Family

Really the best and most effective option. ..bird in the hand worth more than 2 in the bush..so to speak😂 Get your I-485 in now , green card in hand and after aquired derivative wife will come through the I-824 action by way of German Consulate

What form are you filing…each has a specific way to “ add” information

You have better chance than Wife 02. The USA frowns on men with many wives

Are you Wife 01 or Wife 02 ?

That’s an eerie phrase, 50 shades of wrong.

Harvard Law school thinks Judge Cannon has a few screws loose 😂…go figure , country is not all ‘ deep state’ conspiracy fandom.

And almost roasted , too. Adds new meaning to inflammatory…

If grandma had wheels…she’d be a wagon 😂

“FALSE EQUIVALENCE” Kurt Braddock, an assistant professor of public communication at American University who researches political violence, said Biden’s criticisms of Trump as a threat to the nation aren’t the same as the violent language deployed by right-wing supporters of Trump. “It’s a little bit of a false equivalence,” Braddock said Trump supporters have led an increase in threats and harassing communications aimed at election workers, judges and other officials. After Trump lost the 2020 election, Reuters documented hundreds of threats to local election officials by Trump supporters enraged by his false claims that the election was rigged. A Reuters investigation published in May found that violent threats against judges handling Trump’s various criminal and civil trials spiked after the former president criticized those judges in speeches or social-media posts. Before the shooting, Trump had not ruled out the possibility of political violence if he loses November’s election. “If we don’t win, you know, it depends,” he said when asked by TIME magazine in April if he expected violence after the 2024 election. He’s also refused to unconditionally accept the results of the upcoming election and warned of a "bloodbath" if he loses. A Reuters review of dozens of Trump’s campaign speeches – particularly those from 2020 and 2024 – found that violence was a recurring theme. He has exhorted rallygoers “to take back our country,” repeatedly praised the Jan. 6 Capitol rioters and compared himself to famed mobster Al Capone. While president, he encouraged police to be rough with people they were arresting and threatened to use the U.S. military to quell protests. Biden, who has repeatedly condemned political violence, offered another denunciation immediately after the attack on Trump. Some pro-Trump commentators predicted more violence ahead. “They will stop at nothing unless America stands up to them,” said a commentator on Rumble, a video-sharing site that attracts right-wing users, referring to Democrats. “Violence is going to happen. Here is the civil war.” A senior member of the Proud Boys, the violent all-male extremist group that led the pro-Trump storming of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, said the group would show up at the Republican National Convention, which kicks off in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on Monday. After the shooting of Trump, “you’ll see us at more events,” the Proud Boy told Reuters. “It’s going to be more active. It’s that simple.” Megan McBride, an expert in domestic violent extremism, said U.S. leaders have a brief window to cool partisan hatred before a retaliatory cycle emerges. Research shows that support for political violence increases when people believe the other side supports it, said McBride, a senior research scientist with the Institute for Public Research at CNA, a nonprofit that studies security issues. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-wake-trump-shooting-seek-pin-political-violence-trend-democrats-2024-07-14/

