due in mid-September 2008.
"I'm confident we're going to be able to put our heads together and follow the facts, be judicious and take an impartial and thorough look at what happened that night," said Pence, the panel's ranking member.
Davis, noting that members of the committee have worked across the aisle, said: "The House voted for the committee and the committee will diligently do its work."
In an attempt to dissuade the Republican minority from offering contentious procedural amendments tied to the hot-button issues such as immigration, Democratic leaders are discussing how to give their lawmakers a vote that would inoculate them against such pressure in the future.
The discussion comes as a new House select committee prepares to investigate an Aug. 2 vote that Republican leaders allege the Democratic majority mishandled, resulting in the defeat of a GOP-authored procedural measure that would have amended the fiscal 2008 Agriculture spending bill by prohibiting illegal immigrants from accessing certain federally funded programs.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he has discussed the issue with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), and leadership staff from both offices are working on a proposal.
"I'm particularly concerned that these motions to recommit are tinged with a bit of ... let's just say this whole issue of immigration, it's too serious an issue for us to ... have it used as a wedge issue," Clyburn said, and later added: "We ought not be using this very serious issue in this way."
Neither Clyburn nor Hoyer would provide details for any potential proposal, including whether the measure would be new law or a nonbinding resolution.
"We're talking about a lot of options and I don't want to prejudge what options we're going to choose," Hoyer said.
The Maryland lawmaker added that because the Republican amendment at the heart of the August incident would have restated existing law - a point the GOP refutes - Democrats could opt to ask the executive branch to enforce statutes already on the books.
"We may just reiterate the law," Hoyer said. Democrats also have pre-emptively discussed expanding the new effort to other hot-button legislative areas targeted by the GOP.
One Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said the plan has been presented to some Members as a blanket measure that would prohibit the use of taxpayer-funded programs, such as food stamps, by immigrants in the country illegally.
"The idea is to reject them out of hand because they'll be clearly redundant," the Democrat said. "They'll come up with some other ridiculous avenue to use, but hopefully this takes that off the table."
But House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) spokesman Brian Kennedy immediately dismissed the Democrats' new plan, saying, "It's certainly a very clear indication of just how effective Republicans have been in using the motion to recommit to affect legislation."
The procedural motion is one of the few options available to the minority party that allows it to offer legislative alternatives when a bill reaches the House floor, and it is used immediately before a final vote on legislation takes place.
During the first half of the 110th Congress, the Republican minority has offered numerous motions - winning on 11 to date - that present difficult political decisions for Democrats, particularly the large number of freshman lawmakers in competitive districts.
The National Republican Congressional Committee also targeted five Democratic freshmen in their districts Wednesday over the controversial August vote, more than six weeks after the incident. In press releases, the NRCC accused Democratic Reps. Jerry McNerney (Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Zack Space (Ohio), Harry Mitchell (Ariz.) and Nick Lampson (Texas) of helping to steal "a vote in the dead of night," citing the lawmakers' decision to change their votes and oppose the Republican procedural measure after initially voting in favor of it.
During the vote, three Florida GOP lawmakers, Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart, similarly switched their ballots to support the measure.
House Democrats have thus far opted against issuing a blanket edict to rank-and-file Members to oppose the Republican motions, instead instructing lawmakers in April to object only to "killer" amendments that would shelve legislation.
Despite the failure of nearly 20 Democrats to initially abide by those guidelines in early August - prompting some of the last-minute vote changes that contributed to the apparent disagreement on the House floor - Clyburn indicated that Democrats have no immediate plans to otherwise change their strategy on such motions.
"I don't think anybody on our side confuses the issue - we know these are procedural issues," he added.
But at his weekly press conference, Hoyer said he would speak with those Democrats who voted in favor of the Republican motion.
"It presented a big problem. We are working on it. I am going to continue to work on it," Hoyer said, and later added: "In terms of the Members, the consequences are [that] I'm going to talk to them."
In the meantime, the new House select committee established to investigate the disputed August vote is expected to soon hold its first meeting, following the appointment of its three Republican members Wednesday.
