logiclife
09-25 12:04 PM
Your rights as a participant of a bulletin board or online forum like Immigration Voice forums:
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED.
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
The rights of bloggers (site admin, site owner or site moderators), their liability and section 230. Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC � 230) (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html). To learn the plain English language explanation of this section, go here: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-230.php)
What this means is that whenever someone posts anything against anyone, Immigration Voice is immune from libel suits or defamation lawsuits, with couple of exceptions (discussed in item 2). Therefore, any anonymous poster saying bad things about their lawyers, employers, or anyone else DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DELETED.
Immigration Voice is not going to delete, edit or moderate the posts and threads posted by our members no matter how defamatory or criticizing they are. That�s because A) Immigration Voice is not liable for what our members do or not do per section 230 and B) Immigration Voice needs to give freedom to members to vent out against the incompetent immigration lawyers and/or dishonest employers because that is what makes us unique and different from censored forums and it is the ESSENCE of this bulletin board.
Other than couple of exceptional scenarios (see point # 2), we are not liable for content posted by users of message boards, forums, discussion boards etc. Section 230 protects Immigration Voice website administrator and moderator against libel suits or other lawsuits caused by participants who post messages against their lawyers, employers or anyone else. A recent example of such a case is illustrated in 22 page opinion of a federal judge in DiMeo V Max (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145).
The exceptions when Section 230 protections won�t work.Section 230 will not protect Immigration Voice if site moderators and administrators themselves post content that causes damages to others. We (site admin and moderators) will not edit or delete posts that say bad things about other orgs or persons - no matter how derogatory or defamatory they are against some lawyers, employers etc. We are not liable or responsible for them and legally it�s best and safest for moderators/site admins to leave those posts alone. Besides, that is one reason why people come to this site � freedom to vent out without any censorship, sometimes even against the Immigration Voice leadership and core group.
The other scenario when the section 230 wont protects us is in case of intellectual property. So don�t post any patented information or technology details on this website. However the laws give us a lot of latitude when we post some news articles or other content created by other sources. More details of intellectual property are here on this link. http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php).
Are we obligated to provide information to plaintiffs about our anonymous posters?First of all, most of the time, we ourselves don�t know the anonymous posters and who they are. The most we can do is provide IP address. Those IP addresses too are not easy to pin down in certain kinds of network environments. However, we will not give any information about our members to anyone unless and until we are subpoenaed for it. Subpoenas are either issued by law enforcement or by plaintiffs who file the lawsuit. Unless we are subpoenaed, we don�t have to give away any information like IP or email of any anonymous poster. Immigration Voice will never make the IP address or any information available to anyone unless it is ordered by court. Immigration Voice will use all possible legal avenues to protect the privacy and anonymity of its members and online discussion participants.
What if someone with deep pockets sues Immigration Voice with the objective of shutting us down, even though they know they don�t have a case, but want to sue us just to drag us into expensive court battle and make us bankrupt?There is nothing that protects Immigration Voice (or any such website with discussion boards and forums) from frivolous lawsuits. Anyone can sue anyone else, whether he or she lose or win is a different matter. Section 230 protects immigration voice from libel lawsuits resulting from anonymous participants posting messages that cause damages to organizations or individuals. They are even more counterproductive for the plaintiff if that state has ANTI-SLAAP laws.
SLAAP means �Strategic lawsuit against active participation�. If someone sues us just to make us bankrupt and shut us down without caring for outcome of the case, then it�s a SLAAP lawsuit. The objective is such lawsuit is not to win but to drag the other party into expensive court battle and make them bankrupt. Some states have laws against SLAAP lawsuits called ANTI-SLAAP laws. They are different in every state. What those laws do in general is make the plaintiff of SLAAP lawsuit pay the defendant for the cost of litigation and defense if they lose. So if someone from state that has ANTI-SLAAP laws sues us, then the money we spend on litigation would have to be paid by plaintiffs if they lose. Therefore there is good chance of finding a pro-bono lawyer because if they win, they get paid from the other party. What this means is that it�s difficult to drive someone to bankruptcy with frivolous lawsuits if the state has good ANTI-SLAAP laws. California is one example. Therefore the chances of us getting sued by someone in CA are lesser than other states.
