Thursday, June 30, 2011

charlie sheen wife brooke

images Charlie Sheen Brings Hooker charlie sheen wife brooke. Charlie Sheen, Brooke Mueller
  • Charlie Sheen, Brooke Mueller



  • lfwf
    08-05 07:12 PM
    Good points below.

    Now, FreshEb2, through the handle itself, comes across as a stoker not a sensible person.

    EB2 and EB3 are two very different EMPLOYMENT BASED legal immigration categories. Filing in one category DOES NOT PRECLUDE one from filing in another category, for another *future* job, as long the *future* jobs themselves meet the criteria to qualify for that EB category.

    Coming to tihnk of, the coward parading as RollingFlood has not posted his/her company, EB job posting, and other pieces of information that I had challenged him/her to post. Seriously you coward, come out and post it... this community can help validate whether there really is no US worker to take that position. Now, dont chicken out and fillibuster this with more weak arguments. Post your glorified EB2 job posting for all of us to see ... and let us see if you have illegally gotten ahead in the line ahead of all those hardworking US citizens that have been laid off in the last 2 quarters across all major sectors. C'mon, do it ... do it...

    Also, somewhere you had said that you were an MBA from a top US university. Welcome to the club. Though, I am sad to share the boat with you! Now, look back at the essay you wrote to get into B-School. Are you doing exactly what you claimed you would do after the MBA? Shall we take that up and go back to the school to have them rescind your diploma because you misused the system? One can say you got into an MBA on a fundamentally false premise. So, give back that diploma.

    Also, did you come into the country on a F1 visa? What did you tell the visa officer? That you were going back to your home country, right? Didnt you need to show proof of ties to your home country. Can we take you to court stating that you committed a felony by lying to a Government official regarding matters of homeland security? Seriously. Why not?

    No amount trying to sub-optimize logic to fit your specific narrow needs will make your holier-than-thou arguments even remotely credible, let alone valid in a court of law. What is clear from this 10 page thread, is that we have a few folks like FreshEB2, RollingFlood etc that present themselves as 'high skilled' workers in the US immigration system but clearly lack the basic level of logic to have a factual conversation. Their ladders of inferences are stark and substantive.

    By sub-optimally picking 'argument points' based the 'weakest links' that you invent and trying to super-size that to reflect a larger interest is very weak attempt to preserve your position.

    Go ahead, file a lawsuit. Tell us which case will be hearing it and give us the case number. I WILL PERSONALLY MAKE SURE THAT THE JUDGE ASKS FOR YOUR IMMIGRATION FILE AND CONDUCT A PRIMA FACIE INQUIRY INTO THE BASIS OF YOUR PRIMARY PETITION, INCLUDING ALL ASPECTS LIKE ADVERTISEMENT, NUMBER OF RESUMES RECEIVED, etc.. I WILL FILE A PETITION WITH THE JUDGE TO HAVE ANOTHER ADVERTISEMENT POSTED, THIS TIME, WITH RESPONSES TO BE EXAMINED BY THE JUDGE and NOT YOUR FAVORITE IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY. SERIOUSLY. BRING IT ON. WE SHOULD RESPOND TO YOU IN COURT. WHETHER CIVIL OR IMMIGRATION.

    You had also mentioned that you would be filing a 'public interest litigation'. That is a very Indian concept. PIL type cases work differently in the US. You dont just run to your local court and claim 'PIL' because you felt wronged. Any court in the US would deem your case as narrowly defined to challenge legislation and throw you out because judiciary cannot legislate.

    Obviously, you grossly underestimated the intellect of this group and thought your big words and b-board bravado would scare people. :D



    OP is long gone. Your post is full of big brave words and no substance. If you want to have a discussion and demonstrate your "intellect", please make some rational arguments and back them up. There is no lawsuit discussion here, just a debate on the merits of BS+5 PD porting





    wallpaper Charlie Sheen, Brooke Mueller charlie sheen wife brooke. Brooke looks adorable
  • Brooke looks adorable



  • unseenguy
    06-20 05:55 PM
    Real estate is always a local phenomena. So those of you who are following national guidelines are misleading yourselves. Unless you are major investor, who would like to keep his/her real estate portfolio diverse, national level real estate indicator is not of much use.

    I bought a foreclosed house few months ago, but before that did thorough study at personal level. Not only analytically study your market, but also "go to genba". Feel the pulse, find where and what kind of people live in those sub-divisions.

