Macaca
05-27 06:05 PM
The Audacity of Chinese Frauds (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/business/27norris.html) By FLOYD NORRIS | The New York Times
To pull off a fraud that humiliates the cream of the global financial elite, you need to have some friends. And where better to have them than at the local bank?
The fraud at Longtop Financial Technologies, a Chinese financial software company, was exposed this week in an amazing letter from its auditors, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. It appears to be a tale of corrupt bankers and their threats to auditors who had learned of the lies.
Deloitte, which had given clean audit opinions to Longtop for six consecutive years, apparently was well on its way to providing a seventh, for the fiscal year that ended March 31. But for some reason � Deloitte did not say why �the auditor went back to Longtop�s banks last week to again seek confirmation of cash balances.
It appears Deloitte sought confirmations from bank headquarters, rather than the local branches that had previously verified that Longtop�s cash really was on deposit. And that set off panic at the software firm.
�Within hours� of beginning the new round of confirmations on May 17, the confirmation process was stopped, Deloitte stated in its letter of resignation, the result of �intervention by the company�s officials including the chief operating officer, the confirmation process was stopped.�
The company told banks that Deloitte was not really the auditor. It seized documents, Deloitte wrote, and made �threats to stop our staff leaving the company premises unless they allowed the company to retain our audit files.�
Despite the company�s efforts, Deloitte learned Longtop did not have the cash it claimed and that there were �significant bank borrowings� not reflected in the company�s books.
A few days later, Deloitte said, Longtop�s chairman, Jia Xiao Gong, told a Deloitte partner that there was �fake cash recorded on the books� because there had been �fake revenue in the past.�
The stock has not traded since that confrontation. The final trade on the New York Stock Exchange was for $18.93, a price that valued the company at $1.1 billion. At its peak in November, it had a market capitalization of $2.4 billion.
It now seems likely that the stock is worthless. It is a real company, but its revenue and profits probably were a small fraction of the amounts reported. The existence of the �significant� debt means that whatever assets are left are likely to be owned by the banks, not the investors.
Deloitte may have decided to check the numbers again because it knew a growing group of bears on the stock had been challenging the Longtop story as too good to be true, questioning both its financial statements and the claims it made for its software. A month earlier, Deloitte resigned as the auditor of another Chinese company, China MediaExpress, in part because of questions about bank confirmations.
It is never good for an auditor to have certified a fraud, but Deloitte seems to have acted properly. It got bank confirmations, and it got them directly from the banks rather than relying on the company to provide them, as PricewaterhouseCoopers had done when it failed to notice a huge fraud at Satyam, an Indian technology company.
But the confirmations were lies.
�This means the Chinese banks were in on the fraud, at least at branch level,� says John Hempton, the chief investment officer of Bronte Capital, an Australian hedge fund. He was one of the bears who questioned Longtop�s claims and now stands to profit from the stock�s collapse.
�This is no longer a story about Longtop, and it is not a story about Deloitte,� he added. �Given the centrality of Chinese banks to the global economy, it�s a story much bigger than Deloitte or Longtop.�
The Securities and Exchange Commission has started an investigation, and no doubt more details will emerge, including the names of the banks involved. Just what, if anything, Chinese officials choose to do could provide an indication about whether defrauding foreign investors is deemed to be a serious crime in China.
Fraud in Chinese stocks is not new. But it had seemed that the worst problems were in small companies without Wall Street pedigrees. Many of the fraudulent companies went public in the United States by the reverse-merger shell route, a course long favored by shady stock promoters. That route allowed companies to start trading without going though a formal underwriting process or having its prospectus reviewed by the S.E.C. And many used tiny audit firms based in the United States that seemingly did little if any work.
What is stunning about Longtop and some other recent disasters is the list of smart people who were fooled.
Longtop did not go public through a reverse merger. Its initial public offering, in 2007, was underwritten by Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank. Morgan Stanley was a lead manager in a 2009 offering of more shares. Major owners of the stock included hedge funds run by people known as �tiger cubs� because they got their start at Julian Robertson�s Tiger Fund.
On May 4, only a couple of weeks before the fateful struggle at Longtop offices, an analyst for Morgan Stanley, Carol Wang, wrote:
�Longtop�s stock price has been very volatile in recent days amid fraud allegations that management has denied. Our analysis of margins and cash flow gives us confidence in its accounting methods. We believe market misconceptions provide a good entry point for long-term investors.�
By then, Longtop officials had begun to scramble. According to its last audited balance sheet, cash accounted for more than half of Longtop�s $606 million in assets. Bears were asking why the company needed all that cash and were questioning whether it existed.
In mid-March, just after the fraud at China MediaExpress was exposed, Longtop announced plans to put some of the cash to use by spending up to $50 million to repurchase its own shares. On April 28, the company tried to assure analysts that the fraud claims were bogus. Derek Palaschuk, a Canadian accountant who served as the company�s chief financial officer, wrapped himself in Deloitte�s prestige, saying that those who questioned Longtop were �criticizing the integrity of one of the top accounting firms in the world.�
�For me,� he said, �the most important relations I have other than with my family, my C.E.O., and then the next on the list is Deloitte as our auditor, because their trust and support is extremely important.�
Mr. Palaschuk had an explanation for why the company had not repurchased any shares. It had some very good news that it had not yet released, and �we were advised by our securities counsel that we should not be in the market purchasing our own shares in the event that this would be considered insider trading.�
Longtop is not the only Chinese fraud that caught prominent Americans. Starr International, an investment company run by Hank Greenberg, the former chairman of American International Group, invested $43.5 million in China MediaExpress and had a representative on the company�s board. Starr has filed suit in Delaware against the company and Deloitte.
Goldman Sachs was not the underwriter of ShengdaTech, a Chinese chemical company traded on Nasdaq, but its investment arm, Goldman Sachs Investment Management, had accumulated a 7.6 percent stake in the company before its auditor, KPMG, refused to sign off on the company�s 2010 annual report and then resigned in late April. KPMG cited �serious discrepancies� regarding bank balances and �discrepancies between KPMG�s direct calls to customers and confirmations returned by mail.� Just as at Longtop, it appeared that auditors had been given false confirmation letters.