Should any party sue Immigration Voice for libel based on posted messages on online forums, Immigration Voice will fight back to the fullest extent and will not remove posts or threads against those organizations.
What should one do if they have been badly hurt due to incompetence or malfeasance on the part of employer or lawyers?Immigration Voice will neither encourage nor discourage members to post messages against their employers or lawyers or any other party. Members and participants are free to post whatever they want to post. If you lawyer�s actions have hurt you and if you think it�s due to malpractice then you can file a complaint against that lawyer in a state bar. If your employer�s action has hurt you and if you think his actions are illegal, then you can file a complaint against your employer at the department of labor (for wages issues) or other departments for other issues.
wallpaper Traffic lights (December 10,
trueguy
07-18 02:45 PM
Hi,
Can I apply for ITIN for my wife when she is not physically in USA and she never been here?
Thanks for your replies.
Rgds.
Can I apply for ITIN for my wife when she is not physically in USA and she never been here?
Thanks for your replies.
Rgds.
gapala
03-20 10:11 PM
Yes....Each employer must file for New H1B. But it does not invalidate the current H1B, untill its revoked by the employer.
Yeah! it does not invalidate it because its a "new H1B". Not same as, lets call it portability.
Yeah! it does not invalidate it because its a "new H1B". Not same as, lets call it portability.
2011 Traffic lights with red and
royus77
07-06 09:41 PM
it seems that it was delievered late july 2nd for USCIS to refuse accepting yor package. From what you wrote it seems the package has been returned without opening !!!
sorry again about your news.
Looks like DHL is having issues in delivery ..whats yours
sorry again about your news.
Looks like DHL is having issues in delivery ..whats yours
more...
GCBy3000
07-06 02:06 PM
No one will be on our side other than ourselves. Why should others(US business, political, people) should be behind our goals. They do not have much to gain from it. Our voice will be heard, but will not be considered unless the so called others have some facts and figures. Those facts and figures should make them feel that their counrty would lose to competetors in near future. It will take time.
Get support from whom? The same corporations that want to outsource jobs to low cost countries AND also lobby for H1B increase, again to keep wages low and all this to increase their bottom line. We need to re think our strategy and get it straight as to who is on our side and who is not.
Get support from whom? The same corporations that want to outsource jobs to low cost countries AND also lobby for H1B increase, again to keep wages low and all this to increase their bottom line. We need to re think our strategy and get it straight as to who is on our side and who is not.
sirinme
01-22 05:21 PM
Hi, I have a question about which service center to use when e-filing for AP renewal. Here is my situation:
- I live in California, but my I-485 has been rotting in Texas Service Center.
- When e-filing, one of the questions on the USCIS website was which service center my I-485 application has been pending at. I answered it as Texas Service Center, and went through with rest of the e-filing process.
- After submitting the form, I got the receipt number that starts with "SRC", which I am assuming ties my application with Texas Service Center. The cover letter of the PDF (which was generated right after submission) even said to mail supporting documentation to TSC.
Now, the problem is, I was reading through the instructions for I-131 filing and the PDF (I-131instr.pdf, which I downloaded from USCIS website) says on Page 7 that I should file my AP renewal with Nebraska Service Center, because I am a California resident.
Given that I already filed my AP renewal with Texas Service Center, am I in trouble here? I don't remember the USCIS website asking me or prompting me to file the renewal application with Nebraska Service Center, so I am a bit baffled by how I ended up in this situation. Is there anything I could do to correct it now? Has anyone run into this situation before?
Thanks!
- I live in California, but my I-485 has been rotting in Texas Service Center.
- When e-filing, one of the questions on the USCIS website was which service center my I-485 application has been pending at. I answered it as Texas Service Center, and went through with rest of the e-filing process.
- After submitting the form, I got the receipt number that starts with "SRC", which I am assuming ties my application with Texas Service Center. The cover letter of the PDF (which was generated right after submission) even said to mail supporting documentation to TSC.
Now, the problem is, I was reading through the instructions for I-131 filing and the PDF (I-131instr.pdf, which I downloaded from USCIS website) says on Page 7 that I should file my AP renewal with Nebraska Service Center, because I am a California resident.