    If you are leaning towards investing, lean with good intent. Avoid risk by thouroughly understanding your financial situation. I went with 30 yr fixed, to be conservative.

    Finally, have guts to make a call, either way. It's the right time, I would say.

    In my local area I see about 50-50 ratio of open homes to sold homes on MLS maps. However the prices are too high, I think. Also due to my income level, I do not qualify for Obama's homeowners rebate and I do not think prices will skyrocket in 2-3 years, so for my personal situation, I have an opportunity to save a LOT for my downpayment while I wait for my GC and be in a position to either buy a bigger home or take reduced mortgage when I decide to go for the kill. It also gives me flexibility to shift the liquid assets to India with relative ease. Dont get me wrong, I can buy a villa in Bangalore almost loan free. In that case, I am wondering if taking a mortgage and being tied to it during uncertainty is a smart move.

    Although there is a tax benefit to the mortgage , one thing we know for sure is that home prices are not about to go up anytime soon. So with low rent payment for next 2-3 years, I should be in a solid position to decide what I want to do.





    charlie sheen wife brooke. Charlie Sheen#39;s ex-wife Brooke
  • Charlie Sheen#39;s ex-wife Brooke



  • unitednations
    07-17 12:37 PM
    My employer back in 2001 and 2002 did not pay me in a consistent way..I was paid once in every three months during the time I was in bench. I have the W2 returns from those two years which shows average income of only 29K. However I had valid visa status and h1b approval from my employer as well as employment verification letter from them. Now i am with a new employer since 2003 and do not have any problems with them and get paid regurarly. After reading manub's post I am also worried if my I485 will be denied whenever I apply for it... or is there somethings I can take care of before? It is not my fault that the employer did not pay me consistently - right?

    A decent number of people were in this situation during those two years.

    uscis if they want can go all the way back to date of last entry prior to filing 485 to prove status (monthly paychecks, w2's, etc.). If cumulatively you did not maintain status for 180 days then it can be a problem. If you get this type of rfe then you have to go through great lengths to explain and get the out of status time to less then 180 days.





    2011 Brooke looks adorable charlie sheen wife brooke. “Brooke
  • “Brooke



  • dontcareanymore
    08-05 02:53 PM
    I also resent the idea that all US Masters folks are just "rich kids".

    Never said that. That was just a "story" response to a "story" post. The intent of the post is DO NOT TRY TO FRAME THE ISSUE IN ONE STORY. THERE ARE MANY STORIES.



    more...


    charlie sheen wife brooke. Charlie Sheen, wife not
  • Charlie Sheen, wife not



  • vdixit
    12-31 02:06 PM
    No war yet!! Good think I wasnt holding my breath or anything. All you war mongering folk must be dissapointed.





    charlie sheen wife brooke. Who Is Charlie Sheen#39;s Wife
  • Who Is Charlie Sheen#39;s Wife



  • sw33t
    12-28 05:12 AM
    Do you realize the extent of loss after Mumbai attacks?
    The initial rough-and-ready calculations estimate that the business loss on those two days is close to $10 billion and the foreign exchange hit is approximately $20 billion.
    A bomb scare in any software park in India (just a scare - no loss of life and property) will generate enough fear factor to shut it down for several weeks! How much loss do you think it entails?


    So your justification on spending billions more on what was lost is the right thing???


    And what about the loss of civilian lives? The lives of soldiers dying in shelling across India-Pak borders? The loss of morale of Mumbaities!! The feeling of insecurity when you hop on to the daily commuter train? Who will account for all of that?

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Mumbai_attacks_may_have_cost_Rs_50k_crore/articleshow/3777430.cms


    Going to war to retaliate might give the impression of satisfaction, but the insecurity caused by trauma is still going to live on forever.


    Of course, wars are costly! It doesn't mean you should not go on war, it doesn't mean you should zero out your defence budgets, or does it?


    Agreed!


    Do you drive your car without an insurance?


