There's A 'U' In Support

[splinterman]

.....we provide an additional resource to aid and support each other along the way.

 

That's the statement (partial) right off the front page of the Candle For Love webpage. Have you seen it? That means ones of CFL's purpose is intended to provide support.

 

Without trying to be a smartass, I want to ask...where is everyone hiding? Where are all the people who have in the past posted about the raw deals that were flying out of Guangzhou in the past year or so? Where are those people who were once climbing over each other to post their comments and advice, and saying 'something should be done about Guangzhou'?

 

Now there's an opportunity for everyone to band together and possibly make a difference and....where are they? Only a few write complaint letters and even fewer posts comments in support of an effort intended to try and change things.

 

Has a tsunami of apathy struck the members of CFL recently so that nothing matters now? I'm shocked that out of all the people I've read their posts about needing help with GUZ's unfair decisions in the past year, the folks who've responded to the call for help can be counted on our hands, with fingers left over.

 

We now have 2 attorneys separately attacking the injustices that petitioners and beneficiaries are forced to endure, and there is a noticeable lack of support from the very people who stand to benefit the most.

 

Where is everyone?

[chengdu4me]

There is no legal mechanism by which you can personally appeal the case here in China or ask to have it reviewed by US Consulate Guangzhou consular management. The proper channel for appeal or re-application is through the National Visa Center. "

 

The above is copied from another post by DavidZixuan in a different thread.

 

While there are some problems with USCIS that can be fixed and there are avenues to do this, the DOS foreign consulates do not answer to the US Courts. So, jump up and down, scream all you want, hire lawyers that don't have anyplace to present an argument. It doesn't matter. Most of the folks here that have had these problems with DOS denying a visa have found another path to take to get around the issue.

 

One problem that those that want to find a legal solution to the issue of visa denial is this. YOU, the USC weren't denied anything. Your rights were not violated. You were not denied due process. There is nothing written anywhere that says you have a right to get a foreign national a visa to come to the US. There are rules that say that you may sponsor a visa. You did that.

 

The person with the grievance is a foreign national, in another country, with no rights protected by the US Constitution or any law, code, or regulation. In other words, they don't have any complaint because they weren't legally entitled to what they were asking for in the first place.

 

At least, this seems to be the position of the DOS, in a nutshell. Any litigation on this issue would be with the USCIS and they can go into court and tell the judge that they are sympathetic and they have done everything by the book and it is the DHS/DOS that has denied the visa. SO, you file litigation against the DOS and they come into court and say, we follow the rules that Congress tells us to follow. Ok...now who ya gonna drag into court now? Congress? All of them? Which ones? Oh, the ones that made those rules are gone now. So, who is your target?

 

I feel your pain. I truly do, but this is a shell game of astronomical proportions and not you, or anyone else that has the slightest interest in this has the legal team or the financial resources to fight the house. The house always wins. It is in the fineprint.

 

You are better off just learning all the rules, even though they are etched in pudding, and doing what you need to do to be together with your loved one, regardless of any outcome at DOS.

[splinterman]

There is no legal mechanism by which you can personally appeal the case here in China or ask to have it reviewed by US Consulate Guangzhou consular management. The proper channel for appeal or re-application is through the National Visa Center. "

 

The above is copied from another post by DavidZixuan in a different thread.

 

While there are some problems with USCIS that can be fixed and there are avenues to do this, the DOS foreign consulates do not answer to the US Courts. So, jump up and down, scream all you want, hire lawyers that don't have anyplace to present an argument. It doesn't matter. Most of the folks here that have had these problems with DOS denying a visa have found another path to take to get around the issue.

 

One problem that those that want to find a legal solution to the issue of visa denial is this. YOU, the USC weren't denied anything. Your rights were not violated. You were not denied due process. There is nothing written anywhere that says you have a right to get a foreign national a visa to come to the US. There are rules that say that you may sponsor a visa. You did that.

 

The person with the grievance is a foreign national, in another country, with no rights protected by the US Constitution or any law, code, or regulation. In other words, they don't have any complaint because they weren't legally entitled to what they were asking for in the first place.

