text:
I. Introduction
This investigation by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) began on July 14, 1995, in response to allegations that Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officials had created a false picture of working conditions during a Congressional fact-finding visit to Miami on June 10, 1995. The allegations were contained in a document (Complaint) signed by nearly 50 INS employees, who protested that their managers had intentionally misled a visiting delegation of members of the Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform (Delegation or Task Force). The Delegation had visited the Miami International Airport (Airport) and the Krome Service Processing Center (Krome) to gather information and make assessments for its report recommending reforms in immigration policy to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
Once made public, the allegations created immediate controversy. Members of the Task Force had no idea that they were seeing anything at the Miami Airport or at Krome that was out of the ordinary and were outraged at the possibility that the allegations might be true. INS Headquarters officials in Washington quickly sought to determine whether the contentions in the Complaint were accurate and requested a response by the senior management in the INS Miami District Office. On July 13, 1995, and again on July 17, INS Miami District officials prepared memoranda denying substantially all of the allegations in the Complaint.
In brief, the INS employees who signed the Complaint alleged that, in the two days preceding the Delegation's visit, INS senior managers took steps to present the Miami District as well-managed, efficiently run, and under control when in fact it was experiencing major difficulties in discharging its various responsibilities. Specifically, the employees contended that INS management acted to prevent the Delegation from seeing that the Krome facility housing alien detainees was understaffed and overcrowded. Management allegedly did so by increasing staffing at Krome solely on the day of the visit and by transferring or releasing a total of 149 illegal aliens (almost 40 percent of the total population at Krome) in the forty-eight hours before the Delegation touched down in Miami. The Complaint contended that some aliens were temporarily sent to other INS detention facilities and local jails, some were bused to Key West, Florida, for lunch and then returned to Krome, and others were released in large groups into the community even though they had entered the United States illegally, were criminals, or had not undergone medical checks prior to release.
With respect to Miami Airport, the employees asserted that INS management increased the staffing at the Airport so that the primary and secondary inspection lines would appear to be more orderly than usual and directed that aliens be moved out of holding cells into an unsecured area where potentially excludable aliens are processed. The employees also contended that INS managers had ordered immigration inspectors to remove their gear belts, which contain holsters, handcuffs, and ammunition; failed to give adequate advance notice of the Delegation's visit to employees; and excluded union leaders from participating in the Delegation's visit.
II. Summary of Investigation
To investigate these serious charges, OIG assembled a large team of criminal investigative agents and auditors led by an Assistant United States Attorney on detail from the Southern District of New York and the Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the OIG Washington, D.C., Field Office. Because the allegations asserted that a distorted and misleading picture of conditions had been created expressly for the Delegation's visit, our investigation of the allegations focused on three distinct lines of inquiry: (1) What was the normal situation at Krome and the Airport with respect to the issues raised in the Complaint? (2) Was there a deviation from this normal pattern on the day the Delegation toured these facilities in Miami? (3) What intent could we attribute to INS managers for differences between what was normal and what occurred on June 10?
In our initial efforts to answer these questions, we discovered that significant discrepancies and omissions existed in the INS record systems. Only by reconstructing those records -- often by hand and through numerous days of sifting through paper records and entering them into database files -- was it possible to ascertain the true, "normal" state of conditions at Krome and the Airport. Moreover, once we had reconstructed what actually happened on June 10, 1995, we evaluated (and again, manually verified) INS records with respect to such issues as staffing and alien movements in the months before the Delegation visited Miami. This work was very time-consuming, but it was the only way to accurately assess the serious contention that conditions at Krome and the Airport were significantly different on June 10 than they were normally. Without this effort, we could not be confident in concluding, as we do in this Report, that alien movements and staffing assignments were in fact unusual on the day the Delegation visited.
Even after we concluded that, in significant respects, conditions at Krome and the Airport were not "normal" on June 10, we still had to determine the motivations underlying the actions of INS managers who caused the changes in conditions that had occurred. Accordingly, we searched for documents and closely questioned INS employees about who had given what orders on issues pertaining to staffing, the movement of aliens, and related matters in connection with the Delegation's visit. We also discovered -- outside of the INS centralized response to our request for documents -- that key electronic mail messages existed which shed significant light on the motivations of INS managers.
When confronted by these computer records, which appeared to show conclusively that INS managers had been motivated by the imminent arrival of the visiting Delegation to distort conditions at Krome and Miami Airport, certain senior INS officials at the Regional and District levels undertook efforts that slowed and obstructed the OIG investigation. At some point after the allegations had been made, incriminating electronic mail messages were deleted. Even after we had found some inculpatory e-mail messages, senior INS managers were not forthcoming in providing access to their computerized files so that we could search the files for relevant messages. Indeed, senior INS managers refused to provide access to their electronic mail files and eventually did so only upon a direct order from INS Headquarters.
All told, we interviewed more than 450 witnesses, obtained in excess of 200 affidavits, recovered and analyzed thousands of electronic mail messages, reviewed thousands of pages of documents, and reconstructed data for alien movements and staffing issues for many months prior to the Delegation's visit.
