kedrex
07-18 08:04 PM
bump
wallpaper Paul Walker Answers Silly
sandiboy
07-18 08:33 AM
Mine reached on Jul 2nd @ 7:55AM. I was also current per June bulletin but it was filed in July. No Receipt yet.
sk2006
05-26 11:39 PM
I am sure they will ask for passport if you only have the I-94. Now if I am required to carry my passport all the time that becomes a real pain particularly if we are on H1/L1 and present for quite a long time.
I 94 issued at POE must be attached to the passport all the times!
I 94 issued at POE must be attached to the passport all the times!
2011 Paul Walker, left,
rajuram
11-11 10:33 PM
With democrats in control, at the very minimum we should try to push recapture of lost visa numbers. Tie that with the ability of immigrants to buy houses, we could have a game winner...
more...
roseball
07-09 04:57 PM
Quote:
The agency approved some applications �when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,� Mr. Aytes said.
/End Quote
This statement from Mr. Aytes can be used to prove the conspiracy against July filers. If they knew that the security check process would have been completed shortly, then why in the world would they have to approve them before July....They had all the time till end of the fiscal year (Sept 30th) to approve such cases once the security checks were complete and still not allow wastage of immigrant visas for the current fiscal year. They only approved it for one of the following two reasons:
-- They didnt want all of us to file under the old fee system. That would cause USCIS a loss of $225-300 million (based on guestimates from www.immigration-law.com)
-- They were not ready to accept the work load of 300-400k I-485 applications which could have led to huge backlogs for years to come because the current political situation will in no way increase the number of immigrant visas for legal immigrants. All they care for is illegal immigrants.....
The agency approved some applications �when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,� Mr. Aytes said.
/End Quote
This statement from Mr. Aytes can be used to prove the conspiracy against July filers. If they knew that the security check process would have been completed shortly, then why in the world would they have to approve them before July....They had all the time till end of the fiscal year (Sept 30th) to approve such cases once the security checks were complete and still not allow wastage of immigrant visas for the current fiscal year. They only approved it for one of the following two reasons:
-- They didnt want all of us to file under the old fee system. That would cause USCIS a loss of $225-300 million (based on guestimates from www.immigration-law.com)
-- They were not ready to accept the work load of 300-400k I-485 applications which could have led to huge backlogs for years to come because the current political situation will in no way increase the number of immigrant visas for legal immigrants. All they care for is illegal immigrants.....
another one
07-16 05:29 PM
their Vancouver center to achievements of NumbersUSA and Lou Dobbs. We really need to let the world know that programmers guild, NuumbersUSA and Lou Dobbs has declared a war against middle class, and it will now lead to an impact on Seattle's economy. Heard that some people would be selling houses or drinking less coffee.
more...
piperwarrior
07-16 09:42 PM
I am just re-posting something that I had posted elsewhere. I really think that we have to be professional and mature in our response. Does anyone know how one can go about writing an op-ed in the New York Times?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think IV should write a letter to the New York Times refuting the claims of NumbersUSA. This should be in response to the article that the New York Times published regarding NumbersUSA's influence on the immigration bill.
Clearly, this is a task for IV (advocacy, lobbying, public opinion, etc.). The response needs to be succint, cogent and factual, without getting into any rhetoric about the value immigrants provide. Facts will discredit NumbersUSA...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think IV should write a letter to the New York Times refuting the claims of NumbersUSA. This should be in response to the article that the New York Times published regarding NumbersUSA's influence on the immigration bill.
Clearly, this is a task for IV (advocacy, lobbying, public opinion, etc.). The response needs to be succint, cogent and factual, without getting into any rhetoric about the value immigrants provide. Facts will discredit NumbersUSA...
2010 paul walker jasmine pilchard
srinivasj
03-11 11:11 PM
now looks like dates would move only after july..
more...
swo
08-15 08:14 PM
It's very easy to forget that PDs can swing by YEARS at a time. (4 years in the case of the July Bulletin!) Things could easily swing back a year or two in only a month or two.
You can predict to your hearts content but I wouldn't get too hinged on those predictions.
Fact is that we were expecting Us and many were NOT Us. Similarly, PDs in October could be brought forward if there are insuffient applications ready for visas in some categories (ie ROW) in October.