In each of those three cases � Longtop, China MediaExpress and ShengdaTech � the auditors discovered discrepancies, but only after signing off on financial statements. That was not the case in this year�s other � and perhaps most embarrassing � resignation by a Big Four auditing firm.
To pull off a fraud that humiliates the cream of the global financial elite, you need to have some friends. And where better to have them than at the local bank?
The fraud at Longtop Financial Technologies, a Chinese financial software company, was exposed this week in an amazing letter from its auditors, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. It appears to be a tale of corrupt bankers and their threats to auditors who had learned of the lies.
Deloitte, which had given clean audit opinions to Longtop for six consecutive years, apparently was well on its way to providing a seventh, for the fiscal year that ended March 31. But for some reason � Deloitte did not say why �the auditor went back to Longtop�s banks last week to again seek confirmation of cash balances.
It appears Deloitte sought confirmations from bank headquarters, rather than the local branches that had previously verified that Longtop�s cash really was on deposit. And that set off panic at the software firm.
�Within hours� of beginning the new round of confirmations on May 17, the confirmation process was stopped, Deloitte stated in its letter of resignation, the result of �intervention by the company�s officials including the chief operating officer, the confirmation process was stopped.�
The company told banks that Deloitte was not really the auditor. It seized documents, Deloitte wrote, and made �threats to stop our staff leaving the company premises unless they allowed the company to retain our audit files.�
Despite the company�s efforts, Deloitte learned Longtop did not have the cash it claimed and that there were �significant bank borrowings� not reflected in the company�s books.
A few days later, Deloitte said, Longtop�s chairman, Jia Xiao Gong, told a Deloitte partner that there was �fake cash recorded on the books� because there had been �fake revenue in the past.�
The stock has not traded since that confrontation. The final trade on the New York Stock Exchange was for $18.93, a price that valued the company at $1.1 billion. At its peak in November, it had a market capitalization of $2.4 billion.
It now seems likely that the stock is worthless. It is a real company, but its revenue and profits probably were a small fraction of the amounts reported. The existence of the �significant� debt means that whatever assets are left are likely to be owned by the banks, not the investors.
Deloitte may have decided to check the numbers again because it knew a growing group of bears on the stock had been challenging the Longtop story as too good to be true, questioning both its financial statements and the claims it made for its software. A month earlier, Deloitte resigned as the auditor of another Chinese company, China MediaExpress, in part because of questions about bank confirmations.
It is never good for an auditor to have certified a fraud, but Deloitte seems to have acted properly. It got bank confirmations, and it got them directly from the banks rather than relying on the company to provide them, as PricewaterhouseCoopers had done when it failed to notice a huge fraud at Satyam, an Indian technology company.
But the confirmations were lies.
�This means the Chinese banks were in on the fraud, at least at branch level,� says John Hempton, the chief investment officer of Bronte Capital, an Australian hedge fund. He was one of the bears who questioned Longtop�s claims and now stands to profit from the stock�s collapse.
�This is no longer a story about Longtop, and it is not a story about Deloitte,� he added. �Given the centrality of Chinese banks to the global economy, it�s a story much bigger than Deloitte or Longtop.�
The Securities and Exchange Commission has started an investigation, and no doubt more details will emerge, including the names of the banks involved. Just what, if anything, Chinese officials choose to do could provide an indication about whether defrauding foreign investors is deemed to be a serious crime in China.
Fraud in Chinese stocks is not new. But it had seemed that the worst problems were in small companies without Wall Street pedigrees. Many of the fraudulent companies went public in the United States by the reverse-merger shell route, a course long favored by shady stock promoters. That route allowed companies to start trading without going though a formal underwriting process or having its prospectus reviewed by the S.E.C. And many used tiny audit firms based in the United States that seemingly did little if any work.
What is stunning about Longtop and some other recent disasters is the list of smart people who were fooled.
Longtop did not go public through a reverse merger. Its initial public offering, in 2007, was underwritten by Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank. Morgan Stanley was a lead manager in a 2009 offering of more shares. Major owners of the stock included hedge funds run by people known as �tiger cubs� because they got their start at Julian Robertson�s Tiger Fund.
On May 4, only a couple of weeks before the fateful struggle at Longtop offices, an analyst for Morgan Stanley, Carol Wang, wrote:
�Longtop�s stock price has been very volatile in recent days amid fraud allegations that management has denied. Our analysis of margins and cash flow gives us confidence in its accounting methods. We believe market misconceptions provide a good entry point for long-term investors.�
By then, Longtop officials had begun to scramble. According to its last audited balance sheet, cash accounted for more than half of Longtop�s $606 million in assets. Bears were asking why the company needed all that cash and were questioning whether it existed.
In mid-March, just after the fraud at China MediaExpress was exposed, Longtop announced plans to put some of the cash to use by spending up to $50 million to repurchase its own shares. On April 28, the company tried to assure analysts that the fraud claims were bogus. Derek Palaschuk, a Canadian accountant who served as the company�s chief financial officer, wrapped himself in Deloitte�s prestige, saying that those who questioned Longtop were �criticizing the integrity of one of the top accounting firms in the world.�
�For me,� he said, �the most important relations I have other than with my family, my C.E.O., and then the next on the list is Deloitte as our auditor, because their trust and support is extremely important.�
Mr. Palaschuk had an explanation for why the company had not repurchased any shares. It had some very good news that it had not yet released, and �we were advised by our securities counsel that we should not be in the market purchasing our own shares in the event that this would be considered insider trading.�
Longtop is not the only Chinese fraud that caught prominent Americans. Starr International, an investment company run by Hank Greenberg, the former chairman of American International Group, invested $43.5 million in China MediaExpress and had a representative on the company�s board. Starr has filed suit in Delaware against the company and Deloitte.
Goldman Sachs was not the underwriter of ShengdaTech, a Chinese chemical company traded on Nasdaq, but its investment arm, Goldman Sachs Investment Management, had accumulated a 7.6 percent stake in the company before its auditor, KPMG, refused to sign off on the company�s 2010 annual report and then resigned in late April. KPMG cited �serious discrepancies� regarding bank balances and �discrepancies between KPMG�s direct calls to customers and confirmations returned by mail.� Just as at Longtop, it appeared that auditors had been given false confirmation letters.