III. Principal OIG Findings
A. Allegations Regarding Krome Service Processing Center
The principal allegations concerning Krome involved the transfer, temporary movement, and release of almost 40 percent of the detainee population. Within 48 hours of the Delegation's visit on Saturday afternoon, June 10, approximately 149 detainees of a total of 407 were allegedly moved out of Krome. Most of these aliens were moved in the 24 hours preceding the Delegation's scheduled arrival. We discovered e-mail traffic establishing that senior INS officials at the Regional and District levels concluded on the day before the Delegation's arrival that the alien population at Krome should quickly be reduced. Regional managers approved decisions to decrease the detainee population in ways that District managers later devised. The e-mail messages and testimony by lower-level INS officials confirm that the eleventh-hour alien movements were motivated by the Delegation's visit. The senior INS officials who were said to have approved the transfers unconvincingly denied having done so because of the Delegation's tour. Our specific findings follow.
1) Temporary transfer to Jackson County Jail and New Orleans
We developed substantial credible evidence that, approximately 12 hours before the Delegation was scheduled to tour Krome, the Krome staff filled a bus and sent 45 detainees first to Tampa and then to the Jackson County Jail; 25 of the 45 were eventually transported to an INS facility outside of New Orleans. At the Jackson County Jail, the aliens were housed for three nights because the New Orleans facility accepted aliens only on Tuesdays through Fridays. Because the bus departed Krome in the early hours of Saturday morning, June 10, it was necessary to house the 25 aliens at the Jackson County Jail until Tuesday, June 13, before sending them on to New Orleans. Krome officials knew that the New Orleans facility would not accept these aliens until Tuesday, and that extra expenses would have to be incurred to house them in the Jackson County Jail. We found no other instance in the four months reviewed of a trip originating in Krome destined for New Orleans that began on a Saturd ay, and the testimonial evidence we obtained on this issue confirmed that this trip was extraordinary. In fact, the trip was originally scheduled for Monday, June 12, but was rescheduled at the last minute to begin on June 10.
Our investigation determined that, of the 20 aliens left in Jackson County Jail who were not taken to New Orleans on June 13, 19 were returned to Krome on June 14 (one was released to the community from the Jackson County Jail). It cost approximately $3600 to house these 20 aliens outside of Krome during the Delegation's visit. The total cost for moving the 45 aliens out of Krome before the Delegation arrived was $10,267. After scrutinizing the precise movement and eventual disposition of the 45 aliens, the movements of the INS staff who handled them, and the circumstances in which this trip occurred, we concluded that INS senior managers intentionally changed normal practices for the primary purpose of altering Krome's appearance for the Delegation's visit.
In their response to this allegation, INS managers in Miami falsely characterized the transfer as "ordinary" and "not unusual." After extensive denials, some of the officials responsible for drafting the INS District memoranda to INS Headquarters ultimately admitted that the District had misrepresented the facts to Headquarters and that this allegation in the Complaint was true.
2) Busing Aliens to Key West for Lunch
The Complaint alleged that aliens from Krome were bused to Key West at about the time of the Delegation's visit, given lunch, and returned to Krome. Our investigation did not substantiate this allegation.
By reviewing pertinent records and interviewing the INS officials on duty that day, we learned that on June 9, 36 aliens were transferred by bus from Krome to Key West. Most of them stayed in Key West for 10 days before departing voluntarily from the United States. We tracked the dispositions of the rest of the aliens who had been transferred to Key West. None of these aliens was returned to Krome immediately after the Delegation's visit, as alleged in the Complaint.
Nearly all of the aliens (33) bused to Key West on June 9 had been detained in Operation Tarmac on June 7. Operation Tarmac was a law enforcement initiative to investigate businesses that were purchasing airline tickets for aliens and thereby facilitating their illegal entry into the country. The purpose of detaining these aliens was to develop evidence to assist in the investigation of these companies.
Although we did not substantiate the allegation that the aliens were bused to Key West, given lunch, and returned to Krome, we did establish that the likely origin of this allegation was a flippant remark by an INS manager. More importantly, there is evidence to indicate that it was unusual to transfer to Key West those aliens who would eventually depart voluntarily. Although a number of witnesses stated that the temporary transfers to Key West were not unusual, our survey of records at Krome and Monroe County Jail for the period March 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995, disclosed that the June 9 transfer was the only date on which such a movement occurred. Nonetheless, we were satisfied that the evidence showed that the decision to move the aliens out of Krome was made before instructions were given to quickly decrease the alien population at Krome. The evidence further established that the decision to transfer the aliens was part and parcel of the initial decision to detain them -- which constituted a last minute change by District management. Thus, however unusual this decision might have been, we concluded that it was unrelated to the Task Force visit. Had Miami INS officials been motivated in their handling of these aliens by the Task Force visit, it would have been far simpler to have avoided detaining them in the first place on June 7.
3) Release of Aliens into the Community
The Complaint further asserted that on June 9 and 10, 1995, 54 detainees were released into the local community. The Complaint contended that some of these aliens were known criminals and that aliens paroled from Krome on these days had not been checked medically prior to their release.
In its July 13 and 17 Memoranda, INS Miami management maintained that there was nothing unusual about the releases of 58 aliens who INS management acknowledged had been paroled on June 9-10. It also stated that none of the parolees was a criminal and that all had received medical clearances. The INS management further contended that the releases were not motivated by the visiting Congressional Task Force.
Our investigation established that this response was untrue. We further concluded that the decision to release these large numbers of aliens was a direct response to a decision by senior INS managers at the Regional and District levels to move aliens out of Krome so that the Delegation would not see overcrowding at that facility.