 

At least, this seems to be the position of the DOS, in a nutshell. Any litigation on this issue would be with the USCIS and they can go into court and tell the judge that they are sympathetic and they have done everything by the book and it is the DHS/DOS that has denied the visa. SO, you file litigation against the DOS and they come into court and say, we follow the rules that Congress tells us to follow. Ok...now who ya gonna drag into court now? Congress? All of them? Which ones? Oh, the ones that made those rules are gone now. So, who is your target?

 

I feel your pain. I truly do, but this is a shell game of astronomical proportions and not you, or anyone else that has the slightest interest in this has the legal team or the financial resources to fight the house. The house always wins. It is in the fineprint.

 

You are better off just learning all the rules, even though they are etched in pudding, and doing what you need to do to be together with your loved one, regardless of any outcome at DOS.

 

 

You're missing the point by your own astronomical proportions. Personally, what I am doing now to reunite with my lady is separate and distinctly different than what Marc Ellis and John Roth are trying to do. These are two different matters which have nothing to do with one another. Its a dichotomy of issues. But they CAN affect my end result.

 

Those people who carefully read Mr. Roth's Memorandum and also the recent post by Marc Ellis on what he is trying to do should be able to develop a good understanding of what they are undertaking, and why, and what they are expecting of their outcome.

 

Only Marc Ellis is advocating legal action right now, with regards to getting the CSC to review and decide on returned petitions instead of what they do now-allow them to die without any review at all. As an American Citizen you have that Right to Due Process.

 

What John Roth is trying to do is get the DHS to properly train and ensure that the visa officers execute petitions in accordance with the laws, rules, regulations, etc. that are already on the books. Can anyone here state that is properly being done now?

 

That is what this is all about.

 

Whatever those petitioners here are doing to be re-united with their loved ones is their business. All anyone here has been complaining about for the time that I have been a member is to have a level playing field where both sides play by the rules-the DHS, DOS and consulates on one side of the field and the petitioners and beneficiaries on the other side. In practice, only we have been held to following the rules, the government agencies have not. The laws and rules are already on the books, so they should follow them as we are held to do. THAT is the essence of the complaints.

 

It's more than a sad day when people on this website agree that a change is needed but they give up the fight before it starts because it might be too tough of a fight. So it might require people to get off their asses and push for a change, and that's asking too much? Write a few letters, post a few comments for support-oh wait! Let me rest a little bit-that's taking too much out of people? Nobody can ever win against the Goliath, so why even try?

 

That's a terrible attitude of failure and if humanity ever lived by that Neanderthal creed we would all still be living in caves, drawing on the walls and still dying by the thousands from diseases easily cured by penicillin.

 

If you are not able, or willing, to lend some support for changing the way things are happening now that's fine. Sorry if you infer that I am attacking you-I'm not. But I also don't believe in adopting a Defeatist attitude or mixing apples with oranges.

 

And I really don't believe that people here on this website believe in that either, or none of them would have ever begun the process to bring their fiancees or spouses to be with them.

 

Splinterman

[Sebastian]

Larry, that was well written - kudos to ya, mon, but I gotta say - unless we 'glom together' and get behind someone with the voice to be heard, things aren't gonna change.

 

And isn't that what everyone wants? Things to Change?

 

Now, let's just assume for the moment that the initial 'filing' wasn't complete, or even done properly, but USCIS/NVC approved all and got the petition filed to Guangzhou, where it was denied cause of insufficient 'fodder' in the file. Wouldn't it be great, for right then and there, for the beneficiary to hand over evidence, across the counter, and have the whole thing re-evaluated within 3 days? I think it would - that's one of the things that could be changed - if enough 'case studies' were gathered together for Mr. Roth to present.

 

There's no Guarantee anything will change, but with the right push, at the right 'earlobes', it's possible.

 

The gathering of distinct 'case data' is important - if yer reading this (not just Chengdu4Me/Larry) - and have gotten a white slip within the last 15 months - I beg of you - get yer case data over to Mr. Roth.

 

Sure - you'll have to prep and edit a bit, but what's another day in front of yer word processor? You do that anyway, at least once a week, right? You know how to use the d@mn keyboard, come on...

 

You need other incentive? Monies for your time? hmmmm

[LeeFisher3]

While the consulate is insulated from the battle directly, the USCIS and DOS are not. Both of these actions are targeted at agencies that can be compelled by a court order to force proper behavior in relationship to GUZ's actions.