In each of those three cases � Longtop, China MediaExpress and ShengdaTech � the auditors discovered discrepancies, but only after signing off on financial statements. That was not the case in this year�s other � and perhaps most embarrassing � resignation by a Big Four auditing firm.
wallpaper pictures Green Fox Racing Logo fox racing wallpaper logo. free fox racing
s_r_e_e
08-11 05:54 PM
DJ: Come on Sarah... where did you have it?
:D:D:D:D:D:D joke of the year..
:D:D:D:D:D:D joke of the year..
redcard
03-24 04:28 PM
You know its very true that the whole problem around H1-B and Green Card scrutiny has a lot to do with the way the system was exploited by consulting companies which primarily have Indian ownership. In the pre Perm day�s you would find every consulting company having an address in every state where the labor approval for green card was faster. That resulted in the same company filling multiple labor for the same employee from five different state�s resulting in clogging the system and leading to BEC�s. These labors when they were eventually approved were sold by these unscrupulous companies as substitution labors, infact you could find advertisement for sale on sulekha for these labors (I am sure we all remember cybersoft). Thanks to this, today we USCIS looking closely at every green card case.
In the last few years� things have got so bad that these consulting companies send team of attornies to India during the H1-B filing season for H1-B applications where they charge over Rs.200K plus from candidates for filling H1-B.(Open local Indian papers and you can see advertsiment for these) Half of these applicants never make it to US as consulates rdetect these frauds at the time of stamping and this has made stamping even for genuine cases difficult. Apart from that it has resulted in H1-B lottery where a deserving candidate can not get an H1-B and finally to the current situation where USCIS looks at every H1-B application including renewal with a jaundice eye. Add to this the Satyam issue.
Lets face it; the root cause of the issue we face in the immigration system can be attributed to the greed of some Indian consulting companies.
Just take at a look at these advertisments ..
http://www.training-classes.com/programs/01/26/12677_h1b_visa_sponsorship.php
http://www.indianscholar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=344
http://jobblogr.com/2007/04/08/h1-b-sponsorship-2007-usa-fresh-graduates-experienced-professinals-tcognition-inc/
I can bet this vipul or shilpa will "bench" the minute you are out of project,,
In the last few years� things have got so bad that these consulting companies send team of attornies to India during the H1-B filing season for H1-B applications where they charge over Rs.200K plus from candidates for filling H1-B.(Open local Indian papers and you can see advertsiment for these) Half of these applicants never make it to US as consulates rdetect these frauds at the time of stamping and this has made stamping even for genuine cases difficult. Apart from that it has resulted in H1-B lottery where a deserving candidate can not get an H1-B and finally to the current situation where USCIS looks at every H1-B application including renewal with a jaundice eye. Add to this the Satyam issue.
Lets face it; the root cause of the issue we face in the immigration system can be attributed to the greed of some Indian consulting companies.
Just take at a look at these advertisments ..
http://www.training-classes.com/programs/01/26/12677_h1b_visa_sponsorship.php
http://www.indianscholar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=344
http://jobblogr.com/2007/04/08/h1-b-sponsorship-2007-usa-fresh-graduates-experienced-professinals-tcognition-inc/
I can bet this vipul or shilpa will "bench" the minute you are out of project,,
2011 makeup Red Fox Racing Logo Tongue fox racing logo. fox-racing-logo black
Macaca
12-27 07:32 PM
But they got no answers out of me�a total failure. Officer Xu, while asking me questions, kept kicking my legs. I said, "Be a little more civilized!"
Then he said, "So what if I act like this, what can you do! In other matters I will actually still be afraid that someone might complain. But you here, you are an enemy. We can beat you and swear at you and if you complain, it will be useless even if you complain to the Ministry of Public Security!" I thought, this little police officer is younger than 30, how is he so well versed in the Maoist doctrine of the "contradiction between the enemy and us"?
A tall plainclothes officer was getting impatient and said loudly to Officer Xu: "Why waste words on this sort of person? Let's beat him to death and dig a hole to bury him in and be done with it. How lucky we've got a place to put him away here." Turning to me, he said, "Think your family can find you if you're disappeared? Tell me, what difference would it make if you vanished from Beijing?" Later he whispered to Officer Xu, "Put him away in the hotel!" I could not hear clear what hotel he meant, but from the context I assumed he was referring to that "place to bury you."
I knew they were not just joking, and I felt like a small ant that could be annihilated any moment without a trace. And yet I was not that scared. For one thing, I had already sent out a message on the Internet, and for another, they had by that time also taken my ID card out of my bag and realized that I was a teacher at the China University of Politics and Law.
This special status was the reason why I was not beaten more severely, and why they did not "dig a hole to bury me." And it is true: I had disclosed this information to the police officers, albeit half-consciously, to avoid being beaten more severely. If it had not been for my status as a teacher at CUPL, a doctor with a degree from Peking University, a famous human rights lawyer, a visiting scholar at Yale, could I still have shown as much courage? I very much doubt it.
I felt ashamed of my status and the differential treatment I was enjoying on account of them. I even felt that if the police didn't succeed in burying me they would vent their rage against some other disobedient person. Any pain that I was being spared was sure to be inflicted on another, more helpless victim at some point.
How much terror, humiliation and despair do ordinary people suffer who get locked up in police stations, re-education through labour camps, investigation detention cells, custody and repatriation cells, and black jails in the face of a bunch of police officers who regard a person's life like a blade of grass and treat ordinary people as foes? Police officers across the country threatening to "beat you to death and dig a hole to bury you," how many people do they actually beat to death or beat until they are disabled?
It was almost midnight when the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau sent round some officers who said they wanted to take me away. They returned my glasses, mobile phone and other things. I told them that I would only leave together with the friend who had been detained with me.
After some more argument, they led me and Mr. Zhang to a car. Someone called my name, and I immediately recognized some netizens. I could not get out of the car but I shook hands with them through the window. Later I learned that many others had also rushed to the scene. An unknown number of netizen friends had expressed support on the Internet and passed on the news. Maybe that is the main reason why we were so quickly released.
On the way back home, a Beijing state security officer complained to me, "If everybody fought with them using your methods, the police would have no way of continuing their work! How many fewer common thieves they'd be able to catch!"