We found that beginning Friday, June 9, and continuing until the Delegation arrived the following day, 58 aliens -- most of whom were Cubans and Haitians -- were released from Krome into the community. Fifty-six of them were released within 24 hours of the Delegation's arrival. Most of these aliens were released in two large groups: one at 4:13 p.m. on June 9, the other at 8:18 a.m. on June 10. Thirty-five of the 58 released aliens had not been medically cleared by the Public Health Service prior to their release from Krome; 34 of the 35 were released on Saturday morning, less than nine hours before the scheduled Congressional visit. We further found that INS files showed that of the 58 aliens released during this period, 4 had criminal records and 36 had no known criminal records. The criminal histories of another 18 aliens were unknown because no documentation existed in Krome's files to show that a criminal history check had been performed. Our investigation found that, in fact, nine aliens who were released had criminal histories. Four of the nine criminal aliens who were released had been charged with such crimes as cocaine trafficking and burglary. The other five criminal aliens who were released had been arrested on criminal immigration-related charges.
We further established that no similar mass release of aliens had occurred from Krome in the prior year. We tracked the surges and declines in Krome's population from August 1994 through July 1995. The only comparable declines in Krome's population were attributable to the implementation of policy decisions that followed from massive influxes of migrants. The large releases on June 9-10 conflicted with stricter release policies imposed by INS Headquarters in May 1995 in response to the Cuban-American accords.
4) Overstaffing at Krome
As part of the deception alleged to have occurred at Krome, the Complaint asserted that INS management assigned detention officers from Orlando and Tampa to work at Krome on the day of the Task Force visit. INS District management denied this allegation in its response to INS Headquarters.
We found that the evidence established that no additional detention officers were assigned to Krome between June 8 and June 10, 1995. We determined that two Orlando-based detention-enforcement officers assisted Tampa-based officers in transporting aliens from Krome to Jackson County Jail, and then on to New Orleans, in the transfer that was precipitated by the Delegation's visit. But we found no evidence from the testimony of Krome detention officers or the documents we reviewed that supported the contention that INS employees had been assigned to Krome at the time of the Congressional visit to give an appearance of greater efficiency at the facility.
B. Allegations Regarding Miami International Airport
In addition to the allegations about Krome, the Complaint asserted that conditions had been altered at the Miami Airport in anticipation of the Task Force visit.
1) Overstaffing at the Airport
The Complaint asserted that INS management increased the staff on duty during the Delegation's visit. According to the Complaint, this move had the effect of creating a perception of greater efficiency than was normally the case at the Airport. Allegedly, the long lines of waiting passengers that were the norm at the Miami Airport were eliminated on June 10 by the addition of more immigration inspectors who were said to have been paid overtime in an improper manner.
Miami INS managers conceded that additional staff worked at the Airport on the day the Delegation visited, but they attempted to justify the additions by saying the personnel were needed to escort the visitors. The managers asserted that they had no incentive to mislead the Task Force with respect to staffing, because it was well known that INS believed Miami Airport to be understaffed. By this reasoning, the true conditions at the Airport would be far more powerful for advocacy purposes than a false picture showing greater efficiency.
Our investigation found the managers' representations to be false. The extra inspectors were not brought in as escorts, and they were in fact paid overtime (and their hours extended to allow for more lucrative overtime). The picture created in the primary inspection area at the moment of the Delegation's walk-through was different from the reality of the Miami Airport at other times.
OIG found that, two days before the Task Force visit, senior Miami District managers met with Airport personnel. At that meeting, District managers made clear that the Airport was to run smoothly during the Delegation's visit, passengers were to be ushered quickly through inspections, and as many additional inspectors as were necessary to achieve these outcomes were to be brought in. The purpose of these instructions was to create an altered appearance of efficiency at the Airport that did not normally exist. District managers also instructed Airport personnel not to complain to the Delegation visitors about the need for more inspectors: they were told not to "whine" about conditions at the Airport.
Our investigation revealed that the Airport supervisors followed these orders and brought in additional supervisors and inspectors, who were paid overtime to work specially for the Task Force visit. On the day of the visit, inspections personnel were reassigned to the primary inspection booths during the Delegation's walk-through of the area. At the time of the Delegation's inspection of the area, 29 out of 36 booths were staffed by inspectors, despite the fact that the primary inspection area was only one-eighth to one-half full with arriving travelers. The number of booths open at that time exceeded by 11 booths -- about 35 percent -- the average of the number of open booths between January and July 1995. Consequently, the Delegation saw a picture different from the reality of everyday conditions at primary inspection.
2) Evacuation of Hard Secondary
The Complaint also alleged that normal procedures for the incarceration of aliens at the Airport were violated to convey a picture of calm, order, and safety in a section of the inspection area known as "hard secondary." In hard secondary, INS officials continue their inspection -- and incarcerate in adjoining holding cells if appropriate -- aliens who are ineligible for admission into the United States. We found that no written criteria exist for determining when an alien should be held in a hard secondary cell, but the custom and practice at Miami Airport is to place an alien in a detention cell in hard secondary if the alien has an active arrest warrant; possesses fraudulent documents; has no documents at all; is dangerous; or poses a risk of flight.