 

With the slew of white slips we've seen being issued I'd recommend the members involved take advantage of the legal options that have recently shown up.

 

In dealing with government agencies you don't always need to win to force a change because often the fear of more bad publicity when people are forced to fight to get people to do their jobs is enough to make a difference.

 

Neither of the attorneys is offering a guarantee and both have their own reasons for charging hell with a bucket of water and are giving people affected by this the opportunity to do something productive.

 

Remember, one paper cut won't kill you but millions will get the job done with lots of pain involved. Don't give away your chance to inflict a paper cut or two in GUZ.

[chengdu4me]

OK...Splinterman, I don't think I'm being attacked. I just offer up that no matter who is in your sights, no matter who it is or what department it is. all they have to say is, "We didn't write the rules and we have no authority to change them".

 

Ok....who did write the rules?.....answer...Congress...oh...thats a big organization.....who in Congress? well...those rules were written by such and such committee and most of those members are gone now. Can't they write new rules? Well, sure, I suppose that is possible. Who's job is it to write the rules? It is the Foreign Affairs Committee (for example). Are you on this committee? No, I'm not, your honor. I'm just a poor slub from Justice that has to defend this case. Case dismissed...you sued the wrong party. Oh? who do I sue? Such and such committee...oh, I forgot to tell you, you can't sue them. Ok..what do I do now? Pay me. What else? Nothing.

 

The only way I see to change the rules is to get to the committee in Congress that has oversight and regulatory responsibility for the DOS. I don't even know who that is. I don't pay that close attention to the workings of DC. Only they can change the rules. Only they can enforce them. Only they have the slightest influence on DOS.

 

Maybe, perhaps the IG office may have some influence because it seems that procedures weren't being followed that are in black and white. But the IG can't make them change existing rules or make them add exceptions to rules. Only the governing body of that department can do that.

 

My suggestion would be to research what committees have authority over this process and write directly to those members of Congress...but, still..I think it is a shot in the dark...unless the letters come from their constituents, they won't mean squat...a guy complaining in California to a Congressman in Indiana is just wasted paper. You can't do anything for him..and he isn't going to do anything for you.

 

These are the realities of the situation as I see them. I could be wrong, but I would have to see proof. I would be glad to relate my story if I had one, but I don't because I trust the US government so little that I'm not bothering with them. I just don't believe it is a good use of my time or money to fight with them.

[LeeFisher3]

While you are correct that congress writes the laws, each agency then chooses to interpret the laws to do their job. Currently the USCIS and DOS are not following the written regulations and adding their own twist to them.

 

Saying we will change congress and how they deal with it is fine if you are taking the long view, say 5000 years or so, but it won't change anything quickly.

 

The options available are targeted at two specific issues and only with a focused attack can the issues be resolved. Have no doubt that the USCIS and DOS will adjust and find a new way to make life more difficult, but that takes them a couple of years. For now we have an opportunity to nudge them in the direction the law says they should be doing.

[HKG]

Splinterman, this Visa request is a personal matter, so when you put one's results on a public BB such as CFL, and are attacked for what you are thinking you sought of shy away from any more expression, myself I have supported your inquiry. There is this Attorney, ellis-island who posted under a post for non-bonafide relations about the rules that are supposed to govern this type of denial quite explicit. If only they were followed. So Congress has passed laws for both sides. One or more sides is not following their dictates. Which brings me to this gem of the US Code for the Consulates:

Section 1019. Certificates by consular officers

Whoever, being a consul, or vice consul, or other person employed

in the consular service of the United States, knowingly certifies

falsely to any invoice, or other paper, to which his certificate is

authorized or required by law, shall be fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

 

Does it apply for Non-bonafide denials, maybe if they are without merit.

 

Again I like to point out the post by ellis island, in which he points out the duties of notification after a non-bonafide denial.

[LeeFisher3]

Splinterman, this Visa request is a personal matter, so when you put one's results on a public BB such as CFL, and are attacked for what you are thinking you sought of shy away from any more expression, myself I have supported your inquiry. There is this Attorney, ellis-island who posted under a post for non-bonafide relations about the rules that are supposed to govern this type of denial quite explicit. If only they were followed. So Congress has passed laws for both sides. One or more sides is not following their dictates. Which brings me to this gem of the US Code for the Consulates:

Section 1019. Certificates by consular officers

Whoever, being a consul, or vice consul, or other person employed

in the consular service of the United States, knowingly certifies

falsely to any invoice, or other paper, to which his certificate is

authorized or required by law, shall be fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

 

Does it apply for Non-bonafide denials, maybe if they are without merit.