Also remember that the number of newly filed EB applicaitons will be far, FAR less in coming months. Only PERM labors are done now and those will all have late PDs that will be ineligible for a long time. As a result, I think bulletins will start to become more consistent as the predictions of become more reliable after a couple of months of volatility in October.
The only real unknown after getting all the 485 data entry done is going to be the FBI namecheck factor.
You can predict to your hearts content but I wouldn't get too hinged on those predictions.
Fact is that we were expecting Us and many were NOT Us. Similarly, PDs in October could be brought forward if there are insuffient applications ready for visas in some categories (ie ROW) in October.
Also remember that the number of newly filed EB applicaitons will be far, FAR less in coming months. Only PERM labors are done now and those will all have late PDs that will be ineligible for a long time. As a result, I think bulletins will start to become more consistent as the predictions of become more reliable after a couple of months of volatility in October.
The only real unknown after getting all the 485 data entry done is going to be the FBI namecheck factor.
hair 2011 Paul - Paul Walker
Administrator2
06-11 12:22 PM
Everyone is again talking about ifs and buts. Guys why do not you put your hard work on what is more important than what is never ever going to happen. People with a GC, if this Bill passes, they are not going to renew your GC also. How's about that? People with a US citizenship, with previous GC status, they will not renew the USA passport, if this Bill passes. How's about that?
So forget all these bogus bills, and support our main agenda, which is to remove the Backlogs. If you do not have any new news, then sit idle, but please do not spread these bogus out-of-world stories.
Don’t think you understand so let me give it a shot.
We just got off a conference call with our coalition partners. This is a real threat. Everyone, including some of the largest of companies on the planet think this is a real threat. It you are a lawyer or if you represent some law firm, then please go back and get busy with entering items like first and last name in a simple immigration form. This is not your area of expertise.
Experts with this are saying that the language is deliberately kept vague. Some of the terms used in the language of the amendment do not have direct corresponding visa. Since we don’t trust the guys behind this amendment, we think they have deliberately kept the language which is not precise.
Consider this as a kick-off for the election campaign. The real risk is, even if this amendment is defeated, between now and the elections we will all see many similar amendments. At some point Senators will be forced to vote on an issue which is pitched as “American citizens” v/s “foreign workers”. Experts believe that anti immigrants will try to push this amendment in middle of the night in the must pass bills.
Some lawyer, for the purpose of pandering to the client base, is of the opinion that this amendment does not affect EADs. In the grand scheme of things this is plain wrong because he/she will not be asked to leave the country if such an amendment passes in the middle of the night. Just engaging in name calling Senator Grassley or calling the Senator pig face is not going to stop the amendment. Please grow up and get real. Your pandering may get innocent audience to believe that there is no real threat even when everyone with any real sense of expertise is scrambling to oppose this amendment.
Immigration Voice and its coalition partners do not see this amendment in isolation. We are hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. And for the lack of clarity from the amendment language, we think that the intent of the amendment sponsors is to see us all out of here.
There is no simple way for the anti-immigrants to throw us all out in a single stroke. They will always engage in systematic elimination of everyone starting from the most vulnerable. The language is vague and it could be interpreted in lot of different ways. It is not wise to look for the most favorable interpretation of the language to find reasons for not doing anything because in the end our interpretation will mean nothing.
Let’s be smart, think for ourselves and act on our own behalf to send simple message requesting the Senate offices to oppose this amendment. What is so complicated about this? And if you don't want to participate, that's fine, but why would you discourage others from sending a simple message to the Senators from their state? Don't you have anything better to do?
So forget all these bogus bills, and support our main agenda, which is to remove the Backlogs. If you do not have any new news, then sit idle, but please do not spread these bogus out-of-world stories.
Don’t think you understand so let me give it a shot.
We just got off a conference call with our coalition partners. This is a real threat. Everyone, including some of the largest of companies on the planet think this is a real threat. It you are a lawyer or if you represent some law firm, then please go back and get busy with entering items like first and last name in a simple immigration form. This is not your area of expertise.
Experts with this are saying that the language is deliberately kept vague. Some of the terms used in the language of the amendment do not have direct corresponding visa. Since we don’t trust the guys behind this amendment, we think they have deliberately kept the language which is not precise.