I replied, "If the law-enforcers don't act in accordance with the law, what use are they really to citizens? Police should catch thieves, but can those who 'beat you to death and dig a hole for you' still be called 'police'? If people are fighting each other using my methods, maybe fewer common thieves will be caught, but fewer citizens will be beaten to death in police stations. In which of these two situations are society's losses greater?"
Mr. Teng is a professor of law at China University of Politics and Law
The Challenges China Faces (http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2892&Itemid=422) By John Berthelsen | Asia Sentinel
China�s Attitude toward Hard Power and Soft Power (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/12_china_soft_power_jia.aspx) By Qingguo Jia | Peking University
Computing set to bolster China's industrial prowess (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20101227a1.html) Sentaku Magazine
Then he said, "So what if I act like this, what can you do! In other matters I will actually still be afraid that someone might complain. But you here, you are an enemy. We can beat you and swear at you and if you complain, it will be useless even if you complain to the Ministry of Public Security!" I thought, this little police officer is younger than 30, how is he so well versed in the Maoist doctrine of the "contradiction between the enemy and us"?
A tall plainclothes officer was getting impatient and said loudly to Officer Xu: "Why waste words on this sort of person? Let's beat him to death and dig a hole to bury him in and be done with it. How lucky we've got a place to put him away here." Turning to me, he said, "Think your family can find you if you're disappeared? Tell me, what difference would it make if you vanished from Beijing?" Later he whispered to Officer Xu, "Put him away in the hotel!" I could not hear clear what hotel he meant, but from the context I assumed he was referring to that "place to bury you."
I knew they were not just joking, and I felt like a small ant that could be annihilated any moment without a trace. And yet I was not that scared. For one thing, I had already sent out a message on the Internet, and for another, they had by that time also taken my ID card out of my bag and realized that I was a teacher at the China University of Politics and Law.
This special status was the reason why I was not beaten more severely, and why they did not "dig a hole to bury me." And it is true: I had disclosed this information to the police officers, albeit half-consciously, to avoid being beaten more severely. If it had not been for my status as a teacher at CUPL, a doctor with a degree from Peking University, a famous human rights lawyer, a visiting scholar at Yale, could I still have shown as much courage? I very much doubt it.
I felt ashamed of my status and the differential treatment I was enjoying on account of them. I even felt that if the police didn't succeed in burying me they would vent their rage against some other disobedient person. Any pain that I was being spared was sure to be inflicted on another, more helpless victim at some point.
How much terror, humiliation and despair do ordinary people suffer who get locked up in police stations, re-education through labour camps, investigation detention cells, custody and repatriation cells, and black jails in the face of a bunch of police officers who regard a person's life like a blade of grass and treat ordinary people as foes? Police officers across the country threatening to "beat you to death and dig a hole to bury you," how many people do they actually beat to death or beat until they are disabled?
It was almost midnight when the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau sent round some officers who said they wanted to take me away. They returned my glasses, mobile phone and other things. I told them that I would only leave together with the friend who had been detained with me.
After some more argument, they led me and Mr. Zhang to a car. Someone called my name, and I immediately recognized some netizens. I could not get out of the car but I shook hands with them through the window. Later I learned that many others had also rushed to the scene. An unknown number of netizen friends had expressed support on the Internet and passed on the news. Maybe that is the main reason why we were so quickly released.
On the way back home, a Beijing state security officer complained to me, "If everybody fought with them using your methods, the police would have no way of continuing their work! How many fewer common thieves they'd be able to catch!"
I replied, "If the law-enforcers don't act in accordance with the law, what use are they really to citizens? Police should catch thieves, but can those who 'beat you to death and dig a hole for you' still be called 'police'? If people are fighting each other using my methods, maybe fewer common thieves will be caught, but fewer citizens will be beaten to death in police stations. In which of these two situations are society's losses greater?"
Mr. Teng is a professor of law at China University of Politics and Law
The Challenges China Faces (http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2892&Itemid=422) By John Berthelsen | Asia Sentinel
China�s Attitude toward Hard Power and Soft Power (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/12_china_soft_power_jia.aspx) By Qingguo Jia | Peking University
Computing set to bolster China's industrial prowess (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20101227a1.html) Sentaku Magazine
more...
wellwishergc
07-11 11:48 AM
Please ignore my previous posting! I saw in one of the earlier postings that you are approved. Congratulations and Best wishes! and welcome back to this forum; Please help us here whenever you can.
Thanks!
Is your GC approved now?
Thanks!
Is your GC approved now?
gcbikari
08-11 02:53 PM
Keep more lessons coming...don't worry about the #2 that you forgot
Thought #2 was a dirty lesson and intentionally removed.
Thought #2 was a dirty lesson and intentionally removed.
more...
gcisadawg
01-07 04:39 PM
Yes Nanavati commission found Madresa in Godhra was responsible!
Congress Spokesman on Nanavati Commission
“We are not surprised at all the findings. It cannot be called a bonafide investigation. The way the committee was set up, its tenure was extended, large numbers of witness, deposed expressed their disappointment it creates ample doubts on its findings,” said Shingvi.
BJP Spokesman on U.C Banerjee Commission.
“It has now been proved that the truth has come out. Banerjee had rushed to its findings without taking into account other facts. It was ill-prepared and ill-conceived. UPA has even tried to prove that the burning of Sabarmati coaches were indeed an act of mass self-immolation by the karsevaks. Lalu Prasad yadav had also tried to prove it as accidental.”
“However, these findings has vindicated that it was not accidental. We now request any further proceedings should now be taken taking Nanavati Commission’s findings into account,” said Prakash Javedkar.
Meanwhile, The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted time till December 31 to the R K Raghavan Committee to complete the probe into the Godhra train burning incident.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/26godhra.htm
The bottom line: We have all kinds of report. Nobody knows which is closer to the truth. What would a common man do?
Congress Spokesman on Nanavati Commission
“We are not surprised at all the findings. It cannot be called a bonafide investigation. The way the committee was set up, its tenure was extended, large numbers of witness, deposed expressed their disappointment it creates ample doubts on its findings,” said Shingvi.
BJP Spokesman on U.C Banerjee Commission.
“It has now been proved that the truth has come out. Banerjee had rushed to its findings without taking into account other facts. It was ill-prepared and ill-conceived. UPA has even tried to prove that the burning of Sabarmati coaches were indeed an act of mass self-immolation by the karsevaks. Lalu Prasad yadav had also tried to prove it as accidental.”