We found substantial credible evidence that, at the June 8 meeting at the Airport to prepare for the Task Force visit, senior District officials directed Airport personnel to keep the detention cells in hard secondary "clean," a term that was meant and understood to mean that the cells should be kept empty. Furthermore, Airport personnel were instructed that only criminal aliens were to be kept in the hard secondary detention cells, which was inconsistent with the custom and practice of INS at the Miami Airport. This instruction served the purpose of ensuring that the fewer aliens would be in cells during the Delegation's tour. In addition, Airport personnel were told that children were not to be placed in the cells, even though children were routinely kept there if they were accompanying an adult who qualified for incarceration in the cells.
Shortly before the Delegation touched down at Miami Airport at approximately 1 p.m., approximately eight aliens were in the hard secondary holding cells. At around 12 noon, they were moved from the holding cells and placed in the hard secondary waiting area. Two of these aliens, who were criminals, were returned to the cells before the Delegation's visit. Others, who had entered the United States on fraudulent documents or otherwise posed a flight risk, were permitted to sit in the hard secondary seating area during the Delegation's visit. Our investigation found that at least six aliens who ordinarily would have been incarcerated were seated in the hard secondary area without any restraints at the time of the Delegation's walk-through. The immigration inspectors on duty that day characterized the actual conditions in hard secondary as highly unusual and noted the marked change in appearance during the period the Delegation was present.
Directions were also given to airport personnel on what to say if a member of the Delegation asked what kinds of aliens were placed in the hard secondary detention cells. A high-level INS District official directed INS employees to answer that only criminal aliens were held in these cells, even though it was well known that other reasons existed for such detention. During the Delegation's tour of hard secondary, a question was asked about the types of aliens held in the detention cells; an Immigration Inspector falsely responded that only criminal aliens were so detained. Senior managers were aware of this misrepresentation when it occurred but did nothing to correct it.
In its management response, the INS Miami District did not specifically deny the allegation that aliens were removed from hard secondary holding cells but implied that no aliens had been removed prior to the Delegation's arrival. In fact, several aliens were removed from the cells and placed in the hard secondary seating area. Management further asserted that the secondary inspection logs for that day reflected the detention of only two aliens in the cells during the time of the Delegation's visit. The logs were recognized by Airport staff to be unreliable, and this statement was only partially correct, since six others had been moved out of the cells and placed in the seating area approximately one hour before the Delegation arrived at hard secondary.
3) Alleged Order to Remove Gear Belts
The INS employees also complained that they had been instructed to remove their leather belts, which contained a firearm holster, ammunition pouches, and handcuffs. The ostensible purpose of this instruction, according to the Union, was for management to present a "kinder, gentler" image of the immigration inspectors. Union officials took offense at this instruction because it exposed them to possible danger if an incident occurred that day and because it undermined their efforts to secure law enforcement status for immigration inspectors.
Management responded to this allegation by essentially admitting it was true, noting that certain routine uniform standards were in effect for the Congressional visit. Management further asserted that INS policy prohibited inspectors from carrying firearms while performing primary inspections, and maintained that the District's position had been to contain handcuffs in leather cases so that they did not dangle. Despite OIG requests, INS never presented any written policy statements to support these positions.
Our investigation revealed a disconnection between the INS policy now in effect, which permits immigration inspectors to carry firearms in certain circumstances, and INS Miami District management's perception of the applicable policy that immigration inspectors at airports were prohibited from carrying firearms. The latter was true under a 1986 policy statement, but had been superseded in 1989, apparently unbeknownst to Miami District management. We found no written policy in Miami addressing the proper standards for leather gear. In terms of custom and practice at the Airport, our investigation revealed that most inspectors do not typically wear their gear belts when performing primary inspections. A significant number, however, do carry such equipment to facilitate their moving quickly into duties requiring a firearm, such as escorting a departing alien to a plane.
We further determined that Miami senior managers instructed supervisory inspectors to prohibit immigration inspectors from wearing their leather gear on the day the Task Force visited. This instruction was given at the June 8 preparatory meeting at the Airport. We found, therefore, that the instruction given to prohibit inspectors from wearing their leather gear was a departure from custom and practice at the Airport and that it was unsupported by any written policy.
4) Exclusion of the Union
Finally, the Complaint maintained that employees had not been informed about the Delegation visit and that Union officials had been intentionally excluded from the tour, which prevented the Union from representing employee interests. The Complaint alleged that Union officials were threatened with arrest if they ignored the order to stay away from the Delegation.
The evidence supports the view expressed in the Complaint that Miami managers never formally notified the Union about the upcoming Delegation visit. The Union was essentially excluded from the visit, except to the extent that Union officials were allowed at the last minute to accompany the touring Delegation during part of its visit. Our investigation also substantiated the allegation that Union officials were threatened with arrest by INS managers if they attempted to join the Delegation during a secure briefing. The Union officials subsequently left the scene.
Management ignored the lack of notice issue in its response to INS Headquarters and focused on the alleged threats to Union officials. Miami managers admitted to OIG that they had attempted to exclude the Union from joining the Delegation's tour, but believed the exclusion to be justified because of the potential for disruption, especially in light of tense relations between Union and management officials in the Miami District.
C. Alleged Shredding of Documents
After we began our investigation, anonymous information was received alleging that INS management personnel were shredding documents believed to be relevant to this investigation. We questioned people said to have knowledge about this allegation, as well as the employees who were alleged to have done the shredding. No one admitted to any shredding, and we found no credible evidence to support the allegation.