Consider this as a kick-off for the election campaign. The real risk is, even if this amendment is defeated, between now and the elections we will all see many similar amendments. At some point Senators will be forced to vote on an issue which is pitched as “American citizens” v/s “foreign workers”. Experts believe that anti immigrants will try to push this amendment in middle of the night in the must pass bills.
Some lawyer, for the purpose of pandering to the client base, is of the opinion that this amendment does not affect EADs. In the grand scheme of things this is plain wrong because he/she will not be asked to leave the country if such an amendment passes in the middle of the night. Just engaging in name calling Senator Grassley or calling the Senator pig face is not going to stop the amendment. Please grow up and get real. Your pandering may get innocent audience to believe that there is no real threat even when everyone with any real sense of expertise is scrambling to oppose this amendment.
Immigration Voice and its coalition partners do not see this amendment in isolation. We are hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. And for the lack of clarity from the amendment language, we think that the intent of the amendment sponsors is to see us all out of here.
There is no simple way for the anti-immigrants to throw us all out in a single stroke. They will always engage in systematic elimination of everyone starting from the most vulnerable. The language is vague and it could be interpreted in lot of different ways. It is not wise to look for the most favorable interpretation of the language to find reasons for not doing anything because in the end our interpretation will mean nothing.
Let’s be smart, think for ourselves and act on our own behalf to send simple message requesting the Senate offices to oppose this amendment. What is so complicated about this? And if you don't want to participate, that's fine, but why would you discourage others from sending a simple message to the Senators from their state? Don't you have anything better to do?
more...
srkamath
07-13 12:27 PM
But where are we getting these numbers like say 20k visas are available for EB2..
DOS / USCIS in their congressional testimony in May, stated that they have used up ~ 65% of the 140k EB numbers by April - that left us with ~ 49 k unused then.
Shortly thereafter, the VB said all the allotable numbers for EB3 had been used up and that all EB1 spillover and EB2 ROW leftovers will go to EB2 retrogressed countries.
DOS / USCIS in their congressional testimony in May, stated that they have used up ~ 65% of the 140k EB numbers by April - that left us with ~ 49 k unused then.
Shortly thereafter, the VB said all the allotable numbers for EB3 had been used up and that all EB1 spillover and EB2 ROW leftovers will go to EB2 retrogressed countries.
hot 2011 Paul Walker
amsgc
07-04 07:53 PM
Ramba - Excellent post!
The lawsuit will bring to light some irregularities, and will probably encourage USCIS to be more responsible.
But the way out of our misery is still congressional intervention - increase in visa numbers, skill bill, or additional provisions for people with an approved immigrant petition.
The lawsuit will bring to light some irregularities, and will probably encourage USCIS to be more responsible.
But the way out of our misery is still congressional intervention - increase in visa numbers, skill bill, or additional provisions for people with an approved immigrant petition.
more...
house paul walker wallpapers
dish
07-02 09:59 AM
Is Green Card numbers allocated beginning of every quarter. USCIS Fiscal year runs from october 1st to sept 30th.So for July being the start 4th quarter of the FY 07 shouldn't USCIS be allocating visa numbers in JULY. They cannot use up all the visa numbers for the FY 07 before july, Am I right ?
Supposing USCIS retrogresses PDs to 2001 or 2002, why not we push more for grabbing the wasted Green Card numbers in the prior years.
Supposing USCIS retrogresses PDs to 2001 or 2002, why not we push more for grabbing the wasted Green Card numbers in the prior years.
tattoo Paul Walker new hairstyle
srkamath
07-12 08:26 PM
This part is self-explanatory. It seems that USCIS made a list of all the applicants to Jul 08, 2007 by setting PD to Jun 01, 2006.
Documentarily Qualified might possibly imply:
.. Medically OK
.. FP and Name Check OK
.. Everything in application is consistent (e.g. DOB, Name, Kids, Spouse)
.. Requires No RFE
.. Requires no interview
.. Just requires GC (Visa) Number
My 2 cents input
Thanks for your response,
I did some more searching on the DQ issue... it seems like it is a term applicable only to consular processing. When a visa applicant has responded to something like an RFE by sending a form DS2001 AND has cleared all background checks - he/she is called "DQ".
The equivalent for AOS cases may therefore be
- Completed and signed I-485 + Fees
- All initial evidence sent such as medical etc.