    Exactly. The state, the county, the city and the insurance company make money off of your will to comply! Thousands more will die off of your desire to go to war whereas the arms dealers make money.



    more...


    charlie sheen wife brooke. Charlie Sheen#39;s Wife Brooke
  • Charlie Sheen#39;s Wife Brooke



  • sanju
    04-08 07:17 AM
    Good post, I would like to add that:

    This is an interesting bill and I feel it'll pass. There are lot of gotcha's but there are some good things. I'm glad to see H1-B rights and whistleblower sections. This was way past due. Really, this is more of a culmination of those few employers who have tried to exploit the system / employees.
    The summary document says that Whistleblower protection does not protect immigration status. So the current language of "Whistleblower protection" has NOT much new to offer because Whistleblower protection is already part of the federal law (outside of immigration act). Here is some info:

    http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/whistle.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower



    key points to ponder:

    - Finally IRS and USICS have come together. !! .. thats a big blow to the body shoppers ( may be a good thing)

    There is already a requirement in the Tax law to send the datab/W-2 of each employee (including the employees on H1) to IRS. So much so that if a company you worked for last year has closed down, you could go to the local IRS office to get your W-2 (from IRS).


    -> 50 employees cant have more than 50% H1B's. I think this will basicaly create many smaller consulting companies nothing else. This I don't like .. could be bad for genuine businesses.

    To get around 50% requirements, as the greenguru mentioned, the employers could bend around the system by having companies with employee size < 50. So it will be an inconvenience for them, but there are ways and means to get around. The problem will be faced by people already here waiting for green cards. If your employer has more than 50% on H1, they will have to file H1 from the sister company and the new law will be applicable to the new H1. So the people already here on H1 will suffer the most.


    I hope it doesnt, without any amendments. Maybe a friendlier bill with strict H1-B rights would be nice.
    Well said!! This bill is not friendly and a better bill, which is not imposing unnecessary restrictions and has worker protection provisions for all H1 employees will be better in making the H1 process equitable and workable.





    2010 Charlie Sheen#39;s ex-wife Brooke charlie sheen wife brooke. Charlie Sheen Brings Hooker
  • Charlie Sheen Brings Hooker



  • senthil1
    04-06 11:24 PM
    Basically the H1b Cap issue should be resolved. Either unlimited H1b or restriction in bodyshopping is needed to resolve the problem to keep H1b system working. Or current broken system will continue. Also gc is completed related to H1b you can take think what will be the impact. Situation is not good for GC seekers. If they increase h1b retrogession will increase. If they restrict H1b same gc seekers will be impacted. Basically this forum members have to ask unlimited H1b and unlimited GC to satisfy everyone. Is that achivable?

    what are you saying? The above post is totally incoherent



    more...


    charlie sheen wife brooke. Charlie Sheen was arrested on
  • Charlie Sheen was arrested on



  • jonty_11
    11-09 02:32 PM
    Again, we should be cautious not to credit immigration hoopla for the republicans' debacle. It was mainly Iraq.....
    Remember, Lou Dobbs showstill runs on CNN, and Tom Tancredo won his District again...so there are Americans who support them, and their idelogies. We have to find a way to convince the rest that immigration is good for America, even in these times and hopefully have our issues addressed.

    What I trying to say is we cannot be complacent and the immigrant bashers are still out to get us.





    hair “Brooke charlie sheen wife brooke. charlie sheen wife brooke
  • charlie sheen wife brooke



  • pointlesswait
    08-05 11:09 AM
    Labor substition was never yours to begin with...

    EB porting..you are already in the queue...you change ur job..go through the rigours of GC ..ad ..wad and lose a pad of money...then "IF" you are lucky you can regain ur position in the queue.... and looking at the 140 backlogs..anyone attempting to port his PD will end up getting stuck in the muck..;-)

    let me explain with example my friend:

    there is a blond ahead of you in the line....and suddenly she gets a nature call..she goes does her thing and returns...and she wants to regain her rightful place...

    now u my friend have a million dollar question: will u let her get back in the line in front of you...I bet u will...;-)

    now replace that blond with a desi.. i am sure i know your answer..."tere baap ka line hai kya"...

    so EB porting is possible only if you go through the rigours of stage 1 and 2...labor substition was a different animal..

    i guess i made myself clear..;)







    May I ask, why you agree with PD porting and not labor substitution... Was it because you were affected in later case?
    Let us face it , we all are selfish. And if our self interest match then we are an organization.



    more...


    charlie sheen wife brooke. Charlie Sheen#39;s New Wife
  • Charlie Sheen#39;s New Wife



  • dealsnet
    01-07 08:21 PM
    Our leaders have no guts to speak to these people.