What the judge was thinking and what’s next in Trump documents case On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed. Cannon ruled that the special counsel was appointed improperly. What was her legal reasoning? It’s a mashup of statutory analysis and two constitutional principles — the Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause. She looks at the provisions in the order appointing Smith that set forth the statutory basis for that appointment. She also looks at the statutes and concludes that the statutes do not authorize the attorney general to appoint a special counsel. She focuses on the fact that Smith was not a Department of Justice employee or officer at the time of the appointment — he was working at The Hague. It’s not clear to me why that matters, because today he’s a Department of Justice official. She infuses the analysis with lengthy discussions of the Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause. Two other district courts and the D.C. Circuit have considered this issue — the legality of the special counsel — and they have all rejected it. Cannon is the only judge to find the appointment invalid. The D.C. Circuit has twice rejected a challenge to the use of special counsels — during the Iran-Contra investigation and during Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Trump. Judge Dabney Friedrich of the District Court in D.C., who is a Trump appointee, tossed aside a similar challenge without a lot of effort in a fairly short opinion in a case involving Mueller, who oversaw the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Judge T.S. Ellis of the Eastern District of Virginia similarly tossed this issue aside in a case that also involved Mueller. So, the other courts that have looked at this issue have had no trouble with it and have ruled contrary to Cannon What are the regulations under which special counsels are appointed? Special counsels have been around for decades. From the 1970s until the late ’90s there was the independent counsel statute, which provided for a much more independent special prosecutor than what Attorney General [Merrick] Garland authorized in this matter. The Supreme Court upheld the statute in Morrison v. Olson, but it expired in 1999. After its expiration, DOJ implemented its own regulations providing for the appointment of special counsels who possess functions similar to U.S. attorneys. In 2020, in an Appointments Clause case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Supreme Court essentially reaffirmed Morrison v. Olson as a valid exception to a general rule about appointments. One very surprising thing is how Cannon deals with the Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Nixon. There’s a sentence in that 9-0 opinion which resolves this issue entirely. The sentence says that Archibald Cox, who was one of the prosecutors of Nixon, was appropriately appointed pursuant to the statute. And you would have thought that would have ended this inquiry. Cannon does something I think I’ve never seen a district judge do before, which is that she looks into the history of the Nixon case, decides the issue wasn’t particularly briefed, and as a result determines that a sentence in a Supreme Court opinion that was decided 9-0 was, in fact, “dicta,” which means that it is not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. And as a result, she as a district judge was entitled to disregard it. I’ve never seen a district court conclude that a portion of a Supreme Court opinion is not binding; that was a first for me. In my seminar at Harvard Law School, I teach that portion of the Nixon opinion, and the beginning of it is essentially whether the matter is justiciable and whether the case is properly in the court, partially because it’s an intra-branch fight — it’s two parts of the executive branch that are litigating against each other. It was important to the court to point out that the special counsel was validly appointed and validly in the court, because if they thought he had not been, then the matter would not have been justiciable. The entire first part of the Nixon opinion is really about justiciability. Smith has said that he’s going to appeal. Can you talk about his likely strategy and whether the case might end up before the Supreme Court? Smith’s appeal is going to be based on the issues we’re talking about. He’ll say that the judge’s reading of the authorizing statutes is wrong, and that in fact, the attorney general is entitled to appoint non-DOJ personnel to be special counsel. That’ll be the principal argument. Smith will also argue that the infused atmosphere of the Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause really has no place in the discussion. It’s a question of whether the statute permits it or doesn’t permit it. He’ll also raise the notion that essentially Nixon has already decided this case. An appeal in the 11th Circuit would take roughly a year to decide. If Trump is elected president, after his inauguration he will certainly order the Department of Justice to dismiss the federal cases against him. The Department of Justice would then dismiss those cases and there would not be an appeal. If Trump is not elected, there’s a strong chance that the 11th Circuit will reverse Cannon’s decision. Whichever way the 11th Circuit ruled, I suspect the issues would then be decided in the Supreme Court. I’m not going to predict what the Supreme Court would do. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/07/what-the-judge-was-thinking-and-whats-next-in-trump-documents-case/

Chelsea Man Pleads Guilty to Selling Fake Social Security Cards and Green Cards BOSTON – A Chelsea man pleaded guilty yesterday to selling fraudulent Social Security cards and Legal Permanent Resident cards, often referred to as “Green Cards.” Wilberto Sandoval Mazariego, 40, pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful transfer of a document or authentication feature. U.S. District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs scheduled sentencing for Oct. 3, 2024. In October 2023, Sandoval Mazariego was arrested and charged by criminal complaint. Sandoval Mazariego was later indicted by a federal grand jury in October 2023. During an investigation into Tomas Xirum for selling fraudulent Green Cards and fraudulent Social Security cards, law enforcement allegedly identified Sandoval Mazariego as the creator of the fraudulent documents Xirum was selling. Following Xirum’s arrest in August 2022, law enforcement found a text message string between Xirum and Sandoval Mazariego that contained approximately 568 attachments. Xirum would regularly text Sandoval Mazariego pictures of unknown persons along with a name, date of birth and country of birth – to which Sandoval Mazariego would later respond with pictures of Social Security cards and/or Green Cards with the person’s photo and information that Xirum provided. On Aug. 17, 2023, Sandoval Mazariego sold a fraudulent Green Card and a fraudulent Social Security card to an undercover agent. On Oct 3, 2023, Sandoval Mazariego was arrested after leaving his Chelsea residence. During a search of his residence, all items necessary to produce counterfeit forms of identification were found, including two laminators, card stock paper, photo paper, glue, trimmers and printers. Also recovered were nine Legal Permanent Resident cards, six Social Security cards and five driver’s licenses. Five of the recovered Social Security cards contained the names provided by the undercover agent to Sandoval Mazariego as part of the investigation. A total of $17,095 in cash was also recovered from the residence. On Aug. 21, 2023, Xirum pleaded guilty to three counts of unlawful transfer of document or authentication feature and three counts of unlawful production of document or authentication feature. In January 2024, Xirum was sentenced to 18 months in prison. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/chelsea-man-pleads-guilty-selling-fake-social-security-cards-and-green-cards