- Background checks cleared (or 180 days have passed)
My guess is DQ does not mean pre-adjudicated (I hope so...)
Documentarily Qualified might possibly imply:
.. Medically OK
.. FP and Name Check OK
.. Everything in application is consistent (e.g. DOB, Name, Kids, Spouse)
.. Requires No RFE
.. Requires no interview
.. Just requires GC (Visa) Number
My 2 cents input
Thanks for your response,
I did some more searching on the DQ issue... it seems like it is a term applicable only to consular processing. When a visa applicant has responded to something like an RFE by sending a form DS2001 AND has cleared all background checks - he/she is called "DQ".
The equivalent for AOS cases may therefore be
- Completed and signed I-485 + Fees
- All initial evidence sent such as medical etc.
- Background checks cleared (or 180 days have passed)
My guess is DQ does not mean pre-adjudicated (I hope so...)
more...
pictures pictures paul walker 2011.
amsgc
02-05 09:24 PM
It is very important that we point this out to Lawmakers/public when they begin drafting the CIR.
Big question:
Why not put a country cap on the CIR for all undocumented?
What are the reasons for not doing that?
Lawmakers give a rationale of diversity as the reason for country caps. Why is the reason for diversity not relevant for undocumented? I am sure there are undocumented from all countries and not just one country?
Big question:
Why not put a country cap on the CIR for all undocumented?
What are the reasons for not doing that?
Lawmakers give a rationale of diversity as the reason for country caps. Why is the reason for diversity not relevant for undocumented? I am sure there are undocumented from all countries and not just one country?
dresses paul walker 2011. Surely
sunty
11-11 09:37 AM
vin13,
This just beats me..Why was the conference call idea for such an important issue floated only in the Donor Forum. Fine, the Donors pay and they deserve to have some information. But if you need bigger participation from IV members, the conf. call idea should have been in the General Forum as well....
Anyways, can this still be arranged ? I would love to be a part of that in any possible way. Please let me and all the other members know.
This just beats me..Why was the conference call idea for such an important issue floated only in the Donor Forum. Fine, the Donors pay and they deserve to have some information. But if you need bigger participation from IV members, the conf. call idea should have been in the General Forum as well....
Anyways, can this still be arranged ? I would love to be a part of that in any possible way. Please let me and all the other members know.
more...
makeup Paul Walker, Fast Five
GCard_Dream
03-18 05:35 PM
If that is the case, I am not sure why China didn't even move a single day. From the example, China should have gotten half of the unused visas. :confused:
This is the post from Ron:
I have to confess error and make a correction. The AC21 legislation changed things far more that I suspected and changed the allocation process from what I had learned previously. In further corresondence with the Visa Office, I've learned that I was wrong about how numbers are moved from worldwide to single state allocations. The following is a direct quote:
Quote:
Employment First Preference example: Annual limit 40,000 - (expected) 25,000 ("rest of world") - 3,300 (China limit) - 3,300 (India limit) = 8,400 unused numbers. Those 8,400 numbers could be made available to China/India applicants without regard to their normal 3,300 per-country limit for that category. But those extra numbers would need to be made available to China/India applicants on an equal basis, and in doing so making sure that the additional number use would not result in the Worldwide annual limit being exceeded. Thus, the same cut-off date for each country since the extra numbers must be made available in priority date order without regard to country.
I apologize for the confusion generated by my earlier remarks
So whatever said in the visa bulletin makes sense.
This is the post from Ron:
I have to confess error and make a correction. The AC21 legislation changed things far more that I suspected and changed the allocation process from what I had learned previously. In further corresondence with the Visa Office, I've learned that I was wrong about how numbers are moved from worldwide to single state allocations. The following is a direct quote:
Quote:
Employment First Preference example: Annual limit 40,000 - (expected) 25,000 ("rest of world") - 3,300 (China limit) - 3,300 (India limit) = 8,400 unused numbers. Those 8,400 numbers could be made available to China/India applicants without regard to their normal 3,300 per-country limit for that category. But those extra numbers would need to be made available to China/India applicants on an equal basis, and in doing so making sure that the additional number use would not result in the Worldwide annual limit being exceeded. Thus, the same cut-off date for each country since the extra numbers must be made available in priority date order without regard to country.
