[ucodegen]

[quote Rich Toscano]
Also, no, they are not coming from the same IP address.
[/quote]
Which also indicates that IP addresses are being looked at periodically, when such subject matter is in question… which might also serve as a warning to those who may think of trying it.

[ucodegen]

[quote Rich Toscano]
Also, no, they are not coming from the same IP address.
[/quote]
Which also indicates that IP addresses are being looked at periodically, when such subject matter is in question… which might also serve as a warning to those who may think of trying it.

[ucodegen]

[quote Rich Toscano]
Also, no, they are not coming from the same IP address.
[/quote]
Which also indicates that IP addresses are being looked at periodically, when such subject matter is in question… which might also serve as a warning to those who may think of trying it.

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
Sounds like Whitman has some explaining to do.

Is a former high tech executive incapable of using e-verify?
[/quote]
Brian, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here with your comments. The housekeeper was hired in 2000.. before e-verify was implemented(it was only a pilot program at the time). e-verify still is incomplete. Try Sept 2009 for e-verify requirement for fed gov. Whitman let the woman go when she was informed that the housekeeper was using identity theft to supply a SSN (a driver’s license was also supplied as well as a document claiming she was a lawful resident alien – green card holder). – bet you would have claimed hypocrisy on her part if Whitman kept the housekeeper after discovering that she was using a stolen SSN.

E-verify was originally started as a “Basic Pilot Program” in 1997. First federal requirement was 2007.. but was pushed back to 2009 due to slow gov update. As of Jan 2010, even the Social Security Admin failed to perform these tests on 18% of new hires.

—
You know, on a side note, I am getting the impression that briansd1 and BigGovernmentIsGood have the same identity behind them. There is a lot of similarity, including posting/presenting styles. It would be a way of creating a throw-away identity should Rich Toscano decide to implement ‘the edict‘.

It is possible to check using the IP address of the machine taking those logins. This info will be in the web-server’s access logs.

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
Sounds like Whitman has some explaining to do.

Is a former high tech executive incapable of using e-verify?
[/quote]
Brian, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here with your comments. The housekeeper was hired in 2000.. before e-verify was implemented(it was only a pilot program at the time). e-verify still is incomplete. Try Sept 2009 for e-verify requirement for fed gov. Whitman let the woman go when she was informed that the housekeeper was using identity theft to supply a SSN (a driver’s license was also supplied as well as a document claiming she was a lawful resident alien – green card holder). – bet you would have claimed hypocrisy on her part if Whitman kept the housekeeper after discovering that she was using a stolen SSN.

E-verify was originally started as a “Basic Pilot Program” in 1997. First federal requirement was 2007.. but was pushed back to 2009 due to slow gov update. As of Jan 2010, even the Social Security Admin failed to perform these tests on 18% of new hires.

—
You know, on a side note, I am getting the impression that briansd1 and BigGovernmentIsGood have the same identity behind them. There is a lot of similarity, including posting/presenting styles. It would be a way of creating a throw-away identity should Rich Toscano decide to implement ‘the edict‘.

It is possible to check using the IP address of the machine taking those logins. This info will be in the web-server’s access logs.

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
Sounds like Whitman has some explaining to do.

Is a former high tech executive incapable of using e-verify?
[/quote]
Brian, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here with your comments. The housekeeper was hired in 2000.. before e-verify was implemented(it was only a pilot program at the time). e-verify still is incomplete. Try Sept 2009 for e-verify requirement for fed gov. Whitman let the woman go when she was informed that the housekeeper was using identity theft to supply a SSN (a driver’s license was also supplied as well as a document claiming she was a lawful resident alien – green card holder). – bet you would have claimed hypocrisy on her part if Whitman kept the housekeeper after discovering that she was using a stolen SSN.

E-verify was originally started as a “Basic Pilot Program” in 1997. First federal requirement was 2007.. but was pushed back to 2009 due to slow gov update. As of Jan 2010, even the Social Security Admin failed to perform these tests on 18% of new hires.

—
You know, on a side note, I am getting the impression that briansd1 and BigGovernmentIsGood have the same identity behind them. There is a lot of similarity, including posting/presenting styles. It would be a way of creating a throw-away identity should Rich Toscano decide to implement ‘the edict‘.

It is possible to check using the IP address of the machine taking those logins. This info will be in the web-server’s access logs.

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
Sounds like Whitman has some explaining to do.

Is a former high tech executive incapable of using e-verify?
[/quote]
Brian, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here with your comments. The housekeeper was hired in 2000.. before e-verify was implemented(it was only a pilot program at the time). e-verify still is incomplete. Try Sept 2009 for e-verify requirement for fed gov. Whitman let the woman go when she was informed that the housekeeper was using identity theft to supply a SSN (a driver’s license was also supplied as well as a document claiming she was a lawful resident alien – green card holder). – bet you would have claimed hypocrisy on her part if Whitman kept the housekeeper after discovering that she was using a stolen SSN.

E-verify was originally started as a “Basic Pilot Program” in 1997. First federal requirement was 2007.. but was pushed back to 2009 due to slow gov update. As of Jan 2010, even the Social Security Admin failed to perform these tests on 18% of new hires.

—
You know, on a side note, I am getting the impression that briansd1 and BigGovernmentIsGood have the same identity behind them. There is a lot of similarity, including posting/presenting styles. It would be a way of creating a throw-away identity should Rich Toscano decide to implement ‘the edict‘.

It is possible to check using the IP address of the machine taking those logins. This info will be in the web-server’s access logs.