IV. OIG Disciplinary Recommendations
Based on our findings, we recommend that certain INS senior managers be disciplined as a result of their actions in connection with the Delegation's visit and in connection with our investigation. We find particularly egregious the orders given to move aliens out of Krome, which resulted in the unnecessary transfer of aliens, the incurring of unnecessary costs, and, most seriously, the release of criminal aliens and aliens who had not been given medical checks prior to their release into the community. Those responsible made these decisions primarily to create a false impression of conditions at Krome for the visiting Delegation.
Although less serious, the decisions on how to assign staff at the Airport and to alter the detention situation in hard secondary conveyed an attitude about the Congressional fact-finding process that warrants strong condemnation. It is one thing to instruct personnel to comport themselves professionally because of the arrival of VIPs and to "scrub the decks" to present a clean and tidy work place. It is entirely different to give instructions that increase the risk of a public safety incident and that run counter to the very mission of the agency.
The deception continued when Miami officials were called by Headquarters to respond to the allegations. The written responses by the Miami District conveyed misleading information in certain aspects and false information in others. In only a few particulars were these memoranda factually correct. For INS to function properly, Headquarters must be able to demand truthfulness and accuracy from its subordinate offices. Those responsible for misleading Headquarters thus should be sanctioned.
Finally, the extraordinary lengths to which OIG had to go to uncover the truth further demonstrate a contempt by certain INS officials for the OIG investigation. Having misled Congress and their own managers in Headquarters, these officials refused to tell the truth to OIG investigators. Even when confronted with documentary and testimonial evidence, senior officials responsible for the initial decisions to mislead the Delegation refused to acknowledge their role in these deceptions.
Because of constraints imposed by law, we have not made the names of these persons public in this summary, but have referred our findings to the Department of Justice for evaluation of possible criminal prosecution and for appropriate disciplinary action.
V. OIG Recommendations Regarding Needed Systemic Reforms
In conducting this investigation, we encountered issues that we believe require systemic reform within INS. Some of the issues have already been addressed implicitly in the section of the report dealing with administrative sanctions against certain employees. These include taking steps to guard against deception of Congress when it visits facilities on fact-finding missions; accurately responding to allegations of misconduct; taking allegations seriously and not discounting them simply because of their source; and cooperating fully with investigations that examine allegations of employee misconduct.
Apart from these concerns, which bear no greater elaboration, we also take note of the following issues requiring more systemic reform.
First, strong signals should be sent by the Commissioner regarding INS cooperation with OIG investigations. INS top management must take responsibility for ensuring prompt, complete, and diligent responses to requests for information and evidence. In the future, INS top management should take stronger steps to ensure that INS employees rigorously and honestly search their paper files and computer systems, and should take strong administrative action against those who do not. Moreover, our investigation discovered grave discrepancies in the INS record keeping systems at Krome and the Miami Airport. We found that the paper records kept manually did not comport with computerized files purporting to memorialize the same information. Particularly as to alien movements, these discrepancies pose serious problems. Some aliens simply could not be accounted for in Krome's records -- a fact that must be remedied. Our audit staff has discussed these discrepancies with Miami District mana gers, but a follow-up check should be made by INS to ensure that these remedies have taken hold. In addition, spot checks should be undertaken to ensure that the same problems do not exist in other INS district offices.
Written policies should also be formulated for the handling of aliens in hard secondary at the Airport. At present, unwritten custom or practice calls for detention in certain circumstances. On the day of the Congressional visit, the normal procedures were abandoned so that the Delegation would not see as many people -- including children -- in cells. But the absence of a written policy has the potential to create confusion and contribute to inconsistent treatment of aliens depending on the Airport at which they should happen to land. Policies regarding the handling, documentation, and processing of medical checks on aliens to be released should also be reviewed and reassessed to determine whether changes should be made or more training implemented. The same should be done with respect to release of aliens with criminal histories.
Finally, we have significant doubts about the existing management in the Eastern Region and the Miami District and question whether top managers in those offices should retain their current positions. The conduct of these officials in the context of the Congressional visit and during the course of this investigation is very disturbing, all the more so since the most egregious conduct was committed by persons in positions of substantial responsibility and leadership.
VI. Conclusion
Fact-finding is crucial to the formulation of public policy. Distortions in the images created and in the facts conveyed to legislative decision makers cause potentially long-term harm to Congress' ability to formulate legislation and oversee Executive Branch performance. Whether the distorted images created by INS managers affected the formulation of policy proposals in pending immigration reform legislation is unknown.
Significant OIG resources were expended to uncover the truth about these allegations. We consciously made this determination because of our perception that strong signals needed to be sent that false impressions conveyed to Congress in fact-finding missions would be uncovered; that efforts to cover up and inhibit OIG investigative efforts would be thwarted; and that responsible persons would be called to account for their actions. We have transmitted a copy of our report to the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division for evaluation as to the appropriateness of criminal prosecution, as well as to the Attorney General for consideration of appropriate discipline. Even if our investigation does not result in the prosecution of any official, we are sufficiently troubled by the actions of certain INS managers that we seriously question whether they should remain in their present positions.


text:
Fewer Parties, More Education at UM.
Editor: My hat goes off to the University of Maryland for its recent stand on college parties. As reported by Patricia Meisol in her Oct. 7 article, the school has implemented stringent rules affecting both fraternity and sorority parties.