“However, these findings has vindicated that it was not accidental. We now request any further proceedings should now be taken taking Nanavati Commission’s findings into account,” said Prakash Javedkar.
Meanwhile, The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted time till December 31 to the R K Raghavan Committee to complete the probe into the Godhra train burning incident.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/26godhra.htm
The bottom line: We have all kinds of report. Nobody knows which is closer to the truth. What would a common man do?
2010 strict logo Wallpaper,
Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
more...
GCBatman
01-06 04:53 PM
Hey guys,
If all the topics can be posted here and anyone can start any unrelated thread (No Offense to "Refugee_New" because there are others also who did the same in past and it looks like all the moderators are sleeping.)
So I am thinking of posting unrelated issue.
Here is the question?
I have to buy the tires for my car (15")
Which tires are best Michelin or Goodyear
Please no reds and sincere answers only.
Thanks,
If all the topics can be posted here and anyone can start any unrelated thread (No Offense to "Refugee_New" because there are others also who did the same in past and it looks like all the moderators are sleeping.)
So I am thinking of posting unrelated issue.
Here is the question?
I have to buy the tires for my car (15")
Which tires are best Michelin or Goodyear
Please no reds and sincere answers only.
Thanks,
hair fox racing logo wallpaper
gapala
06-23 10:28 PM
Lot of folks talk about tax credit of 8000 in several threads, But, understand that a lot of us in this forum may not even get a dime in credit. There are income limits. Married and income above 170000 will get nothing.. nada. If the income is 165000, you will receive a mere 2000 and so on. Married with less than 150000 will receive 8000. For a single, the limit is 75K.
If both husband and wife works in tech sector.. income will easily cross the limits and you will be considered too rich to buy a home and get credit... May be car credit might work for us as limits are higher... it only applies to sales tax charged on the first $49,500 of your purchase The income limit is high enough that nearly everyone will qualify. The credit starts to phase out at $125,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Once you reach $135,000 and $260,000, respectively, you no longer qualify for car credit.
If both husband and wife works in tech sector.. income will easily cross the limits and you will be considered too rich to buy a home and get credit... May be car credit might work for us as limits are higher... it only applies to sales tax charged on the first $49,500 of your purchase The income limit is high enough that nearly everyone will qualify. The credit starts to phase out at $125,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Once you reach $135,000 and $260,000, respectively, you no longer qualify for car credit.
more...
Marphad
12-17 02:48 PM
I never commented Muslims as terrorists and even don't believe so. If you read the title again, it clearly says "I hate converting terrorism to muslimism" - which few morons like Antulay are doing. They are actually indirectly trying to imply that.
If I meant anywhere that I have problem with muslims, believe me it will be writing issue. Yes, I do have problems with people who are Indian citizens but support Pakistan and terrorism.
What is there in his remarks to be so 'terrorised' about? Where is 'Muslimism' here?
I hope as far as there are people like you and some others who commented as if 'Muslim means Terrorist' (but you won't tell that directly), there will be more terrorists; and it is quite understandable.
If I meant anywhere that I have problem with muslims, believe me it will be writing issue. Yes, I do have problems with people who are Indian citizens but support Pakistan and terrorism.
What is there in his remarks to be so 'terrorised' about? Where is 'Muslimism' here?
I hope as far as there are people like you and some others who commented as if 'Muslim means Terrorist' (but you won't tell that directly), there will be more terrorists; and it is quite understandable.
hot fox racing logo wallpaper
prioritydate
01-10 11:23 AM
Now the killing has gone mad. Apart from killing the innocent civilians, crazy war mongers started bombing schools and killing innocent school kids. Today two schools were bombed and more than 40 children have been massacred.
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
Why would Hamas hide in school if they love their people so much? No body plans to kill innocent civilians, except Muslim terrorists, as we saw that everywhere in this world. So, what is your solution? Ask Israel to stop invading and punish Hamas, while they are busy blasting rockets from schools? Would you be happy if some Jew kids get killed? I believe you would be more that happy and would lit fire crackers!
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
Why would Hamas hide in school if they love their people so much? No body plans to kill innocent civilians, except Muslim terrorists, as we saw that everywhere in this world. So, what is your solution? Ask Israel to stop invading and punish Hamas, while they are busy blasting rockets from schools? Would you be happy if some Jew kids get killed? I believe you would be more that happy and would lit fire crackers!
more...
house fox racing logo wallpaper
Macaca
03-19 01:20 PM
New Congress, Same Obstacles for Democratic Lobbyists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801138.html), By Al Kamen, Monday, March 19, 2007
The Democrats' takeover of Congress had a lot of their interest groups -- labor, enviros, etc. -- elbowing ferociously for long-sought legislation for their constituents. The groups' lobbyists are feeling the pressure.
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association has been working hard to reopen contract bargaining with the Federal Aviation Administration -- it feels it got the short end in negotiations last year about work rules and pay -- and wants Congress to let it do so. But it's a tough go, NATCA President Patrick Forrey said in a March 10 "National Office Update."
"I can imagine how frustrat[ed] our membership must be that our language has not been enacted to date," Forrey wrote, "considering the tremendous amount of support in PAC dollars and campaign activity we invested into the election process." No doubt. Sounds like they've got a good consumer fraud case if they want to pursue it.
"For those who believe this should be a slam dunk," he said, "let me remind you that there are an incredible amount of organizations, associations, special interests and of course labor unions that have been subject[ed] to 12 years of bad government . . . the problem is, we are all competing against each other to get our separate issues corrected."
But the Washington office is working on it. "If you could be in my shoes and talk with these very supportive members," Forrey explained, "you'd have the opportunity to realize the difficulty in undoing something that falls in a long line of things that need undoing . . . that is why it's so difficult to get the total support" from the House leadership on "controversial bills" that might hurt passage of other bills.
But not to worry. "This past week has left us very encouraged about the progress we are making in securing a temporary legislative fix," he said, with Reps. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Jerry F. Costello (D-Ill.) having penned a joint letter to House Appropriations chair David Obey (D-Wis.) to put language in the Iraq war supplemental appropriations bill that would reopen contract negotiations.