 

Again I like to point out the post by ellis island, in which he points out the duties of notification after a non-bonafide denial.

While it probably applies, getting a court to step up and accept this case would be difficult at best as the evidence is so extremely subjective and comes down to knowing what a person was thinking at the time.

 

The direction these attorneys are heading is meant to target specific issues that are a major underlying factor with NOID's issued in GUZ. Knock them down and they will change not because they believe it is right but out of the fear of the court system and the press.

[HKG]

 

While it probably applies, getting a court to step up and accept this case would be difficult at best as the evidence is so extremely subjective and comes down to knowing what a person was thinking at the time.

 

 

Who is thinking what? What the VOs are thinking? These denials are supposed to be based on, fact, not thought! that is the law. And it is supposed to be documented the reason for denial, in detail! ellis-island points out the rules the Consulates and USCIS are to follow in the denials. Attorneys Marc-Ellis and Roth I feel are pursuing the means to the end also.

Edited April 12, 2009 by HKG (see edit history)

[chengdu4me]

Lee, let me ask this...A petition is denied at GUZ, then it is shipped back to the Service Center for denial/rebuttal/whatever. Since the petition is only good for four months, a reasonable person would conclude that it was actually within the active time frame at the time of the interview. However, in the time it took for the petition to get back to the Service Center, it expired. OK...now...it is plainly known that the petition only has a life of 4 months. The government, at its whim, may extend that life. But if it chooses not to, so what? It expired. Nothing to inform the petitioner about. Its over. Nothing to do but refile. Since this is in the rules, no one has any legal complaint because you knew the rules going in and you agreed to them by signing/filing the petition. This, in a nutshell is what Marc Ellis, if I read his speal correctly is what he is going after. He wants a rule changed that is a known rule. It is in black and white and it is accepted/approved by the governing body of the USCIS...So, where is his complaint? USCIS is well within their jurisdiction to look at a returned petition and see that is has expired and just throw it in the trash. Seems like this is exactly what they are doing.

 

Let me also say this. I am just playing devil advocate. I truly do feel everyones pain in this process. I went through the wait, but canceled due to other reasons before the finish line. But that doesn't make me any less sympathetic to your cause. Perhaps when dealing with the government, I have just learned it is better not to if at all possible. In any and all cases, I will find an alternate route.

[HKG]

Lee, let me ask this...A petition is denied at GUZ, then it is shipped back to the Service Center for denial/rebuttal/whatever. Since the petition is only good for four months, a reasonable person would conclude that it was actually within the active time frame at the time of the interview. However, in the time it took for the petition to get back to the Service Center, it expired. OK...now...it is plainly known that the petition only has a life of 4 months. The government, at its whim, may extend that life. But if it chooses not to, so what? It expired. Nothing to inform the petitioner about. Its over. Nothing to do but refile. Since this is in the rules, no one has any legal complaint because you knew the rules going in and you agreed to them by signing/filing the petition. This, in a nutshell is what Marc Ellis, if I read his speal correctly is what he is going after. He wants a rule changed that is a known rule. It is in black and white and it is accepted/approved by the governing body of the USCIS...So, where is his complaint? USCIS is well within their jurisdiction to look at a returned petition and see that is has expired and just throw it in the trash. Seems like this is exactly what they are doing.

 

Let me also say this. I am just playing devil advocate. I truly do feel everyones pain in this process. I went through the wait, but canceled due to other reasons before the finish line. But that doesn't make me any less sympathetic to your cause. Perhaps when dealing with the government, I have just learned it is better not to if at all possible. In any and all cases, I will find an alternate route.

I think you are giving to much to the Goverenment in this situation, too simple a thought. The government is under obligation to follow the law and state the reasons for denial, under a rule of law an illegal action does not become legal just because of a passage of time in which the illegality was accepted as legal.