CDK cyberattack expected to cost car dealers more than $1 billion, Michigan study says A cyberattack on Chicago-based dealership software provider CDK Global that began June 19 forced CDK to shut down most of its systems across the country for its dealership customers until July 5. It left about half of the nation's car dealerships struggling to operate, forcing some to return to the days of pen-and-paper. According to Bloomberg, the group that orchestrated the attack demanded tens of millions of dollars in ransom to end it. The result of the attack led J.D. Power and GlobalData to forecast late last month that U.S. retail sales in June across all automakers will be about 5.4% lower than they were in June 2023. Based on June sales results, Anderson Economic Group on Monday issued a revised estimate to its June 28 estimate, which was a prediction that dealers would experience $944 million in losses. The group now estimates that total direct losses to car dealers in the three calendar weeks of the cyberattack actually reached $1.02 billion. https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2024/07/15/cdk-cyberattack-cost-car-dealerships/74408247007/ The massive car dealership cyberattack has ended with a $25 million ransom CDK Global reportedly paid the ransom in Bitcoin so there could be no trace https://qz.com/cdk-global-cyberattack-million-dollar-ransom-1851593508

If when you filed , you marked under 3 year, the application will be denied. The officer at interview could have nudged you to “amend” filing and switch to the 5 yr…but he did not have to. Waiting any longer is pure waste of time. File new

OP profile shows he joined VJ in 2014, so no limit to posting. ..maybe life, work obligations

It’s officially a joke now 😂 https://newrepublic.com/post/183930/trump-selling-ugly-assassination-merch-sneakers

Just go ahead and file another I-130 by you ( USC step parent ) as this is the fastest way ( may still take 1.5 to 2yrs from start to finish) to bring him here and not be subject to the F-2A delay/retrogression and age out worries. I know it’s another filing fee, chalk it up to DIY lesson….but stil way less than what attorney fees would be.

As for the I-130 you filed in 2022 for new wife , if my assumption is right , it’s being processed as F-2 A and is not current yet, so they are in no hurry to work on it , until you naturalize https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-bulletin/2024/visa-bulletin-for-june-2024.html

If you have a physical copy of the N-400 form ( as filed in 2019) , look at the first page and see what you marked : 3 yr or 5 yr

A FOIA will clarify ….

Excellent. You made a mistake by filing in 2019 for N-400 and they just did not get around to denying. You had to have 3 yrs as LPR and be married at time of filing ….but you were divorced Solution : new N-400 under 5 year rule

Not such a gloomy forecast at all😂. All will be well once he files new N-400 under 5 years. ‘As @Dashinka pointed out, he likely did ROC and got conditions removed in 2017…so his LPR status is all good

Check the dates you listed in your original post. Are they correct? In 2019 when you filed N-300 under three years, you did NOT meet the requirements because you were divorced . So you need to file a new N-400 under 5 year rule

I just read your profile and story of meeting your first wife in 2012 and marriage. It makes me think you came in to the US as CR-1 ( with green card ) in 2014. Look at your green card and tell me “resident since ‘ date

Did you do your filings ( for N-400 and I-130) by yourself or did someone help you? Is the family petition for your new wife ? I realize you want answers on what to do next, since both cases are stuck. ..please answer the questions as they will determine your next steps. ‘You should start by filing for copies of your entire record, called FOIA. It’s free , can be done online and you will need it. Ask for everything related to your I-485, N-400 and I-130 for “family “ member.