"However, as of today," Forrey wrote, "we have not seen or been told of any language inserted" in the Iraq bill. "It appears that the final approval is going to have to come from Speaker Pelosi," he said, "so we are rounding up all of the support we can garner from" other members to get her "to give the nod."
(Last Thursday, the Appropriations Committee approved the bill without the language.)
The Democrats' takeover of Congress had a lot of their interest groups -- labor, enviros, etc. -- elbowing ferociously for long-sought legislation for their constituents. The groups' lobbyists are feeling the pressure.
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association has been working hard to reopen contract bargaining with the Federal Aviation Administration -- it feels it got the short end in negotiations last year about work rules and pay -- and wants Congress to let it do so. But it's a tough go, NATCA President Patrick Forrey said in a March 10 "National Office Update."
"I can imagine how frustrat[ed] our membership must be that our language has not been enacted to date," Forrey wrote, "considering the tremendous amount of support in PAC dollars and campaign activity we invested into the election process." No doubt. Sounds like they've got a good consumer fraud case if they want to pursue it.
"For those who believe this should be a slam dunk," he said, "let me remind you that there are an incredible amount of organizations, associations, special interests and of course labor unions that have been subject[ed] to 12 years of bad government . . . the problem is, we are all competing against each other to get our separate issues corrected."
But the Washington office is working on it. "If you could be in my shoes and talk with these very supportive members," Forrey explained, "you'd have the opportunity to realize the difficulty in undoing something that falls in a long line of things that need undoing . . . that is why it's so difficult to get the total support" from the House leadership on "controversial bills" that might hurt passage of other bills.
But not to worry. "This past week has left us very encouraged about the progress we are making in securing a temporary legislative fix," he said, with Reps. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Jerry F. Costello (D-Ill.) having penned a joint letter to House Appropriations chair David Obey (D-Wis.) to put language in the Iraq war supplemental appropriations bill that would reopen contract negotiations.
"However, as of today," Forrey wrote, "we have not seen or been told of any language inserted" in the Iraq bill. "It appears that the final approval is going to have to come from Speaker Pelosi," he said, "so we are rounding up all of the support we can garner from" other members to get her "to give the nod."
(Last Thursday, the Appropriations Committee approved the bill without the language.)
tattoo fox racing logo wallpaper
santb1975
10-01 01:41 AM
I wonder how many $$$ GWB Sr. had to donate to Yale for GWB to get in ...I better stop my rant..:rolleyes:
Just to clarify GWB is a Yale graduate.
With a democratic controlled congress and Obama being a president, CIR is bound to happen. If high-skilled community doesn't unite and get our voices heard then we might come up empty. Remember the last time an immigration bill was passed by the Democratic president (AC21). They flashed few carrots (2-yr recapture, portability and H1 extension beyond 6 yr) and threw us under the bus with flood of 245i applicants. EB3 queue is still suffering from those backlogs.
In the near term only democrats will be in a position to provide us with some relief because they control the congress.
Just to clarify GWB is a Yale graduate.
With a democratic controlled congress and Obama being a president, CIR is bound to happen. If high-skilled community doesn't unite and get our voices heard then we might come up empty. Remember the last time an immigration bill was passed by the Democratic president (AC21). They flashed few carrots (2-yr recapture, portability and H1 extension beyond 6 yr) and threw us under the bus with flood of 245i applicants. EB3 queue is still suffering from those backlogs.
In the near term only democrats will be in a position to provide us with some relief because they control the congress.
more...
pictures fox racing logo. fox racing
seattleGC
02-21 11:24 AM
He is such nut job that he is not worth talking about.
dresses fox racing logo wallpaper
dixie
07-15 12:49 PM
Let us be honest. A lot of us who came through body shops had to pay lawyer fee or had to take a cut in pay. Many of us had to sit in the bench for a long time with out pay. At the end of the day, not all of us are the best and the brightest but we are ready to work harder than the average Joe. With or without us this country will go forward. We are here to get a greencard and to become part of the melting pot. Please admit it my friends. I fully understands why many Americans are against us. We simply take their job. Then we insult them. Then we say, if we go back the American economy will go to hell. The companies are here for cheap labor. The congressmen who support them are the biggest receivers of their contribution. That is the reality. Let us not forget that. :D
When did we ever insult americans ? that is purely a figment of your own imagination. If we did we wouldnt have the face to ask for reforms to the GC process the way we are doing now. We never claimed america would collapse if we departed .. but make no mistake we DO make a HUGE contribution to this country, disproportionate to our relative numbers. Low wage bodyshops are the bad apples; that is hardly representative of the EB-H1B community at large. And it is highly cynical of you to believe congressmen initiate reforms solely for contributions; while that is a factor, it can never be the sole one. The american electorate is there to give them the boot next time they ask for their votes. You still have a lot to learn about how the world works my friend.
When did we ever insult americans ? that is purely a figment of your own imagination. If we did we wouldnt have the face to ask for reforms to the GC process the way we are doing now. We never claimed america would collapse if we departed .. but make no mistake we DO make a HUGE contribution to this country, disproportionate to our relative numbers. Low wage bodyshops are the bad apples; that is hardly representative of the EB-H1B community at large. And it is highly cynical of you to believe congressmen initiate reforms solely for contributions; while that is a factor, it can never be the sole one. The american electorate is there to give them the boot next time they ask for their votes. You still have a lot to learn about how the world works my friend.
more...
makeup fox racing logo wallpaper
munnu77
12-18 02:54 PM
Sign of very rare good pakistani journalism:
http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/connect/Dawn%20Content%20Library/dawn/news/pakistan/dont-let-this-sickness-spread-any-further--qs
Worth reading.
good article..
but i always believed, if there is a war between these countries, India will be the loser as pakistan has nothing to lose right now..we will go 10-15 yrs behind compared to other developing countires..
The war between 2 countries is that the terrorists really want, so they get a bigger grip on pakistan and they can recruit more people into them showing this..
Europen countries doesnt have much of a problem if they want to attack pak..
They will bomb and just go..India will have to deal with a destabilised country and people after tht..may be for decades
http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/connect/Dawn%20Content%20Library/dawn/news/pakistan/dont-let-this-sickness-spread-any-further--qs
Worth reading.
good article..
but i always believed, if there is a war between these countries, India will be the loser as pakistan has nothing to lose right now..we will go 10-15 yrs behind compared to other developing countires..