Given that I already filed my AP renewal with Texas Service Center, am I in trouble here? I don't remember the USCIS website asking me or prompting me to file the renewal application with Nebraska Service Center, so I am a bit baffled by how I ended up in this situation. Is there anything I could do to correct it now? Has anyone run into this situation before?
Thanks!
more...
santb1975
06-26 02:57 PM
This is Great
Lets do the best we can. If it does not work, we are no worse than where we already are.
A group of us just went to Lamar Smith's Austin District Office and detailed his liason about the bills, benefits and information about IV. She said she will have them Fedex'd today to their Washington office and keep us informed about congressman's stand.
Lets do the best we can. If it does not work, we are no worse than where we already are.
A group of us just went to Lamar Smith's Austin District Office and detailed his liason about the bills, benefits and information about IV. She said she will have them Fedex'd today to their Washington office and keep us informed about congressman's stand.
2010 Traffic lights with red and
snathan
03-28 02:25 PM
& then what are you going to deliver with that money?
Hand toasted pizza with tomotto sauce and garlic bread.
Or GC with Fedex overnight
Hand toasted pizza with tomotto sauce and garlic bread.
Or GC with Fedex overnight
more...
VSS2007
06-26 09:27 PM
Hi,
Looks like TSC is working fast approving EAD renewals. How about NSC? Did any one get EAD renewal approved from NSC?
Thanks
Looks like TSC is working fast approving EAD renewals. How about NSC? Did any one get EAD renewal approved from NSC?
Thanks
hair 1868: First traffic lights
reddog
07-18 10:53 AM
No Red Dogs are allowed only Brown Dogs.
Now that IS creative. You are our Tolstoy.
Now that IS creative. You are our Tolstoy.
more...
TheOmbudsman
11-08 12:42 PM
Hello NyCgal369,
Please do not take that as an offense.
I think you misunderstood my previous comments then. I always knew that Democrats are pro amnesty/CIR. How could I argue against that ?
Read article below from WorldDailynews. It is in line with my line of thought. My perspectives are solely based in facts. It was before and it will be now. I am here to help this organization flow in the right direction.
Regards,
The Ombudsman
Why the GOP is losing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 3, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Entering the weekend before his midterms, George Bush and his party appear fated to lose the House they have held for a dozen years. The Senate is on a knife's edge.
The latest polls continue to show that by 52 percent to 37 percent Americans wish to see a Democratic takeover. Approval of Congress has never been lower. Americans think the nation is on the wrong track. Support for the war in Iraq has collapsed to a third of the nation.
What went wrong? Certainly, on three traditional Republican issues � strong military, conservative judges and lower taxes � the GOP remains America's Party.
(Column continues below)
How do we know? Because no Democrat in a close race is calling, Mondale-like, for higher taxes or attacking Bush for elevating judges John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. In the tight Senate races in Tennessee and Virginia, Democratic nominees Harold Ford and Jim Webb are outspokenly pro-defense.
On immigration, where Bush aligns with Kennedy-McCain, his party has abandoned him. The Republican House stands for border security, no amnesty and no new guest-worker program. Nor is this a losing issue. Even Hillary Clinton voted for 700 miles of security fence on the Mexican border.
What, then, are the causes of Republican malaise?
First is the perception the GOP is no longer a virtuous party that seeks to live up to principles and a high standard of public ethics. The adventures of the Abramoff Gang, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham and his poker-party pals, of pork barrel and bridges to nowhere have demoralized the Republican base and disgusted Middle America. There is a feeling, even on the right, that if this crowd is run out of Dodge, its expulsion will not be unwarranted.
Second, while the macro economy seems to be firing on all eight cylinders � the Dow has risen above 12,000, and the Misery Index of inflation plus unemployment has fallen to the lowest levels in modern times � not all Americans are participating in the prosperity.
Employment in health care has grown by almost 2 million, but some 3 million manufacturing jobs have vanished. There has been a population explosion among billionaires, but the real median wage of a male worker has not risen in decades. The daily closure of factories here, as more and more Chinese goods show up at Wal-Mart, points to inescapable consequences: The price of the GOP's free-trade-uber-alles ideology is the loss of the Reagan Democrats.