I apologize for the confusion generated by my earlier remarks
So whatever said in the visa bulletin makes sense.
girlfriend paul walker and jasmine
addsf345
12-10 07:49 PM
you hit the nail ... this is the biggest reason ...We are just too many and everyone wants to come to US
don't you think that working towards removing unfair country quota in skilled category would be faster & easier than population control?
Now that you are enlighted about being one among too many, are you planning to go back, and reduce backlog for others?
Also, when talking about reducing indian population, I hope that you do not agree with what 10 pakistanis tried to do in mumbai few days back!!! That is one very bad way of reducing population! I would prefer load balancing i.e. moving some ppl to part of world where population is not so much. This is called immigration.
Jokes apart, we need to seriously highlight the fact that as there is no country quota in H1B, since it is a skilled category visa, similarly there should be no country quota in skill based immigration too. We are given visas as their industry need us, but they do not care if we suffer for years. It is nothing but simply 'DESCRIMINATION" based on country of birth.
Ask this question: Is it a crime to be born in certain country? Do we all have choice to do so? If it is not a crime, why we are being punished?
Do we have guts to fight that??? we can only talk about some stupid solutions like control indian population and in just next 100 years there will be no retrogression for indians. Some one would also suggest indians must not to study and remain uneducated, so you won't come here under skilled quota and voila - no retrogression!!! but the fact is, we have no unity, no guts and no willingness to stand up for our community. IV is the only effort I have seen in years in right direction.
don't you think that working towards removing unfair country quota in skilled category would be faster & easier than population control?
Now that you are enlighted about being one among too many, are you planning to go back, and reduce backlog for others?
Also, when talking about reducing indian population, I hope that you do not agree with what 10 pakistanis tried to do in mumbai few days back!!! That is one very bad way of reducing population! I would prefer load balancing i.e. moving some ppl to part of world where population is not so much. This is called immigration.
Jokes apart, we need to seriously highlight the fact that as there is no country quota in H1B, since it is a skilled category visa, similarly there should be no country quota in skill based immigration too. We are given visas as their industry need us, but they do not care if we suffer for years. It is nothing but simply 'DESCRIMINATION" based on country of birth.
Ask this question: Is it a crime to be born in certain country? Do we all have choice to do so? If it is not a crime, why we are being punished?
Do we have guts to fight that??? we can only talk about some stupid solutions like control indian population and in just next 100 years there will be no retrogression for indians. Some one would also suggest indians must not to study and remain uneducated, so you won't come here under skilled quota and voila - no retrogression!!! but the fact is, we have no unity, no guts and no willingness to stand up for our community. IV is the only effort I have seen in years in right direction.
hairstyles Paul Walker Leaves The
EB2_Jun03_dude
02-22 11:15 AM
I guess this dude(Greg) does not know @ EB2 India went 'U' even after pushing back Jan 2000.
I asked Greg Siskind about this. Heres his response:
"I did get this news about the meeting, but did not post on it as it sounded like it was not going to affect that many people. I would doubt that there are a lot of Indian EB-2s left with 2003 priority dates, but I could be wrong."
I asked Greg Siskind about this. Heres his response:
"I did get this news about the meeting, but did not post on it as it sounded like it was not going to affect that many people. I would doubt that there are a lot of Indian EB-2s left with 2003 priority dates, but I could be wrong."
PHANI_TAVVALA
05-12 03:33 PM
While I wait for GC and chewed up all finger nails, I thought its good time to think about adding a qualification to myself.
I do not want to spend rest of my life in development. :cool:
I was doing some research on Online MBA (no..not the diploma mills or degree printing ones)
My criteria was,
1) Institutions that require GMAT
2) AACSB Accredited
3) Has some sensible ranking in USNews or Financial Times or Business Week
4) Can be done without leaving current job (occasional visit to universities are fine with me)
Here are the universities I came up
1) Warrington College of Business, Florida (USNEWS ranking)
2) WP Carey, Arizona State University (USNEWS ranking)
3) Kelley Direct, Indiana University (highly regarded)
4) Penn State World Campus MBA
And then there are many $$ category colleges which I didnt bother to check..I can't pay those fees :)
Now, can any one suggest or comment or refer to any other college?
