gc03
12-08 08:58 AM
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) 3rd-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: gregg.senate.gov
Washington Office:
393 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2904
Phone: (202) 224-3324
Fax: (202) 224-4952
Main District Office:
125 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 225-7115
*************************
Senator John E. Sununu (R-NH) 1st-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: sununu.senate.gov
E-mail: mailbox@sununu.senate.gov
Washington Office:
111 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2903
Phone: (202) 224-2841
Fax: (202) 228-4131
Main District Office:
1589 Elm St., Ste. 3
Manchester, NH 03101
Phone: (603) 647-7500
Fax: (603) 647-9352
*************************
Representative Charles Bass (R-NH 2nd) 6th-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: www.house.gov/bass
E-mail: cbass@mail.house.gov
Washington Office:
2421 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2902
Phone: (202) 225-5206
Fax: (202) 225-2946
Main District Office:
142 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 226-0249
Fax: (603) 226-0476
=========================
Just called all 3 senators and asked to Support the High-Skilled Immigrant Interim Relief Act of 2006
Very EASY.
Contact Information
Web Site: gregg.senate.gov
Washington Office:
393 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2904
Phone: (202) 224-3324
Fax: (202) 224-4952
Main District Office:
125 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 225-7115
*************************
Senator John E. Sununu (R-NH) 1st-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: sununu.senate.gov
E-mail: mailbox@sununu.senate.gov
Washington Office:
111 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2903
Phone: (202) 224-2841
Fax: (202) 228-4131
Main District Office:
1589 Elm St., Ste. 3
Manchester, NH 03101
Phone: (603) 647-7500
Fax: (603) 647-9352
*************************
Representative Charles Bass (R-NH 2nd) 6th-term Republican from New Hampshire.
Contact Information
Web Site: www.house.gov/bass
E-mail: cbass@mail.house.gov
Washington Office:
2421 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2902
Phone: (202) 225-5206
Fax: (202) 225-2946
Main District Office:
142 N. Main St.
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 226-0249
Fax: (603) 226-0476
=========================
Just called all 3 senators and asked to Support the High-Skilled Immigrant Interim Relief Act of 2006
Very EASY.
wallpaper Photos of Orlando and Miranda
gc_check
07-12 05:51 AM
Our lawyer Company has decided to file the AOS application in July
I work for a big 5 Software company & our lawyer Littler Global had taken a stand on July that they will not file our AOS application after the June VB was revoked/amended on July 2nd.
Surprisingly , today we have received a mail from them that that keeping in view our best interest they have decided to file our AOS case in July regardless of CIS receipting them.
Wanted to share this information as it may be helpful for you folks too ...
Vivek
Looks like most of the Attorney's who told, they will not file after the July 2nd revision of VB, are now planning to file anyway. Think the decission could have influenced after the Tuesday's Aila Conf. Call. My Attorney finally gave updates that they would have all the 485's completed and ready to go while monitoring the situation and action of AILA/USCIS and will file if is of the best interest to the applicant. Also, the reason they are holding back now is also, what if, USCIS neither receipts nor rejects the applications and hold them and argue they cannot take an action as the cases are subject to litigation.... then it could be even worse.... Any thoughts on this...Folks share your communication with your attorney's if any details worth sharing.
I work for a big 5 Software company & our lawyer Littler Global had taken a stand on July that they will not file our AOS application after the June VB was revoked/amended on July 2nd.
Surprisingly , today we have received a mail from them that that keeping in view our best interest they have decided to file our AOS case in July regardless of CIS receipting them.
Wanted to share this information as it may be helpful for you folks too ...
Vivek
Looks like most of the Attorney's who told, they will not file after the July 2nd revision of VB, are now planning to file anyway. Think the decission could have influenced after the Tuesday's Aila Conf. Call. My Attorney finally gave updates that they would have all the 485's completed and ready to go while monitoring the situation and action of AILA/USCIS and will file if is of the best interest to the applicant. Also, the reason they are holding back now is also, what if, USCIS neither receipts nor rejects the applications and hold them and argue they cannot take an action as the cases are subject to litigation.... then it could be even worse.... Any thoughts on this...Folks share your communication with your attorney's if any details worth sharing.
bestia
11-21 03:16 AM
Meridiani.planum.... Thanks for your reply....