It is inspiring to learn that the college is concerned enough about its ''top 10'' academic image to institute such changes. In an era when the words college and party are almost synonymous, the university's decision puts into perspective the primary reason for the facility: educating.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A Call to Arms: Noble Armada (Core Rulebook)
The popular space fleet combat miniatures game, A Call to Arms is back, in a brand new guise ? drawn from the detailed background of the Fading Suns RPG, A Call to Arms: Noble Armada is a fast to learn, hard to master space combat game involving fleets drawn from the Royal Houses. Players must learn how to knock down or bypass the shields protecting enemy vessels, and then launch assaults on ships with an all new boarding mechanic utilising deck plans provided in this core rulebook. With full campaign rules and support for tournaments, A Call to Arms is back as you have never seen it before.


text:
- Artist: Double Standards
- Genre: Jazz
- Release Date: 6/3/2008
The lineup of the Swedish quartet Double Standards is: Cennet Jönsson soprano & tenor saxophone Jacob Karlzon piano Hans Andersson double bass Peter Nilsson drums Review quotes: 'On the band's third album we find extended (10-17 mins) and creative interpretations of six jazz classics, all recorded live. The group, with the marvellous pianist Jacob Karlzon, bassist Hans Andersson and drummer Peter Nilsson, stray away from the sentimentality of Strayhorn, Porter and Gershwin, instead they cultivate a different approach and come up with unexpected results. A highlight is Kurt Weill´s Speak Low, which is restricted only in the number of notes, not in emotions. I´ve never heard Cennet play better tenor than this, and the piano playing is just as great.' - Martin Erlandsson/Hallands Nyheter 'This group, fronted by saxophonist Cennet Jönsson and pianist Jacob Karlzon, is rightfully established as one of Sweden's finest interpreters ofstandards. With intensity, intelligence and love, the quartet takes matters in to their own hands in Speak Low, My Man's Gone Now, Tea For Two and other goodies. This is real jazz, and in this case, it actually feels like jazz music was just born...' - Ulf Johansson/Göteborgs-Posten 'This Swedish quartet manages to reach a level of intensity, especially in the rhythmically emphasised pieces like Upper Manhattan Medical Group and I Love You, that we´re not used to hear from our own Danish groups. This is mainly thanks to Karlzon and Nilsson. Karlzon with an at times almost overwhelming output, that never goes out of control and Nilsson, who plays with a sparkling explosiveness, but never loses his impeccable timing. Karlzon also knows how to express himself with nuanced restriction, something that can be heard in the gorgeously beautiful version of Tea For Two, here - surprisingly - performed as a rubato ballad.' - Boris Rabinowitsch/Politiken 'Among other songs, this album contains Wayne Shorter´s Mahjong in a smokingly trashy version and a truly gentle and dream-like interpretation of Tea For Two. The quartet's virtuosic, personal and unpredictable way of approaching standards is some of the most interesting music on the Swedish jazz scene.' - Alexander Agrell/Sydsvenskan.
|Double Standards
|CD Baby
|Release Date:
|Product Type:
|Item #:
|This product is a special order


text:
Today, Tangshan Railway Vehicles Co. Ltd. (TC), Changchun Railway Vehicles Co. Ltd. (CRC), the Chinese Academy of Railways (CARS) and Siemens signed an extensive contract for the supply of 100 high speed trains.
The Siemens share of the contract is worth around 750 million euros. "This new order from China is especially gratifying to us because together we will be supplying the first vehicles for the Bejing - Shanghai route, the most important high speed line in the country. Moreover, we will strengthen the long-term cooperation with our Chinese partners in a high speed market that, in future, will be the largest in the world," said Hans-Jörg Grundmann, CEO of the Mobility Division in the Siemens Industry Sector.
With a total length of 400 meters China will get the world's longest single train in use in the area of high speed transportation.
"Counting the Chinese models, Siemens has already sold over 200 Velaro trains and has secured five of the last six contracts on the high speed rail market over 300 km/h with this multiple-unit concept," said Grundmann. Siemens has signed long-term contracts with the three partners – TC, CRC and CARS – and these contracts will cover cooperation in future projects as well. The Ministry of Railways is planning to procure around 1,000 high speed trains within the next few years, most of which will be capable of operating in the over 300 km/h speed range. The current order includes the first trains for the new high speed line between Bejing and Shanghai, the lines Wuhan and Guangzhou and Wuhan and Shijazhuang will follow. These routes will be dedicated solely to high speed passenger service. Altogether, the network of these lines will cover a total distance of approximately 16,000 km by the year 2020.
Seventy of the new-generation high speed trains will be built in Tangshan, China, and 30 of them at CRC in Changchun, China. The Siemens share of the contract includes the supply of components such as electrical equipment and bogies to TC and CRC, the Chinese partners in the project. Siemens will manufacture its part of the scope of supply in Krefeld-Uerdingen and Nuremberg (Germany), Graz (Austria), Shanghai, Tianjin and Jinan (China). With this new order, Siemens has been able to add Changchun Railway Vehicles Co. Ltd. (CRC) to its network of Chinese partners. The first train is scheduled to be put into service at the end of 2010.
The new train models will be a development of the successfully operating CRH 3 high speed train. The CRH 3 is based on the Velaro, the Siemens platform for high speed trains. A train unit will have a total of 16 cars and accommodate approximately 1,060 passengers. The total length of 400 meters means that the new model will be the world's longest single train in use in the area of high speed transportation. With a voltage of 25 kV and a traction rating of 18.4 MW, it will be able to achieve an operating speed of 350 km/h. The train will complete the 1,318 km run between Bejing and Shanghai in a mere four hours.