The war between 2 countries is that the terrorists really want, so they get a bigger grip on pakistan and they can recruit more people into them showing this..
Europen countries doesnt have much of a problem if they want to attack pak..
They will bomb and just go..India will have to deal with a destabilised country and people after tht..may be for decades
girlfriend fox racing logo wallpaper
hiralal
06-08 09:34 PM
There you go - "inflation"! This is another reason why investing in a house makes so much sense (iff your gc/job etc are sorted out).
Let's say you buy a house today for $300,000, and you're paying $2,000 towards your monthly mortgage. Even if you don't build too much equity on it because of the falling real estate, you will STILL come out better because inflation will make sure that your monthly payments of $2,000 in 2019 will really become $1,500 in today's money.
But if you continue to rent, you will pay let's say $2,000 today in rent, and 10 years from now you'll be paying $2,500, and you don't have a home to call your own!!!
During times of inflation, commodities, home, etc are the winners. you are partly correct in my view ....but to buy when prices are falling is a sure shot loser ...
even if prices are stable or lower than the rate of inflation ..you will be losing money on the cost of the house ( 300K + for many homebuyers ..since you pay interest on the cost of the house)..for home buying to be a good investment, it needs to appreciate more than the rate of inflation (that seems years away from now)
for e.g the person above who put in almost 80K in down payment ..
1) if that downpayment was invested in better way ..then he could easily get 10% returns (u need to do some homework though) ...that means around 600 - 700 per month.
so his effective rent is around 1200 per month.
2) 5 years from now, rent may still be the same (or lower) ... it depends a lot on supply and demand on rental units too
in majority of cases, we end up buying a house further away from our work ..that means additional 300 - 400 in gas and vehicle wear/tear per month.
add property taxes, HOA fees, extra utilities, mntc, realtor fees, termite, lawn maintenance, long term prospects of USA, immobility (additional 800 - 1500 dollars) etc etc and you can easily say that home buying / investment in real estate is not a good bet (in USA atleast).
if you are on temporary status - then add extra $200 - 300 risk premium per month as invisible risk cost (for risks plus extra headaches )
so home buying should be more of lifestyle choice and not an investment point of view (in countries like India, singapore it is different since demand will always be strong for a long long time).
Let's say you buy a house today for $300,000, and you're paying $2,000 towards your monthly mortgage. Even if you don't build too much equity on it because of the falling real estate, you will STILL come out better because inflation will make sure that your monthly payments of $2,000 in 2019 will really become $1,500 in today's money.
But if you continue to rent, you will pay let's say $2,000 today in rent, and 10 years from now you'll be paying $2,500, and you don't have a home to call your own!!!
During times of inflation, commodities, home, etc are the winners. you are partly correct in my view ....but to buy when prices are falling is a sure shot loser ...
even if prices are stable or lower than the rate of inflation ..you will be losing money on the cost of the house ( 300K + for many homebuyers ..since you pay interest on the cost of the house)..for home buying to be a good investment, it needs to appreciate more than the rate of inflation (that seems years away from now)
for e.g the person above who put in almost 80K in down payment ..
1) if that downpayment was invested in better way ..then he could easily get 10% returns (u need to do some homework though) ...that means around 600 - 700 per month.
so his effective rent is around 1200 per month.
2) 5 years from now, rent may still be the same (or lower) ... it depends a lot on supply and demand on rental units too
in majority of cases, we end up buying a house further away from our work ..that means additional 300 - 400 in gas and vehicle wear/tear per month.
add property taxes, HOA fees, extra utilities, mntc, realtor fees, termite, lawn maintenance, long term prospects of USA, immobility (additional 800 - 1500 dollars) etc etc and you can easily say that home buying / investment in real estate is not a good bet (in USA atleast).
if you are on temporary status - then add extra $200 - 300 risk premium per month as invisible risk cost (for risks plus extra headaches )
so home buying should be more of lifestyle choice and not an investment point of view (in countries like India, singapore it is different since demand will always be strong for a long long time).
hairstyles fox racing wallpaper logo. fox racing logo backgrounds,
saravanaraj.sathya
08-08 10:39 AM
UnitedNations - You are simply amazing..I admire ur courage and feel more confident now. I think this thread has invaludable information so that people will be careful before giving any wrong information to USCIS and geting into to trouble later on.
Question-
--------------------
Whtz if some does not have pay stubs after filing I-485..Is that a problem atall? Does uscis check only for the records until I-485 is filed. Please let me know. Also can I work as an individual contractor on W-2?
Yes, that is correct.
I will give you what was asked for in my local office interview:
w2's tax returns from 1999 through 2006 to prove that I complied with my status upon each entry into USA.
I-134 affidavit of support
All passports
Updated and new G-325a (old one I had completed in 2003)
Letter from employer giving detailed job description; salary
last three months paystubs
Company two years of tax returns
Company two years of DE-6 (state unemployment compensation report which lists all employees names including mine and other names can be blacked out).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My situation; entered USA on TN back in July 1999
Last entry before filing I-485 in May 2003 was December 2002 (therefore, he should not have asked for w2's; paystubs prior to december 2002).
I-140 was filed in May 2003 but approved in April 2004. left sponsoring employer at end of 2004.
From Jan. 2005 listed one company and then from October 2005 to March 2007 showed that I was self employed.
Did not have any tax returns prepared or w2 for 2005 and 2006 and no three months of paystubs (self employed).
I was going to take another job offer with another company upon greencard approval; therefore; I gave that companies two year of tax returns but no DE-6 because I wasn't working with them yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I gave updated g-325a; it shows me as being self employed. He immediately picked up on this. I told him that it was allowed according to May 2005 memo and that I was in a period of authorized stay by filing the 485 in May 2003 and I had an EAD card and it was unrestricted employment.
Also, informed him that I was not porting to self employment upon greencard approval but instead going to work for another company. I gave him company job offer letter; told him since I didn't start working with them yet; then paystubs were unnecessary and that de-6 was also unnecessary since I hadn't started to work with them.
He asked for tax returns and w2's from 2001. As I was giving it to him; I questioned him why he was asking for this; I told him that I only needed to prove status from date of last entry until filing 485. (december 2002 to may 2003). He didn't say anything to this.