    You know what is your problem?
    From Ottaman, Genghis khan, Temur, to recently Laden all did terrorism to innocent people. When any person or nation protect this terrorism, you guys calling them terrorist!! Bush senior and Bush junior punish terrorist act, you are calling them terrorist. When Israel give answer, you are calling terrorism. When Narendra Modi react against Muslim terrorism, you calling him Terrorist. You guys only like people who don't give answer like current Indian government.
    Now world has changed attitude. World has decided to compromise on Human right to fight with terrorism. Earlier only Israel has policy but after 911, many countries have policy not to negotiate with Plane Hijackers.

    Now read following Australian PM's statement and call him terrorist. You if don't change your mind set, one day you will find board at every country; "Muslims are not welcome"
    Read this Australian PM's bold statement.

    Prime Minister John Howard - Australia

    Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.


    Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'

    'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'

    'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society Learn the language!'

    'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

    'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

    'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'

    'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'





    hot Charlie Sheen, wife not charlie sheen wife brooke. charlie-sheen-rooke-muelle.
  • charlie-sheen-rooke-muelle.



  • rvr_jcop
    03-25 02:19 PM
    I heard from the grapevine that UNITEDNATIONS will be the next USCIS chief - so folks better behave with him or he wil report ya all :D :D :D :D

    If it wasn't for UNITED NATIONS, I wouldnt have got my 140 approved 2 years ago. His guidelines on A2P saved me. And whatever he says, I take it seriously. Thank You UN.



    more...


    house Charlie Sheen#39;s wife Brooke charlie sheen wife brooke. Charlie Sheen#39;s Wife Went Back
  • Charlie Sheen#39;s Wife Went Back



  • Refugee_New
    01-06 01:05 PM
    Got a red with following comment
    "hey stop acting like a policeman you desperate immigrant.. think beyond your GC"
    I want to tell this anonymous fella that yes I am desperate immigrant & have been waiting for my GC from last 8 years that's why I am on this form & if you want to post this issue post it on relevant site not here FORM IS ONLY FOR EB RELATED ISSUES.

    I completely agree with you GCBatman. Its an immigration forum and its strictly for immigration purpose only. I loved this site and i always admired the admins and other senior members for their service.

    But IV let its people to vent their anger against muslims and Islam. IV never tried to stop this. Anyway i am not here to vent my anger but to tell the truth that we scared to discuss.

    If we can discuss about Mumbai terrorist attack, are we not suppose to discuss kind of news which is even worse?. Are we not supposed to condemn the killing of innocent school kids and murdering of innocent civilians?





    tattoo Who Is Charlie Sheen#39;s Wife charlie sheen wife brooke. Charlie Sheen#39;s wife, Brooke
  • Charlie Sheen#39;s wife, Brooke



  • 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.



    more...


    pictures Charlie Sheen#39;s Wife Brooke charlie sheen wife brooke. Sheen and second wife, Brooke
  • Sheen and second wife, Brooke



  • Macaca
    02-21 04:04 PM
    Sometime back CNN (or Wolf Blitzer) used to say that CNN is the best news on network. Does anyone remember the exact words? Thanks.





    dresses charlie-sheen-rooke-muelle. charlie sheen wife brooke. Charlie Sheen and wife Brooke
  • Charlie Sheen and wife Brooke



  • desi3933
    08-05 04:06 PM
    Of course porting is derived from law!
    As I was pointing out earlier, this debate has become warperd. The question is about porting with BS+5, not porting per se. I believe the BS+5 came from a legacy INS memo after a lawsuit or something. Perhaps we should ask the question on one of the attorney forums.

    This does not apply. As long as BS+5 years progressive post-baccalaureate experience is ok for EB-2, the priority date recapture is as per law.

    ______________________________
    US Permanent Resident since 2002



    more...


    makeup Charlie Sheen was arrested on charlie sheen wife brooke. Charlie Sheen#39;s wife Brooke
  • Charlie Sheen#39;s wife Brooke



  • SunnySurya
    08-05 03:17 PM
    Don't remember exactly, I can look into the wording of the law but I think
    post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 is a law and not Memo.
    Wondering whether the post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 was also a memo. If so when was that memo written - before or after the Yates 2000 memo?





    girlfriend Charlie Sheen#39;s wife, Brooke charlie sheen wife brooke. Charlie Sheen and wife Brooke
  • Charlie Sheen and wife Brooke



  • unitednations
    03-26 08:41 PM
    So then lets take an example

    1. Company Files H1b from NJ
    2. Consultant gets a job in NY or OH or xyz state. Employer files 'amend location' each time. The work and keep on moving like that
    3. Time comes up for renewal of H1, if the employer gives the current client's contract in a different location, it will definitely trigger USICS to possibly deny the extension? Since the original H1 petition did not mention this place or since they filed amend its ok?
    4. When they file for amend, do they need to give a contract/client letter to justify the amend? If yes then will it trigger an RFE?