In Ohio, which was indispensable to Bush is 2000 and 2004, free trade is a millstone around the GOP neck. If Bush loses the House or Senate, free-trade globalism goes on the shelf. Not only will Bush fail to win congressional support of a Doha Round trade treaty, he will be denied any renewal of fast-track authority. The new Congress will not rubber stamp trade treaties, but demand a voice and votes on any new deal the Bushites negotiate on behalf of Corporate America.
But if Republicans are swept from power, the reason will be Iraq. By two to one, Americans have reached the conclusion that the war was a mistake, that taking down Saddam was not worth the price in blood, that the management of the war has been as botched as John Kerry's joke, that it is time to bring the troops home and let Iraqis do the fighting for their own freedom, democracy and independence.
And the more seats Republicans lose Tuesday, the greater will be the pressure on the party and president to find an early exit.
Yet about the war, America remains divided and conflicted. For the roaring Republican reception to Bush's calls for "victory" testifies to another truth. While most American wish we had never gone in and want out, America does not want to lose the war as we lost Vietnam.
Neither party knows a way to accomplish what America wants: to leave Iraq without losing the war. And the reason neither party knows how to do it is because it cannot be done. Like a patient suffering from cancer, we want an end to the "chemo" � the awful news daily coming out of Iraq � but we do not want the consequences.
What, then, has cost the Republican Party its patrimony?
The answer is, first, hubris. Dominating Congress for a dozen years, the GOP began to behave with the same haughtiness as those they displaced. They forgot who sent them here, and why.
Second, ideology. Bush Republicans refuse even to reconsider, despite contradictory evidence, what their ideology teaches: that free trade is best, that U.S. power is invincible, that all the world wants to be like us, that our motives are always pure and theirs malevolent.
Tuesday will bring the party back to earth. But it will not solve the crises that beset the country. For while the Democrats may be the political alternative, the Democrats' ideology of big government liberalism is even more bankrupt.
yes for once you are correct: you are clearly neither my buddy, or apparently not a buddy of anyone on this site.
actually that is not all you said, you were talking about immigration not being part of the Dems mandate. pls refresh your memory by reading your own previous posts.
and now you have just contradicted yourself by saying that "probably you will hear more good news for those who believe that amnesty is the way to go", since you are now implying that in fact dems will be moving forward with amnesty. isnt that then part of their mandate?
also your claims of being "realistic" are actually not realistic at all, just negative.
and I for one do not consider you to be my ombudsman, and would prefer not to read your "reports" which are mostly thoroughly misinformed opinions.
Please do not take that as an offense.
I think you misunderstood my previous comments then. I always knew that Democrats are pro amnesty/CIR. How could I argue against that ?
Read article below from WorldDailynews. It is in line with my line of thought. My perspectives are solely based in facts. It was before and it will be now. I am here to help this organization flow in the right direction.
Regards,
The Ombudsman
Why the GOP is losing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 3, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Entering the weekend before his midterms, George Bush and his party appear fated to lose the House they have held for a dozen years. The Senate is on a knife's edge.
The latest polls continue to show that by 52 percent to 37 percent Americans wish to see a Democratic takeover. Approval of Congress has never been lower. Americans think the nation is on the wrong track. Support for the war in Iraq has collapsed to a third of the nation.
What went wrong? Certainly, on three traditional Republican issues � strong military, conservative judges and lower taxes � the GOP remains America's Party.
(Column continues below)
How do we know? Because no Democrat in a close race is calling, Mondale-like, for higher taxes or attacking Bush for elevating judges John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. In the tight Senate races in Tennessee and Virginia, Democratic nominees Harold Ford and Jim Webb are outspokenly pro-defense.
On immigration, where Bush aligns with Kennedy-McCain, his party has abandoned him. The Republican House stands for border security, no amnesty and no new guest-worker program. Nor is this a losing issue. Even Hillary Clinton voted for 700 miles of security fence on the Mexican border.
What, then, are the causes of Republican malaise?