Also, what kind of disciplines we should check in an MBA..I dont know if MBA finance will be good..as such I have no preferences. (anything related to Investment banking etc will be good though)
I am doing Kelley Direct and would definitely recommend it. The Professors are great and course work feels like your regular full-time load with assignments, quizzes, mid-terms and finals, project works, case discussions and some weekly classes. Most of the professors are very interactive and you can always call them. The teaching faculty is top-quality with some of them having Ph.d's from MIT's and Stanford's. Marketing is considered top-notch at Kelley. Curriculum allows some flexibility and course load can be completed in 2 to 4 year period requiring 1week compulsory on-campus presence in 1st and 2nd year. If you have time, you can also participate in 3 to 4 week clinics for 1.5 credit hours in summers. It is now costing me around $975/credit hour with 48 credits required to graduate. Add to this cost of books at other administration/technology fee which might add upto $5k to $8k.
I have couple of friends who graduated from Thunderbird too. It is top-notch for International Business but doesnot allow the flexibility to complete at your own pace. My friends were totally tied up with work and course-load for 2 years. It requires somewhere between 51 to 54 credit hours to graduate. It has two compulsory International workshop clinics each in 1st and 2nd year for a period of 3 to 4 weeks. This is partly paid from the fee, while you need to pay for flight tickets and meals. I think the books are included in the $57k+ tuition for this program.
Kelley full-time is ranked between 18 and 23 depending on which source you would like to use. Its Marketing Discipline is in top10. Thunderbird is not ranked in TOP50 but it's INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS discipline is ranked number one.
I do not want to spend rest of my life in development. :cool:
I was doing some research on Online MBA (no..not the diploma mills or degree printing ones)
My criteria was,
1) Institutions that require GMAT
2) AACSB Accredited
3) Has some sensible ranking in USNews or Financial Times or Business Week
4) Can be done without leaving current job (occasional visit to universities are fine with me)
Here are the universities I came up
1) Warrington College of Business, Florida (USNEWS ranking)
2) WP Carey, Arizona State University (USNEWS ranking)
3) Kelley Direct, Indiana University (highly regarded)
4) Penn State World Campus MBA
And then there are many $$ category colleges which I didnt bother to check..I can't pay those fees :)
Now, can any one suggest or comment or refer to any other college?
Also, what kind of disciplines we should check in an MBA..I dont know if MBA finance will be good..as such I have no preferences. (anything related to Investment banking etc will be good though)
I am doing Kelley Direct and would definitely recommend it. The Professors are great and course work feels like your regular full-time load with assignments, quizzes, mid-terms and finals, project works, case discussions and some weekly classes. Most of the professors are very interactive and you can always call them. The teaching faculty is top-quality with some of them having Ph.d's from MIT's and Stanford's. Marketing is considered top-notch at Kelley. Curriculum allows some flexibility and course load can be completed in 2 to 4 year period requiring 1week compulsory on-campus presence in 1st and 2nd year. If you have time, you can also participate in 3 to 4 week clinics for 1.5 credit hours in summers. It is now costing me around $975/credit hour with 48 credits required to graduate. Add to this cost of books at other administration/technology fee which might add upto $5k to $8k.
I have couple of friends who graduated from Thunderbird too. It is top-notch for International Business but doesnot allow the flexibility to complete at your own pace. My friends were totally tied up with work and course-load for 2 years. It requires somewhere between 51 to 54 credit hours to graduate. It has two compulsory International workshop clinics each in 1st and 2nd year for a period of 3 to 4 weeks. This is partly paid from the fee, while you need to pay for flight tickets and meals. I think the books are included in the $57k+ tuition for this program.
Kelley full-time is ranked between 18 and 23 depending on which source you would like to use. Its Marketing Discipline is in top10. Thunderbird is not ranked in TOP50 but it's INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS discipline is ranked number one.
nk2007
07-18 12:34 PM
Some of you have been concerned about my post regarding the rejection of some applications received on July 2nd. I've been checking and it seems to be true that some cases were sent back that day. Apparently, the number of cases sent back is small, however, so that is good news. And you should have received the case back by now if you're in that group. For everyone else, the way you will likely find that your case is being processed will be if the check is cashed. I would give this a few days and keep checking with the bank to see if the payment has cleared and this will be a lot faster in all likelihood than waiting on a receipt. Obviously, check with your lawyer on this.
No comments:
Post a Comment