[chengdu4me]

I don't think I'm giving too much to the government. The folks at USCIS don't give a damn what DOS/GUZ does. They are going to make their lives as easy as possible. They see a petition returned that is beyond the expiry date and as far as they are concerned, it is over. It is not USCIS concern what is legal for DOS. They have no dog in any fight that DOS picks. And, by the way, it is not illegal for a government organization to not follow its own rules. No more than it is against the law for you to violate your companies rules.

 

Your quote about it being illegal for a consulate employee to falsely certify a document is not a good argument. The list of issues that can lead to a non bone fide is endless(if there is a list at all) and you or I will never see it. It can be as simple as "she didn't even know his phone number". The VO can give any reason he wants to and I guarantee that he can back it up by showing that questions were asked that a person in a relationship would know and she didn't know. That is if you could ever get the VO into a court and you won't be able to do that.

 

And, to carry this further, lets say you could get a VO into court. Its his word against NOBODY! How are you going to get your lady into the US to testify if she doesn't have a visa to allow her past POE? You think waving a subpoena will get her in? It won't even get her on the plane to leave China! You can't testify. You were not at the interview. Whatever your lady told you about the interview is nothing but hearsay.

Edited April 12, 2009 by chengdu4me (see edit history)

[defendo]

I don't think I'm giving too much to the government. The folks at USCIS don't give a damn what DOS/GUZ does. They are going to make their lives as easy as possible. They see a petition returned that is beyond the expiry date and as far as they are concerned, it is over. It is not USCIS concern what is legal for DOS. They have no dog in any fight that DOS picks. And, by the way, it is not illegal for a government organization to not follow its own rules. No more than it is against the law for you to violate your companies rules.

 

Your quote about it being illegal for a consulate employee to falsely certify a document is not a good argument. The list of issues that can lead to a non bone fide is endless(if there is a list at all) and you or I will never see it. It can be as simple as "she didn't even know his phone number". The VO can give any reason he wants to and I guarantee that he can back it up by showing that questions were asked that a person in a relationship would know and she didn't know. That is if you could ever get the VO into a court and you won't be able to do that.

 

And, to carry this further, lets say you could get a VO into court. Its his word against NOBODY! How are you going to get your lady into the US to testify if she doesn't have a visa to allow her past POE? You think waving a subpoena will get her in? It won't even get her on the plane to leave China! You can't testify. You were not at the interview. Whatever your lady told you about the interview is nothing but hearsay.

 

 

It is tragic that people spread misinformation because they simply do not know what they are talking about. Perhaps a review of American history and a civics class would enlighten you.

 

First of all, it is absurd to claim that the U.S. Consulates do not answer to the U.S. Courts. Read Bustamante v MuKasey. The courts reaffirmed exceptions to the non-reviewability doctrine in instances where the visa application process has denied an Amercian Citizen due process as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

 

I have no doubt that my due process rights were blatantly denied by GUZ. I am a party to the actions taken by GUZ.

 

Second, to say that the foreign national is the only person with a grievance is ludicrous. How about the American petitioner? I certainly have a legitimate grievance.

 

Guz fails to follow the requirements of law and federal regulations and in doing so they have denied all of us our liberty to marriage and family. It is not a privilege, but a right.

 

¡°Freedom of personal choice in marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the due process law.¡± (Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart; Cleveland Board of Education v Lafleur, 1974)

 

You are correct that there is specific right that entitles an American to obtain a visa for a foreign national, but there are laws that govern the process and if they are not fairly applied, them American citizens have the right to petition for redress.

 

You apathy is disheartening. Our country was founded on principals of justice. Simply accepting things as they are, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the circumstances is an open door to tyranny.

 

Perhaps everyone on this site should recall what Margret Mead once said:

NEVER DOUBT THAT A SMALL GROUP OF THOUGHTFUL COMMITTED CITIZENS CAN CHANGE THE WORLD.

 

defendo

[chengdu4me]

I don't think I'm giving too much to the government. The folks at USCIS don't give a damn what DOS/GUZ does. They are going to make their lives as easy as possible. They see a petition returned that is beyond the expiry date and as far as they are concerned, it is over. It is not USCIS concern what is legal for DOS. They have no dog in any fight that DOS picks. And, by the way, it is not illegal for a government organization to not follow its own rules. No more than it is against the law for you to violate your companies rules.