    According to you anything is possible with USCIS these days.

    My original request still stays. I want some advise, I will definitely use an attorney but wanted your opinion on it..

    -cheers
    kris

    Every time you amend the petition; it technically would be another h-1b; when you come up for extension (assuming when you amend the petitoin that you are not requesting for more time); you would be extending the latest h-1b that has been approved. You would have been complying with the terms and conditions of that particular h-1b so you shouldn't have any issues.

    California service center when adjudicating person B's H-1b asks for payroll reports of all employees. They will cross reference the h-1b's filed for other employees from the list and if they see even one person who has been paid lower then what their h-1b was filed for then they will deny person b's h-1b. California service center is relying on a case precedent that if a petitioner has not complied with a previous petition (even if it is a different persons petition) then they can't rely on their certification in the instant petition and deny it. Funny thing is that when I looked up that case precedent that they continually site; it is a marriage base case when a person tried to file a second petition. Another example of uscis doing what it wants to do.

    Now; I think everyone will start to understand why so many companies are cancelling h-1b's; revoking h-1b's for people on bench and generally not filing many h-1b's in this year quota or filing h-1b transfers for people without projects. I wans't too vocal when some members on the forums were trying to gather support for lifting country quotas; contacting media; etc., because I was well aware of what was going on behind the scenes and we are definitely in a defensive mode right now.





    hairstyles Charlie Sheen#39;s New Wife charlie sheen wife brooke. Charlie Sheen#39;s Wife
  • Charlie Sheen#39;s Wife



  • Macaca
    08-01 08:15 PM
    Lobbying Reform, at Last (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001552.html) Congress should finish it before going home, July 31, 2007

    IT WASN'T EASY, it took too long, and it's not done yet -- but before Congress leaves for its August recess, it should have completed a lobbying reform bill that would, for the first time, require disclosure of the bundles of campaign checks that lobbyists bring in for politicians. We say "should have" because the measure -- having not gone through the normal conference committee process -- needs to clear significant hurdles in both the House and Senate. Lawmakers of both parties, in both houses, must ensure that that happens before going home to face constituents who appear increasingly unhappy about a Congress they perceive as looking after its own interests, not theirs.

    The lobbying package makes important changes, some of which were written into House rules in January. It would prohibit lawmakers and staff members from accepting gifts or travel from lobbyists and their clients. It would end lawmakers' ability to fly on corporate aircraft at cut-rate prices; senators and White House candidates would have to pay regular charter rates for such flights, while House members would simply be barred from accepting travel on private jets. It would lengthen, from one year to two, the revolving-door prohibition on senators and Senate staff members; the House limit would remain at one year.

    It would require that senators pushing pet projects known as earmarks make that information available at least 48 hours in advance of a vote and certify that they and their immediate family members have no financial stake in the items; earmarks added in conference could be challenged and would have to receive 60 votes to survive. Lobbyists would also have to report gifts made to presidential libraries, now a financial disclosure black hole.

    Most important, the measure would require lawmakers to include on their campaign finance reports the identities of lobbyists who raise $15,000 or more for them during a six-month period -- shining a needed light on an important source of influence. Keeping this requirement part of the bill was a difficult, and important, achievement.

    This agreement will be brought up on the House floor today, under rules allowing it to pass quickly with two-thirds support. Then it goes to the Senate, where it is expected to run into opposition from Republican Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.) over whether the earmarking rules are strict enough; because it involves a change in Senate rules, 67 votes will be needed for passage. Leadership from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) will be critical to ensure that the complaints of a few senators are not allowed to derail a change that is badly needed and long overdue.





    GCapplicant
    07-13 04:46 PM
    I am just losing confidence.Just wondering how they have moved only the second category -when there is someone highly retrogressed.
    To fail the bills so no one will work for that anymore or just because EB2 is superior than EB3 or am I confusing myself.So once if EB2I becomes C and then EB3row C will EB3 I atleast move.

    Its just a spillover,why cant they give it equally.Why no one is ready to question for us?





    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.' "



    No comments:

    Post a Comment