Republican Reps. Mike Pence (Ind.), Steven LaTourette (Ohio) and Kenny Hulshof (Mo.) will work along with Democratic Reps. Bill Delahunt (Mass.), Artur Davis (Ala.) and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.). No meeting date was set Wednesday, but the committee is required to file an interim report Sept. 30, with a final report due in mid-September 2008.
"I'm confident we're going to be able to put our heads together and follow the facts, be judicious and take an impartial and thorough look at what happened that night," said Pence, the panel's ranking member.
Davis, noting that members of the committee have worked across the aisle, said: "The House voted for the committee and the committee will diligently do its work."
more...
house Kristen Stewart as Joan
laborchic
03-27 09:29 AM
Let me get this right... The House will vote on this bill after debating on this and then it gets debated in Senate (either on their own version or same version)????
and then it goes to White House for final approval ??? :confused:
and then it goes to White House for final approval ??? :confused:
tattoo Kristen Stewart Photos:
gezzus234
04-01 02:11 AM
is there a way wit the extrusion or lathe option so actually bend a shape such as a cylinder
or is it much easier wit 3d max?
or is it much easier wit 3d max?
more...
pictures the runaways Joan+jett+and
chrisclick
08-23 08:41 AM
Its ok... Eyes look abit freaky.
Not actually a stamp I'd put on a letter to my grandmother
True
Not actually a stamp I'd put on a letter to my grandmother
True
dresses Dakota Fanning, joan jett,
logiclife
02-19 11:32 AM
The immigration voice news desk (the toolbar for immigration related news on homepage is back).
So we can have all the updates from across the country related to immigration here. This toolbar, as many of you may know, is based on news items from google news that have matching keywords.
Very soon we will be adding the tab "Presidential elections and immigration" so that we get the latest on that front too.
The rally picture of Washington DC rally on Sept 18 has been moved to "additional news items and archives" page
So we can have all the updates from across the country related to immigration here. This toolbar, as many of you may know, is based on news items from google news that have matching keywords.
Very soon we will be adding the tab "Presidential elections and immigration" so that we get the latest on that front too.
The rally picture of Washington DC rally on Sept 18 has been moved to "additional news items and archives" page
more...
makeup of Kristen Stewart for The
njbks
04-21 10:36 PM
Thanks for your response, thomachan72!
girlfriend The Runaways, Kristen Stewart
aachoo
04-01 01:37 AM
Does not matter. I have done both in the past. Just staple them so they dont get separated.
hairstyles Kristen Stewart as Joan
surabhi
07-23 09:59 AM
Hi,
Apologize for starting new thread, but this is an urgent request and need attention.
I need to respond to a RFE related to proving Programmer Analyst being a Speciaity occupation.
I researched and found a memo from Terrance Way, Director INS issued a memo on this on December 22, 2000 and is available on AILA Infonet
AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 01040603
I couldnt locate this memo in USCIS policy guidance memoranda search.
Can some one with access to AILA Infonet, please send me this document
Thanks in advance
Regards
Apologize for starting new thread, but this is an urgent request and need attention.
I need to respond to a RFE related to proving Programmer Analyst being a Speciaity occupation.
I researched and found a memo from Terrance Way, Director INS issued a memo on this on December 22, 2000 and is available on AILA Infonet
AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 01040603
I couldnt locate this memo in USCIS policy guidance memoranda search.
Can some one with access to AILA Infonet, please send me this document
Thanks in advance
Regards
Macaca
07-23 07:32 PM
Reid's Anti-Reform Maneuvers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/22/AR2007072200881.html?nav=hcmodule) By Robert D. Novak (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robert+d.+novak/) Washington Post, July 23, 2007
When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid picked up his ball and went home after his staged all-night session last week, he saved from possible embarrassment one of the least regular members of his Democratic caucus: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Reform Republican Tom Coburn had ready an amendment to the defense authorization bill removing Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska-based company whose officials include Nelson's son. Such an effort became impossible when Reid pulled the bill.
That Reid's action had this effect was mere coincidence. He knew that Sen. Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, and Reid planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night session, designed to satisfy antiwar zealots, was completed. But Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Nelson's.
These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) had a slim Democratic majority and faced a Republican president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule. While Johnson did use chicanery, Reid resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse. Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.