A previous order placed by the Chinese Ministry of Railways four years ago was for 60 trains of the type CRH 3 from Siemens and TC. Eleven of these trains have been in service between Bejing and Tianjin since the 2008 Olympic Games and can boast a degree of punctuality of over 99%.About the Velaro
The Siemens Industry Sector (Erlangen, Germany) is the worldwide leading supplier of production, transportation, building and lighting technologies. With integrated automation technologies as well as comprehensive industry-specific solutions, Siemens increases the productivity, efficiency and flexibility of its customers in the fields of industry and infrastructure. The Sector consists of six Divisions: Building Technologies, Drive Technologies, Industry Automation, Industry Solutions, Mobility and Osram. With around 222,000 employees worldwide Siemens Industry posted a profit of EUR3.86 billion with revenues totalling EUR38 billion in fiscal year 2008 (ended September 30).
The Mobility Division (Erlangen, Germany) is the internationally leading provider of transportation and logistics solutions. With its "Complete mobility" approach, the Division is focused on networking the various modes of transportation in order to ensure the efficient transport of people and goods. "Complete mobility" combines the company's competence in operations control systems for railways and traffic control systems for roadways together with solutions for airport logistics, postal automation, traction power supplies and rolling stock for mass transit, regional and mainline services, turnkey systems as well as forward-looking service concepts.Siemens AG
LaserForum 2018 deals with 3D production of components
17.08.2018 | Event News
08.08.2018 | Event News
A journey through the history of microscopy – new exhibition opens at the MDC
27.07.2018 | Event News
Smallest transistor worldwide switches current with a single atom in solid electrolyte
17.08.2018 | Physics and Astronomy
Robots as Tools and Partners in Rehabilitation
17.08.2018 | Information Technology
Climate Impact Research in Hannover: Small Plants against Large Waves
17.08.2018 | Life Sciences


text:
|I partnered with Amara for this post. As always, all opinions are my very own.
First, I needed a some natural elements. After all, we're on the farm, remember?
Just like a barn, the wood of the table itself is what sets the stage, it's the foundation. However, layering rattan or woven placemats or chargers on top of it takes the design up a notch. A wooden trough filled with fruit builds in a little rustic charm and some true farmhouse flair.
My pigs don't hurt either.
Looking for more fabulous? I've got that!


text:
Preferences of Human Hair Wigs and Extensions
- By - online
- hair extension
- 0
When you venerate your hair yet wish it was just fairly more, you don't need to lose trust. Hair expansions and wigs have made it easy to camouflage your hair and impact it to look longer shorter or styled. Customary can be another hair day. Human hairs with tie front wigs are typical and can be used every day. Various recovering tumor patients pick to use such wigs. They don't impact you to sweat and are definitely not hard to put on. The wigs when in doubt have a catch system where you can basically associate it to you hair. Thusly you can modify it without it being too much troublesome. Various women settle on wigs and hair pieces for the tremendous day in order to look wonderful. If you are all the more okay with a trademark look, endeavor the human hair wigs and Malaysian extensions 20 inch. These are made out of real hair from an advocate and can be styled by your need.
Getting the customary look with developments can wind up being harder than you may speculate. This may be because you have the wrong quality extensions. Unobtrusive expansions will look fraud and designed. There are prevalent qualities extensions open in stores online which may are not a strain on the pocket. Arrangement things are to an awesome degree all around assessed and are shockingly easy to utilize as well. Designed increases don't look unnatural if you get it from the right shop. Consistently check the shade of the developments with your standard shade. One shade darker isn't an issue however a lighter shade will watch odd and develop. Ask the shop whether you can style your developments with hot tongs or hair dryers. Most basic enlargements consider re-styling. Wigs are really ordinary and come in made hair and likewise general. The way they are made can move from wig to wig. Check which will suit you. Online shops will give point by point information about the way the base is made and woven. There are different kinds of wogs available like hair pieces, wedding wigs, designed tie front wig, hand tied wigs or monofilament wigs. Monofilament wigs are momentous. These are high bore in which the hair is woven into a thin work like surface. It looks an incredible arrangement like skin at the base on the hair and consequently gives an uncommonly typical look. This considers wind stream and keeps the scalp cool.


text:
The Daily Word in APD protest, rabid bats and Mel Gibson
As part of his conditions for release from MDC, UNM professor David Correia—who is a regular contributor to the Alibi—is banned from City Hall. Correia has also been forbidden from discussing Monday's police brutality protest with other protesters or potential witnesses.
Two South Valley bats have tested positive for rabies.
Mel Gibson is making a movie at our city's very own Desert Sands Motel.
Burque's first Trans March took place at the end of May, as part of this year's Pride activities.
New Mexico legislators are reviewing our state's telecom laws.
Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) will visit the local Sitel facility tomorrow.
Yesterday, temperatures reached 110 degrees in Carlsbad, N.M. but only hit 95 degrees in the Sandia Foothills.
A newspaper out of South Carolina says our recent primary election "brings out unusual candidates."
King and Martinez hit the general election campaign trail.
In Aztec, N.M., Chubby Chicken has closed.