First is the perception the GOP is no longer a virtuous party that seeks to live up to principles and a high standard of public ethics. The adventures of the Abramoff Gang, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham and his poker-party pals, of pork barrel and bridges to nowhere have demoralized the Republican base and disgusted Middle America. There is a feeling, even on the right, that if this crowd is run out of Dodge, its expulsion will not be unwarranted.
Second, while the macro economy seems to be firing on all eight cylinders � the Dow has risen above 12,000, and the Misery Index of inflation plus unemployment has fallen to the lowest levels in modern times � not all Americans are participating in the prosperity.
Employment in health care has grown by almost 2 million, but some 3 million manufacturing jobs have vanished. There has been a population explosion among billionaires, but the real median wage of a male worker has not risen in decades. The daily closure of factories here, as more and more Chinese goods show up at Wal-Mart, points to inescapable consequences: The price of the GOP's free-trade-uber-alles ideology is the loss of the Reagan Democrats.
In Ohio, which was indispensable to Bush is 2000 and 2004, free trade is a millstone around the GOP neck. If Bush loses the House or Senate, free-trade globalism goes on the shelf. Not only will Bush fail to win congressional support of a Doha Round trade treaty, he will be denied any renewal of fast-track authority. The new Congress will not rubber stamp trade treaties, but demand a voice and votes on any new deal the Bushites negotiate on behalf of Corporate America.
But if Republicans are swept from power, the reason will be Iraq. By two to one, Americans have reached the conclusion that the war was a mistake, that taking down Saddam was not worth the price in blood, that the management of the war has been as botched as John Kerry's joke, that it is time to bring the troops home and let Iraqis do the fighting for their own freedom, democracy and independence.
And the more seats Republicans lose Tuesday, the greater will be the pressure on the party and president to find an early exit.
Yet about the war, America remains divided and conflicted. For the roaring Republican reception to Bush's calls for "victory" testifies to another truth. While most American wish we had never gone in and want out, America does not want to lose the war as we lost Vietnam.
Neither party knows a way to accomplish what America wants: to leave Iraq without losing the war. And the reason neither party knows how to do it is because it cannot be done. Like a patient suffering from cancer, we want an end to the "chemo" � the awful news daily coming out of Iraq � but we do not want the consequences.
What, then, has cost the Republican Party its patrimony?
The answer is, first, hubris. Dominating Congress for a dozen years, the GOP began to behave with the same haughtiness as those they displaced. They forgot who sent them here, and why.
Second, ideology. Bush Republicans refuse even to reconsider, despite contradictory evidence, what their ideology teaches: that free trade is best, that U.S. power is invincible, that all the world wants to be like us, that our motives are always pure and theirs malevolent.
Tuesday will bring the party back to earth. But it will not solve the crises that beset the country. For while the Democrats may be the political alternative, the Democrats' ideology of big government liberalism is even more bankrupt.
yes for once you are correct: you are clearly neither my buddy, or apparently not a buddy of anyone on this site.
actually that is not all you said, you were talking about immigration not being part of the Dems mandate. pls refresh your memory by reading your own previous posts.
and now you have just contradicted yourself by saying that "probably you will hear more good news for those who believe that amnesty is the way to go", since you are now implying that in fact dems will be moving forward with amnesty. isnt that then part of their mandate?
also your claims of being "realistic" are actually not realistic at all, just negative.
and I for one do not consider you to be my ombudsman, and would prefer not to read your "reports" which are mostly thoroughly misinformed opinions.
hot First Traffic Lights:
Winner
06-24 12:45 PM
Called and spoke to a very "sweet" lady. She was aware of the bill #'s and suggested that I call my local rep (which I've been doing every week)
more...
house Traffic lights amp; Traffic
eb3retro
11-09 01:49 PM
TheOmbudsman,
A number of IV members have complaint about your posts. We know that you have earlier posted on IV forums with the screen names �Communique� and �marlon2006�. If I remember correctly, your handle 'Communique' was banned but it was pretty clear that you were an anti-immigrant. I want you to read this post because in next 15 minutes, I will be putting a ban on your handle.