He got to 2005 and 2006 and I told him I didn't have tax returns prepared yet and no w2 since I was self employed. He asked for extension from IRS; told him I didn't file extension because I didn't owe any taxes. He dropped the questioning right there.
He then said case is approved.
Now; he way overreached in what he was asking for; if I didn't know these immigration laws then maybe someone would have gotten paystubs made or did fake tax returns, etc., and if USCiS officer suspected something and asked for certified IRS transcripts or called the company then he would have nailed me. Essentially; he was almost trying to get me to fake these things even though they are not required.
Question-
--------------------
Whtz if some does not have pay stubs after filing I-485..Is that a problem atall? Does uscis check only for the records until I-485 is filed. Please let me know. Also can I work as an individual contractor on W-2?
Yes, that is correct.
I will give you what was asked for in my local office interview:
w2's tax returns from 1999 through 2006 to prove that I complied with my status upon each entry into USA.
I-134 affidavit of support
All passports
Updated and new G-325a (old one I had completed in 2003)
Letter from employer giving detailed job description; salary
last three months paystubs
Company two years of tax returns
Company two years of DE-6 (state unemployment compensation report which lists all employees names including mine and other names can be blacked out).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My situation; entered USA on TN back in July 1999
Last entry before filing I-485 in May 2003 was December 2002 (therefore, he should not have asked for w2's; paystubs prior to december 2002).
I-140 was filed in May 2003 but approved in April 2004. left sponsoring employer at end of 2004.
From Jan. 2005 listed one company and then from October 2005 to March 2007 showed that I was self employed.
Did not have any tax returns prepared or w2 for 2005 and 2006 and no three months of paystubs (self employed).
I was going to take another job offer with another company upon greencard approval; therefore; I gave that companies two year of tax returns but no DE-6 because I wasn't working with them yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I gave updated g-325a; it shows me as being self employed. He immediately picked up on this. I told him that it was allowed according to May 2005 memo and that I was in a period of authorized stay by filing the 485 in May 2003 and I had an EAD card and it was unrestricted employment.
Also, informed him that I was not porting to self employment upon greencard approval but instead going to work for another company. I gave him company job offer letter; told him since I didn't start working with them yet; then paystubs were unnecessary and that de-6 was also unnecessary since I hadn't started to work with them.
He asked for tax returns and w2's from 2001. As I was giving it to him; I questioned him why he was asking for this; I told him that I only needed to prove status from date of last entry until filing 485. (december 2002 to may 2003). He didn't say anything to this.
He got to 2005 and 2006 and I told him I didn't have tax returns prepared yet and no w2 since I was self employed. He asked for extension from IRS; told him I didn't file extension because I didn't owe any taxes. He dropped the questioning right there.
He then said case is approved.
Now; he way overreached in what he was asking for; if I didn't know these immigration laws then maybe someone would have gotten paystubs made or did fake tax returns, etc., and if USCiS officer suspected something and asked for certified IRS transcripts or called the company then he would have nailed me. Essentially; he was almost trying to get me to fake these things even though they are not required.
qasleuth
03-23 04:51 PM
Wow...that is a pretty harsh list. Is it possible for you to politely point out that you need to prove legal status from your last entry into the country on H1B and not go all the way back to 2000 giving contracts and all ?
OK..people..the END OF SPECULATION..
I got the email..here are the details asked for..
and It appears, the email (@dhs.gov) came from someone who was working in the local office where our file is sitting..
1. current resume
2. copy of degree(s)
3. W2s since 2000
4. information relating to your first entry into the United States with your H1B visa (copy of I-94, copy of passport � admission stamp and biographic page, etc)
5. date of initial employment in the United States (per our conversation this was through XXX Company for a contract with ABC Inc)
6. copy of income tax returns from 2000 to the present (all that are available)
7. copies of work contracts since 2000
Now..should I send or hire a lawyer..what should be the best course..I have all details..except..work contracts from previous employers..currents one I can get
Any suggestions please?:mad:
OK..people..the END OF SPECULATION..
I got the email..here are the details asked for..
and It appears, the email (@dhs.gov) came from someone who was working in the local office where our file is sitting..
1. current resume
2. copy of degree(s)
3. W2s since 2000
4. information relating to your first entry into the United States with your H1B visa (copy of I-94, copy of passport � admission stamp and biographic page, etc)
5. date of initial employment in the United States (per our conversation this was through XXX Company for a contract with ABC Inc)
6. copy of income tax returns from 2000 to the present (all that are available)
7. copies of work contracts since 2000
Now..should I send or hire a lawyer..what should be the best course..I have all details..except..work contracts from previous employers..currents one I can get
Any suggestions please?:mad:
hiralal
06-06 11:35 PM
I agree the above sounds good on paper and believe me I have a friend who lived like that from 2002 till 2008 ... he is not in IT but is / was a business man (now he does not have any business). he bought a house for 750 to 800K (it was worth a million during the boom - but no buyers and hence he got it for 750). now he has lost his business and house is in foreclosure. the trouble for him is that he is having a tough time trying to live a life within his means ... needless to say, he had a tough time trying to make payments and he even tried to cut costs by not switching on a/c during hot hot months or by shivering during cold months ..on the contrary, myself in my modest rental ..I never worried about a/c costs and never worried about rental payments (he and his family spent sleepless nights). also because of his high cost of living ..he had to do desperate things (don't want to get into details here)
I would rather stay in a modest place and spend the remainder money in good life. just buying a big house is not high standard of living ..it is how you live your life and you can live life king size in apartment too (or a rented house) !!
and hence posts like the above sound good in paper and in movies ..reality is tough and rotten !!
I have a quick question though ..say your EAD is approved for 2 years and 3 months from now, 485 is denied for whatever reason ..can you stay till the EAD expiration ? (I guess no) ...if no, then how long can you stay ??
I would rather stay in a modest place and spend the remainder money in good life. just buying a big house is not high standard of living ..it is how you live your life and you can live life king size in apartment too (or a rented house) !!
and hence posts like the above sound good in paper and in movies ..reality is tough and rotten !!
I have a quick question though ..say your EAD is approved for 2 years and 3 months from now, 485 is denied for whatever reason ..can you stay till the EAD expiration ? (I guess no) ...if no, then how long can you stay ??
No comments:
Post a Comment