 

Your quote about it being illegal for a consulate employee to falsely certify a document is not a good argument. The list of issues that can lead to a non bone fide is endless(if there is a list at all) and you or I will never see it. It can be as simple as "she didn't even know his phone number". The VO can give any reason he wants to and I guarantee that he can back it up by showing that questions were asked that a person in a relationship would know and she didn't know. That is if you could ever get the VO into a court and you won't be able to do that.

 

And, to carry this further, lets say you could get a VO into court. Its his word against NOBODY! How are you going to get your lady into the US to testify if she doesn't have a visa to allow her past POE? You think waving a subpoena will get her in? It won't even get her on the plane to leave China! You can't testify. You were not at the interview. Whatever your lady told you about the interview is nothing but hearsay.

 

 

It is tragic that people spread misinformation because they simply do not know what they are talking about. Perhaps a review of American history and a civics class would enlighten you.

 

First of all, it is absurd to claim that the U.S. Consulates do not answer to the U.S. Courts. Read Bustamante v MuKasey. The courts reaffirmed exceptions to the non-reviewability doctrine in instances where the visa application process has denied an Amercian Citizen due process as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

 

I have no doubt that my due process rights were blatantly denied by GUZ. I am a party to the actions taken by GUZ.

 

Second, to say that the foreign national is the only person with a grievance is ludicrous. How about the American petitioner? I certainly have a legitimate grievance.

 

Guz fails to follow the requirements of law and federal regulations and in doing so they have denied all of us our liberty to marriage and family. It is not a privilege, but a right.

 

¡°Freedom of personal choice in marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the due process law.¡± (Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart; Cleveland Board of Education v Lafleur, 1974)

 

You are correct that there is specific right that entitles an American to obtain a visa for a foreign national, but there are laws that govern the process and if they are not fairly applied, them American citizens have the right to petition for redress.

 

You apathy is disheartening. Our country was founded on principals of justice. Simply accepting things as they are, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the circumstances is an open door to tyranny.

 

Perhaps everyone on this site should recall what Margret Mead once said:

NEVER DOUBT THAT A SMALL GROUP OF THOUGHTFUL COMMITTED CITIZENS CAN CHANGE THE WORLD.

 

defendo

 

 

 

It's not apathy. It is a learned response to a corrupt and unethical government. I fight the battles I can win and I make an end run around the ones I can't.

 

Bustamante vs. Mulkasey? They lost! A crack in the door? Maybe, but I sincerely doubt it!

 

The existence of a law and anyones ability to make an argument for their circumstances is two different things.

 

The standard in such review is whether the agency gave a "facially legitimate and bona fide reason."

 

Are you a lawyer? A Law School graduate? Do you have any idea the resources and money it takes just to get to this point?

 

Just to serve a subpoena on a GUZ VO would cost thousands and thousands of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And that is just to get the piece of paper in his hands. Then you have to pay to fly him to the states, pay for his stay while he is here, pay your lawyer to fly all over the country to go to court, pay for his stay, his paralegals stay, and other staff he needs with him.

 

The US government may be unethical , but they aren't stupid. They would drag this out till you are bankrupt. Then they would deny the visa on grounds of insufficient support just to pour salt on the wound.

 

Facially legitimate could be as simple as, "Your honor, According to the beneficiary, she had known the petitioner for two years. I asked her what his phone number is. She didn't know. I asked her what his mothers name is. She didn't know. These are questions that anyone that I know of that had been in a relationship for two years would know. I deemed that this was not a bone fide relationship in accordance with FAM blah, blah blah..." There will be no one in the court room that can dispute his testimony.

 

In the above mentioned case, even though it was not proven that the man was a drug dealer, it was found that the VO was acting in good faith when he denied the visa based on that information. So, even a lie is grounds for denial if the lie is believable.

 

Anyone can submit a third party communications with GUZ that is packed full of lies and that is all the evidence they need to deny. As far as I know, they don't even have to investigate the claims.

 

I'm all for someone knocking DOS/GUZ off their high horse. I just don't think it is a reasonable expectation any time in the next century.

 

If this fight was worth fighting, the ACLU would have taken it on long ago...ever wonder why they haven't?

 

Our country may have been founded on principles of justice, but if you believe that has anything to do with todays world, you are sadly and pitifully naive. Justice has a price and most cannot afford it.