Is the GC under EB-2 that quick? I wonder why my attorney didn't try to FIT me on EB-2... I'll definitely research my 'fitting' options as an EB-2.... now, do you know if are there hidden issues on getting a GC as an EB-2 rather than an EB-3? Or, Is a GC the same regardless the employment-based category?
Attorneys prefer EB3, since there is less evidence needs to be submitted, less scrutiny, less risk of RFE or denial, and therefore less work for the attorney.
"Is GC same..." - philosophical question.. I guess not :) I guess GC for someone who waited for 10 years is not the same as for someone who got it first year being in the US.
Is the GC under EB-2 that quick? I wonder why my attorney didn't try to FIT me on EB-2... I'll definitely research my 'fitting' options as an EB-2.... now, do you know if are there hidden issues on getting a GC as an EB-2 rather than an EB-3? Or, Is a GC the same regardless the employment-based category?
Attorneys prefer EB3, since there is less evidence needs to be submitted, less scrutiny, less risk of RFE or denial, and therefore less work for the attorney.
"Is GC same..." - philosophical question.. I guess not :) I guess GC for someone who waited for 10 years is not the same as for someone who got it first year being in the US.
2011 Beaming Orlando Bloom #39;really
hopefulgc
07-13 11:46 AM
kinda confused here..
why do we need the rally.. if there is going to be some new that will resolve the issues?
If its going to leave some issues unresolved.. the we need this.
Go IV!!
why do we need the rally.. if there is going to be some new that will resolve the issues?
If its going to leave some issues unresolved.. the we need this.
Go IV!!
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
sandy_anand
04-08 05:11 PM
Well glad that at least all the lawyers' websites experienced lots of traffic these past few days. Happy for them. Only visible benefit from Mr.Oppenheim's dramatic announcement about the 12000 additional visas. :rolleyes:
more...
sledge_hammer
05-14 05:57 PM
^^^^
2010 Orlando Bloom and Miranda Kerr - Orlando Plants a Kiss on Baby Flynn
EkAurAaya
06-01 01:49 PM
unfortunately anything that says/reads no cap on h1 will be shot down as soon as it takes off...
more...
a_yaja
07-30 03:43 PM
If you don't know the answer, please don't reply. Just because this person asked about getting GC through his/ her baby, it does not mean the person is here illegally or if even this person is in the US. I friend of mine died in an accident in Mumbai and he is survived by his wife and two kids (the kids were born here in the US). His wife asked me the same question and after asking my lawyer, I had to tell her that there is no way she can apply for GC through her children unless her children turn 21.
hair miranda kerr and orlando bloom
logiclife
12-01 03:33 PM
The job description is the key. Titles dont matter. My official title at my company is "programmer level 3".( I am an Oracle programmer)
That doesnt mean anything to anyone OUTSIDE of my company. Does it mean that I am top-level programmer? or does it mean that I am 3rd level junior programmer?
But the JOB DESCRIPTION must be accurate.(As much as possible, there is a limit to how much 10 lines can do in describing your job).
As far as resume is concerned, didnt your lawyer look at your resume before filing labor? I remember my lawyer consulting my HR, my boss and my resume before writing the job description on my labor so that its accurate. Anyways, resume is something that is subject to change all the time and I dont think USCIS expects you to have your resume in line with your job desc on labor. Resume is about your qualifications and abilities - which may or may not be the same thing that your actually perform at your work.
That doesnt mean anything to anyone OUTSIDE of my company. Does it mean that I am top-level programmer? or does it mean that I am 3rd level junior programmer?
But the JOB DESCRIPTION must be accurate.(As much as possible, there is a limit to how much 10 lines can do in describing your job).
As far as resume is concerned, didnt your lawyer look at your resume before filing labor? I remember my lawyer consulting my HR, my boss and my resume before writing the job description on my labor so that its accurate. Anyways, resume is something that is subject to change all the time and I dont think USCIS expects you to have your resume in line with your job desc on labor. Resume is about your qualifications and abilities - which may or may not be the same thing that your actually perform at your work.
more...
howzatt
07-13 06:37 PM
n1 buehler
hot Orlando Bloom gave his sweet
srikanthmavurapu
08-16 03:53 PM
Srikanth,
It all depends on the language in the Agreement that you signed. More over in some state doesn't consider these kind of agreements.