text:
|07 Sep 2012
Hello kxracer, and welcome to Seven Forums.
Microsoft allowed being able to do a clean install with a upgrade copy of Windows 7 to allow their customers to be able to reinstall the upgrade copy of Windows 7 if neeeded without having to install say Vista first, then do a upgrade install from Vista to Windows 7. It's a real time saver for this to be allowed. The red warning box in this tutorial on the first page can give you more details about this to help more though.
The red warning box in the tutorial below can help show what editions of Vista can do a upgrade install to what editions of Windows 7. However, if you like, you will still be able to do a clean install with a upgrade copy of Windows 7 as above to not have to upgrade from Vista itself.
Upgrade Install with Windows 7Yes, you will be able to upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8.
Upgrade Install from Windows 7 or Vista to Windows 8Hope this helps,
|My System Specs
|07 Sep 2012
Vista x64 Ultimate SP2
Hi Brink,
Although I agree it was a great idea to allow for a clean install with Windows 7 upgrade to avoid having to reinstall the windows you're upgrading from, what I can't understand is why there are no security measures in place to prevent someone who does not have qualifying windows software.
It's illegal yes...but there's no way for microsoft to ever find out if I've understood everything correctly from the links in the red warning box. Why not have windows 7 prompt you to enter your product key from your windows you're upgrading from so it can tie it to the windows 7 upgrade to prevent someone from using the upgrade without qualifying windows software and prevent someone from using their windows they upgraded from at the same time as the windows 7 upgrade.
Microsoft implements things like WGA but they couldn't implement something as simple as above. What am I missing?
|My System Specs
|07 Sep 2012
Not sure why they didn't, but they may have some unknown way of being able to tell later through activation.
|My System Specs
|01 Dec 2012
I have a question about the red box warning. I upgraded from OEM Vista to Windows 7 with a retail upgrade a few years back, and now I'm planning on switching out my motherboard/CPU/RAM/SSD, of course requiring a clean install of Windows 7 on the new drive.
I know OEM licenses are not transferable, they are tied to the motherboard, but what about my Windows 7 upgrade? According to this thread, I should have no trouble doing a clean install using either option 3 or 4, but I'm still worried about the OEM thing. Did upgrading from OEM Vista "convert" my upgrade into an OEM upgrade that I cannot transfer to a new motherboard? Or does the retail upgrade kind of "override" the OEM Vista?
Also seems like this would that put me in the red box warning category that says I need a qualifying previous OS in order to upgrade. Since my previous OS is OEM, and is tied to an old motherboard, maybe I can't use an upgrade on a new machine?
|My System Specs
|01 Dec 2012
Hello stealthycrow, and welcome to Seven Forums.
If it's a retail and not OEM Windows 7 upgrade copy you purchased, then you will no issue reinstalling and activating it on your new build. At worse, you may need to do a phone activation if it doesn't activate online as usual.
Upgrading from an OEM installation doesn't make the retail product key (license) you purchased OEM.
Hope this helps, :)
|My System Specs
|01 Dec 2012
Alright, sounds good to me, thanks. It was a retail upgrade and not OEM. It'll be a few more days to get everything, hopefully it all goes smoothly.
Thanks again.
|My System Specs
|01 Dec 2012
You're most welcome. I hope it goes smoothly as well. :)
|My System Specs
|05 Dec 2012
Had to do a phone activation, but didn't actually have to talk to anyone, so it wasn't too bad. So everything went fine, windows is activated. Thanks!
|My System Specs
|05 Dec 2012
Windows 7 Ultimate X64 SP1
They have a smooth talking robot eh? Only 154 numbers later....
|My System Specs
|13 Dec 2012
Windows 7 Home Premium *upgrade*
Here is my experience using the Family pack upgrade. I upgraded the hdd at the same time, so thought I'd try a clean, custom install. Well, it would not activate, error was something like 'product key is only valid for an upgrade installation'. So I had to install over the new install. Also, trying to do an upgrade install on the blank new hdd didn't work...the upgrade option can only be executed from within windows.
Don't know if it's different with a single upgrade key, or if Microsoft changed something along the way. A friend told me that he did option one with no problem, but it was a no-go for me.
|My System Specs
|Thread Tools
|Similar help and support threads
Clean install with upgrade version without windows.old file?
Hi is there anyway i can do this? also i dont know how to do it from the bios can you help me? i also want to make sure there are no traces of vista and all data is gone. additional informartion: toshiba satellite a500 4gb ram 500gb hd
|Installation & Setup
Doing a Clean Install with a Upgrade Windows 7 Version
Hello everyone, Just to let you all know that I have confirmed that you can do either a clean install, custom install, or upgrade install with a retail Upgrade version of Windows 7 and activate it on a clean unallocated (blank) drive or partition without any other OS installed or with one...
|Installation & Setup
Upgrade version vs clean install version
I need to know if I can use a clean install disk for Windows 7 Ultimate to upgrade from Vista or if I have to use an Upgrade version? I'm leaning towards buying the clean install disk so that if I should loose the hard drive at some future point I could just clean install Win 7 Ultimate from...
|Installation & Setup
Clean install with Upgrade version..
.it now appears that there is no need to pay for a full version.. you can do a clean install with the upgrade version with no need to show you have an XP or Vista system already..just use the upgrade key provided. :D
|Installation & Setup
|Our Sites
|Site Links
|About Us
|Find Us
Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.
© Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:05.