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
Sounds like Whitman has some explaining to do.

Is a former high tech executive incapable of using e-verify?
[/quote]
Brian, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here with your comments. The housekeeper was hired in 2000.. before e-verify was implemented(it was only a pilot program at the time). e-verify still is incomplete. Try Sept 2009 for e-verify requirement for fed gov. Whitman let the woman go when she was informed that the housekeeper was using identity theft to supply a SSN (a driver’s license was also supplied as well as a document claiming she was a lawful resident alien – green card holder). – bet you would have claimed hypocrisy on her part if Whitman kept the housekeeper after discovering that she was using a stolen SSN.

E-verify was originally started as a “Basic Pilot Program” in 1997. First federal requirement was 2007.. but was pushed back to 2009 due to slow gov update. As of Jan 2010, even the Social Security Admin failed to perform these tests on 18% of new hires.

—
You know, on a side note, I am getting the impression that briansd1 and BigGovernmentIsGood have the same identity behind them. There is a lot of similarity, including posting/presenting styles. It would be a way of creating a throw-away identity should Rich Toscano decide to implement ‘the edict‘.

It is possible to check using the IP address of the machine taking those logins. This info will be in the web-server’s access logs.

[ucodegen]

This quote

herefore, in 1992, Council adopted a resolution to demolish the plant and tank, and place soil over the remaining concrete.

worries me a bit. Any construction would be on fill.. which may not be compacted properly for construction. A builder may not have an easy time dealing with the concrete understructure when doing a foundation for a house.

The statement of having enough land for a split is also inaccurate. The primary lot is 16,215sq-ft, the pan-handle is the remaining 6000sq-ft and it looks like it consists of easements for access to neighboring houses as well as being part of their front yards. There is a 10,000sq ft lot minimum.

[ucodegen]

This quote

herefore, in 1992, Council adopted a resolution to demolish the plant and tank, and place soil over the remaining concrete.

worries me a bit. Any construction would be on fill.. which may not be compacted properly for construction. A builder may not have an easy time dealing with the concrete understructure when doing a foundation for a house.

The statement of having enough land for a split is also inaccurate. The primary lot is 16,215sq-ft, the pan-handle is the remaining 6000sq-ft and it looks like it consists of easements for access to neighboring houses as well as being part of their front yards. There is a 10,000sq ft lot minimum.

[ucodegen]

This quote

herefore, in 1992, Council adopted a resolution to demolish the plant and tank, and place soil over the remaining concrete.

worries me a bit. Any construction would be on fill.. which may not be compacted properly for construction. A builder may not have an easy time dealing with the concrete understructure when doing a foundation for a house.

The statement of having enough land for a split is also inaccurate. The primary lot is 16,215sq-ft, the pan-handle is the remaining 6000sq-ft and it looks like it consists of easements for access to neighboring houses as well as being part of their front yards. There is a 10,000sq ft lot minimum.

[ucodegen]

This quote

herefore, in 1992, Council adopted a resolution to demolish the plant and tank, and place soil over the remaining concrete.

worries me a bit. Any construction would be on fill.. which may not be compacted properly for construction. A builder may not have an easy time dealing with the concrete understructure when doing a foundation for a house.

The statement of having enough land for a split is also inaccurate. The primary lot is 16,215sq-ft, the pan-handle is the remaining 6000sq-ft and it looks like it consists of easements for access to neighboring houses as well as being part of their front yards. There is a 10,000sq ft lot minimum.

[ucodegen]

This quote

herefore, in 1992, Council adopted a resolution to demolish the plant and tank, and place soil over the remaining concrete.

worries me a bit. Any construction would be on fill.. which may not be compacted properly for construction. A builder may not have an easy time dealing with the concrete understructure when doing a foundation for a house.

The statement of having enough land for a split is also inaccurate. The primary lot is 16,215sq-ft, the pan-handle is the remaining 6000sq-ft and it looks like it consists of easements for access to neighboring houses as well as being part of their front yards. There is a 10,000sq ft lot minimum.

[ucodegen]

[quote UCGal]
They bought in Nov 1991 for $169k.

Somewhere along they way they pulled out an additional $390k (on top of their original loan.)

Amount owed: $582,589.15
Back to the bank today when no one would pay $350k at the steps.
[/quote]
Here is the kicker. Because the Home Equity Loan is generally considered for home improvement, the proceeds of the loan is not taxable as income. (390K virtually tax free)

The interest on the loans was tax deductible.

The loss of the property due to foreclosure has the potential to be deducted against future income – possibly at the value that the house was appraised at when they took out the Home Equity Loan.

The only counterbalance would have been the banks 1099 for loan loss forgiveness.. but that has been waived away for a while.
swwwweeeeettttt (CS) <-- no way related..

[ucodegen]

[quote UCGal]
They bought in Nov 1991 for $169k.

Somewhere along they way they pulled out an additional $390k (on top of their original loan.)

Amount owed: $582,589.15
Back to the bank today when no one would pay $350k at the steps.
[/quote]
Here is the kicker. Because the Home Equity Loan is generally considered for home improvement, the proceeds of the loan is not taxable as income. (390K virtually tax free)

The interest on the loans was tax deductible.

The loss of the property due to foreclosure has the potential to be deducted against future income – possibly at the value that the house was appraised at when they took out the Home Equity Loan.

The only counterbalance would have been the banks 1099 for loan loss forgiveness.. but that has been waived away for a while.
swwwweeeeettttt (CS) <-- no way related..

[Author]

Posts