Tell him that you are going to complain to DOL if he threatens you. Even though he sues you, as the reason behind your H1 transfer is not getting paid in time, there are very good chances getting final verdict in your favor.
So don't worry.
Thanks for the advice. I also told him that i will complain to DOL and USCIS but no response from him he asked for compensation but i didn't agreed on it . Now, I am in process of complaining to DOL and they are saying that the case is in court so now i am searching for a lawyer in virginia.
Thanks,
Srikanth
It all depends on the language in the Agreement that you signed. More over in some state doesn't consider these kind of agreements.
Tell him that you are going to complain to DOL if he threatens you. Even though he sues you, as the reason behind your H1 transfer is not getting paid in time, there are very good chances getting final verdict in your favor.
So don't worry.
Thanks for the advice. I also told him that i will complain to DOL and USCIS but no response from him he asked for compensation but i didn't agreed on it . Now, I am in process of complaining to DOL and they are saying that the case is in court so now i am searching for a lawyer in virginia.
Thanks,
Srikanth
more...
house Orlando Bloom and Miranda Kerr
amsgc
04-04 02:29 PM
BTW, what does OP stand for?
OP: Original Poster
OP: Original Poster
tattoo orlando bloom miranda kerr.
hopefulgc
07-13 11:46 AM
kinda confused here..
why do we need the rally.. if there is going to be some new that will resolve the issues?
If its going to leave some issues unresolved.. the we need this.
Go IV!!
why do we need the rally.. if there is going to be some new that will resolve the issues?
If its going to leave some issues unresolved.. the we need this.
Go IV!!
more...
pictures A very pregnant Miranda Kerr.
dollar500
08-09 09:13 PM
This bill is mostly for aviation safety. It doesn't necessarily applies to immigrants who are applying for permanent residency.
dresses Orlando Bloom and Miranda Kerr
DudefromBombay
09-23 01:20 PM
I am eagerly waiting for the Nov Election results. Can't wait to see Democtas losing House and Senate and can't wait to see the Back of "BARRACK"
more...
makeup Miranda Kerr Is Pregnant With
LostInGCProcess
05-19 02:40 PM
Reading all the posts, it appears there is a systemic problem with the Indian IT firms.
As much as I feel sorry for all the employees who are going thru this issue with those IT firms, I also feel some blame has to go to those employees.
PLEASE USE THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO REDRESS YOUR PROBLEMS. Talk to attorneys, take action, Drag them to the court. At least if 1 in 10 goes this route, they will understand that it would not be in their best interest to harass an employee and they may change the policy and start behaving better with the future employees.
As much as I feel sorry for all the employees who are going thru this issue with those IT firms, I also feel some blame has to go to those employees.
PLEASE USE THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO REDRESS YOUR PROBLEMS. Talk to attorneys, take action, Drag them to the court. At least if 1 in 10 goes this route, they will understand that it would not be in their best interest to harass an employee and they may change the policy and start behaving better with the future employees.
girlfriend Aniston, Orlando Bloom
Saralayar
07-09 01:55 PM
Again Boomerang... You dont understand what USCIS informed about I 140 premium. They announced that until the end of July 2007, no premium processing for I 140 and all the cases need to wait.. until they finish the pending I 485 cases.
hairstyles Orlando Bloom cuddled up to
srsrsr
07-20 06:09 PM
My PD is Nov 2004, I got 140 approved. Im not filing 485 now as im unmarried.
Any ideas when can be the date current again(for my PD atleast)?
Any ideas when can be the date current again(for my PD atleast)?
Pineapple
10-10 12:02 PM
Anyone?
Waitingnvain
08-04 03:36 PM
I believe one will be eligible for SS after attaining 40 credits. There is no residency requirement. WRT 401K, you might ending up paying a penalty of 10% in addition to 30% tax.
No comments:
Post a Comment