Immigration Voice forums are created for high skilled immigrants and their families. We contribute constructively to the society. Your hate mongering tone and disguising as 'someone waiting for green card' is pathetic example of how low you can go. I try to read forums everyday and I try to read each and every post. Each day I try to read your post to get more determined to continue to work on this very important issue. But now, I think its time for you to leave IV forums as your tone is again becoming offensive and your posts drive legitimate IV members away.
We are requesting you politely to please leave IV forums alone and do not bother IV members.
Thank you,
WaldenPond
I assume that this reply goes to anyone, who is doing this kind of mischief in this genuine forum.
A number of IV members have complaint about your posts. We know that you have earlier posted on IV forums with the screen names �Communique� and �marlon2006�. If I remember correctly, your handle 'Communique' was banned but it was pretty clear that you were an anti-immigrant. I want you to read this post because in next 15 minutes, I will be putting a ban on your handle.
Immigration Voice forums are created for high skilled immigrants and their families. We contribute constructively to the society. Your hate mongering tone and disguising as 'someone waiting for green card' is pathetic example of how low you can go. I try to read forums everyday and I try to read each and every post. Each day I try to read your post to get more determined to continue to work on this very important issue. But now, I think its time for you to leave IV forums as your tone is again becoming offensive and your posts drive legitimate IV members away.
We are requesting you politely to please leave IV forums alone and do not bother IV members.
Thank you,
WaldenPond
I assume that this reply goes to anyone, who is doing this kind of mischief in this genuine forum.
tattoo First Traffic Lights:
tdasara
07-20 03:10 PM
And look what our desi reporters write
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1779190.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1779190.cms
more...
pictures Traffic Signal
amitjoey
05-20 01:20 PM
The total is $2100.
Thanks a lot sunnymit and sriteam
Thanks a lot sunnymit and sriteam
dresses the Traffic Lights the way
ssa
06-23 06:18 PM
done.
more...
makeup Amazon.com: Traffic Light: Webster#39;s Timeline History, 1868 - 2007: Icon
manishgc
05-24 10:54 PM
Unique Transaction ID #5S441435NA953034W)..donated $50.
May 24, 2010 Payment For Immigration Voice Completed
Thanks for everybody's time and effort.
-------------------------------------------------
PD - Jan, 2004 EB3 India
I140 approved - Jan, 2006.
I-485, EAD and AP applied on Aug 2007 at Nebraska.
May 24, 2010 Payment For Immigration Voice Completed
Thanks for everybody's time and effort.
-------------------------------------------------
PD - Jan, 2004 EB3 India
I140 approved - Jan, 2006.
I-485, EAD and AP applied on Aug 2007 at Nebraska.
girlfriend a traffic signal for gas
willgetgc2005
07-16 06:58 PM
I changed my law firm to www.gotcherlaw.com. Ron gothcher is very good and speaks at length,answers all questions.
If u take www.gotcherlaw.com, do insist on Ron Gother as your attorney and Peter Calrk as ur para legal. They are good.
I highly recomend. They give you time and answer all questions.
Hi,
I have read your previous posts. No clue about the lawfirm you mentioned.
speak to Ron Gotcher at www.gotcherlaw.com, in los angeles, very experienced.
best.
If u take www.gotcherlaw.com, do insist on Ron Gother as your attorney and Peter Calrk as ur para legal. They are good.
I highly recomend. They give you time and answer all questions.
Hi,
I have read your previous posts. No clue about the lawfirm you mentioned.
speak to Ron Gotcher at www.gotcherlaw.com, in los angeles, very experienced.
best.
hairstyles The Loew Bridge in 1868.
vinabath
02-28 11:35 AM
I am very happy with Ken Stern. They do a very good job. Little expensive though.
their website
www.secalaw.com
their website
www.secalaw.com
GCBy3000
07-21 10:00 AM
There is no way for a bank to know when you leave. You might leave on vacation or for a break. As per US law you can come to US after a year break outside US. How does anyone could know whether you are on one month vacation or in one year vacation. I dont agree with this unless it is explained clearly.
amitjoey
05-27 11:00 AM
Total now: $7,300
Target: $50,000
Target: $50,000
No comments:
Post a Comment