At stake is the fate of Coburn's "Reid amendment," previously passed by the Senate and so called because it would bar earmarks benefiting a senator's family members such as Reid's four lobbyist sons and son-in-law. Nelson's current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator's son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. "As of April," the Omaha World-Herald reported, "only one piece of [the company's] software has been used -- to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq -- and it was no longer in use."
In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment. "There's no requirement that he disclose that," a Nelson spokesman told this column. "But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public." An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the "Reid amendment" that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator's spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.
When the defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark pending in Congress: Democratic Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's plan to satisfy antiwar activists with an all-night debate averted debate, for now, on those two earmarks.
Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., has tended to suppress free expression in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in his tumultuous 6 1/2 months as majority leader. Last week, he cut off an attempt by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, to respond to him with an abruptness that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate watching. When Specter finally got the floor, he declared: "Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world." It may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.
When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid picked up his ball and went home after his staged all-night session last week, he saved from possible embarrassment one of the least regular members of his Democratic caucus: Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Reform Republican Tom Coburn had ready an amendment to the defense authorization bill removing Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska-based company whose officials include Nelson's son. Such an effort became impossible when Reid pulled the bill.
That Reid's action had this effect was mere coincidence. He knew that Sen. Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate, and Reid planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night session, designed to satisfy antiwar zealots, was completed. But Reid is also working behind the scenes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to undermine earmark transparency and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Nelson's.
These antics fit the continuing decline of the Senate, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes to pass any meaningful bill. When I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson (like Reid today) had a slim Democratic majority and faced a Republican president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule. While Johnson did use chicanery, Reid resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse. Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by the Senate and House, with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.
At stake is the fate of Coburn's "Reid amendment," previously passed by the Senate and so called because it would bar earmarks benefiting a senator's family members such as Reid's four lobbyist sons and son-in-law. Nelson's current $7.5 million earmark for software helps 21st Century Systems Inc. (21CSI), which employs the senator's son, Patrick Nelson, as its marketing director. The company gets 80 percent of its funds from federal grants, mostly through earmarks. With nine offices scattered among states represented by appropriators in Congress, the company has in recent years spent $1.1 million to lobby Congress and $160,000 in congressional campaign contributions. "As of April," the Omaha World-Herald reported, "only one piece of [the company's] software has been used -- to help guard a single Marine camp in Iraq -- and it was no longer in use."
In requesting the 21CSI earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment. "There's no requirement that he disclose that," a Nelson spokesman told this column. "But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public." An April 24 letter from Levin giving senators instructions on how to request an earmark made no mention of the "Reid amendment" that had been passed by the Senate three months earlier but that required only certification that no senator's spouse would benefit from an earmark. Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if the ethics bill provision passes.
When the defense authorization bill came up last week, Coburn prepared amendments to eliminate the Nelson earmark and the most notorious earmark pending in Congress: Democratic Rep. John Murtha's proposed $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in his Pennsylvania district. Reid's plan to satisfy antiwar activists with an all-night debate averted debate, for now, on those two earmarks.
Reid, the soft-spoken trial lawyer from Searchlight, Nev., has tended to suppress free expression in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in his tumultuous 6 1/2 months as majority leader. Last week, he cut off an attempt by Sen. Arlen Specter, the veteran moderate Republican, to respond to him with an abruptness that I had not witnessed in a half-century of Senate watching. When Specter finally got the floor, he declared: "Nothing is done here until the majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in all night on a meaningless, insulting session. . . . Last night's performance made us the laughingstock of the world." It may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.
ItIsNotFunny
02-20 11:18 AM
Guys,
My company is forcing everyone to fill I9 form. I have EAD but maintaining H1 status and did not use EAD. I did some research on I9 and it is no where mentioned that only people with EAD has to fill this. I need Guru's opinion on this.
I just don't want to loose my H1 status in any case.
My company is forcing everyone to fill I9 form. I have EAD but maintaining H1 status and did not use EAD. I did some research on I9 and it is no where mentioned that only people with EAD has to fill this. I need Guru's opinion on this.
I just don't want to loose my H1 status in any case.
No comments:
Post a Comment