Erase Electronic signature Document Fast
Make the most out of your eSignature workflows with airSlate SignNow
Extensive suite of eSignature tools
Robust integration and API capabilities
Advanced security and compliance
Various collaboration tools
Enjoyable and stress-free signing experience
Extensive support
How To Remove Sign PDF
Keep your eSignature workflows on track
Our user reviews speak for themselves
Erase Electronic signature Document Fast. Check out probably the most consumer-helpful knowledge about airSlate SignNow. Control your whole papers finalizing and revealing method digitally. Change from portable, paper-structured and erroneous workflows to computerized, electronic digital and perfect. You can easily produce, deliver and indicator any files on any product anywhere. Be sure that your crucial business circumstances don't slip over the top.
Find out how to Erase Electronic signature Document Fast. Adhere to the straightforward guideline to get started:
- Make your airSlate SignNow profile in mouse clicks or sign in along with your Facebook or Google profile.
- Benefit from the 30-day time trial offer or choose a rates plan that's perfect for you.
- Discover any lawful design, develop on-line fillable types and talk about them firmly.
- Use advanced capabilities to Erase Electronic signature Document Fast.
- Signal, personalize putting your signature on purchase and collect in-man or woman signatures ten times quicker.
- Established intelligent alerts and receive notices at each and every phase.
Transferring your activities into airSlate SignNow is straightforward. What comes after is a simple approach to Erase Electronic signature Document Fast, along with ideas to maintain your co-workers and associates for far better partnership. Inspire your workers together with the very best instruments to be in addition to business procedures. Improve productivity and range your company quicker.
How it works
Rate your experience
-
Best ROI. Our customers achieve an average 7x ROI within the first six months.
-
Scales with your use cases. From SMBs to mid-market, airSlate SignNow delivers results for businesses of all sizes.
-
Intuitive UI and API. Sign and send documents from your apps in minutes.
A smarter way to work: —how to industry sign banking integrate
FAQs
-
Why should small businesses use electronic invoicing and payments?
Whether you are a Payer, who wants to pay a Vendor OR You are a Vendor & want to receive payment from a Payer, with the available Credit Line in your pocket; Credit Card, Now You Have: PAYDECK.To know more go through this blog piece frm paydeck which I loved to share.Payer?The Onus of Payment & its responsibility is on you, So why not the choice of making payment should be yours?You may use the Credit Line available in your physical wallet: CEDIT CARD. And Make the payment.Bring your Vendors onboard. You dont need them to be registered at Paydeck. Just bring their details & signup yourself at Paydeck & make the payment. And the payment shall be sent to them.Paydeck : The Power to Pay in Card Holders Hand.Send payments in simple steps through our easy-to-use website. Enter recipient's bank a/c details or simply pay to their mobile/email.Make first payments by entering bank details, next time simply select from existing payee list.Stop depending upon card swiping machines. Use your own digital swiping machine, Paydeck.No need to load money unnecessarily at all apps. Simply use saved card(s) to pay when required through Paydeck.Reward Points, Credit Score, and More.Paydeck helps you accelerate benefit on your favourite card & associated rewards programs.Meet sign-up bonus spending requirements or attain higher membership status.Build a stronger credit score (CIBIL) or increase your credit worthiness.Earn more points and cash-back rewards by paying your largest invoices through Paydeck.Small Business Owner?The old times are gone, when you should have a Payment gateway or a Credit Card swiping machine at your disposal to accept card payments. And nor the time is now of sending paper invoices.Why not to give your Payers the opportunity of making the payment on credit card? Awesome thing is, your payments will come on time & the payers wont have a reason to delay the payments.Apart of the above, for you, as a Small Business Owner there are many possibilities which could be explored with your available Credit Line through your Credit Card.Gain Instant Access to CreditForget small business loans — you already have a credit line in your wallet. Take advantage of your favourite Credit Card to pay any vendor of yours, regardless of acceptance.Eliminate the Need for Business Loans Use your existing cards to cover unexpected costs or make new investments in your business.Improve Your Business Cash Flow Many business card programs offer 45 or even 60-day interest-free payment periods. Use credit without penalties.Build Trust with Your Vendors With Paydeck, there’s no need to establish new credit lines to make payments up-front and on-time.Business Economics & IncentivesPaying your invoices on Paydeck makes business sense. Advantages include reducing the amount due for all your invoices and minimizing the taxes you owe.Qualify for Better Invoice Payment Terms Many vendors offer better payment terms if you pay earlier. Save money by paying with Paydeck!Deduct the Paydeck Fee On Your Taxes Paydeck’s transactional fees can be classified as a business expense on tax returns. Be smart and reduce your tax burden!Build a Better Credit Score Using your cards actively is great for building your credit history. You’re already paying your invoices. Why not also build your credit score & enhance limit with Paydeck?Earn More RewardsTurn business expenses into free flights, hotel stays, cash back, and more by using the personal or business credit card that works for you.Take Your Next Vacation For Free On Points Did you know that business class air travel can be a steal when you pay with points? Travel in style with the rewards you earn with Paydeck.Qualify For That Next Tier Of Card Status Have your eye on that Platinum card? It’s remarkably easy to obtain when you start putting business expenses on your cards!Earn GUARANTEED rewards on every Payment you make Use your card to get something back for every payment you make on Paydeck through credit cards. Start with Reward Points.For a long time we had Credit Cards in our pockets. But to utilise the real benefit of it, was not actually possible. Paydeck makes it possible for you.Be the Guide of Growth for PaydeckThink more.. and let us know what you think you want to pay with your Credit Card. And if its possible, we will add that Service too in Paydeck.Pay with Credit card anytime, anywhere & anyone through Paydeck!( I am currently exploring opportunity to work with Paydeck, as I had to take a 1 year break from my last job. I am not an employee yet of Paydeck. You can say a Fan )
-
Will the digital voting system help India?
Electronic voting in IndiaFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigation Jump to searchThis article is about the voting machines used in India. For general information on EVMs, see Electronic voting.VVPAT used with Indian electronic voting machines in Indian ElectionsControl unit in EVMElectionic Voting Machine India ballot UnitElectronic Voting is the standard means of conducting elections using Electronic Voting Machines, sometimes called "EVMs" in India.[1][2]The use of EVMs and electronic voting was developed and tested by the state-owned Electronics Corporation of India and Bharat Electronics in the 1990s. They were introduced in Indian elections between 1998 and 2001, in a phased manner. The electronic voting machines have been used in all general and state assembly elections of India since 2004.[3][2][4]Prior to the introduction of electronic voting, India used paper ballots and manual counting. The paper ballots method was widely criticized because of fraudulent voting, booth capturing where party loyalists captured booths and stuffed them with pre-filled fake ballots. The printed paper ballots were also more expensive, requiring substantial post-voting resources to count hundreds of millions of individual ballots.[2][1]Embedded EVM features such as "electronically limiting the rate of casting votes to five per minute",[1]a security "lock-close" feature, an electronic database of "voting signatures and thumb impressions" to confirm the identity of the voter, conducting elections in phases over several weeks while deploying extensive security personnel at each booth[1]have helped reduce electoral fraud and abuse, eliminate booth capturing and create more competitive and fairer elections.[5][2]Indian EVMs are stand-alone machines built with once write, read-only memory.[6]The EVMs are produced with secure manufacturing practices, and by design, are self-contained, battery-powered and lack any networking capability. They do not have any wireless or wired internet components and interface.[7]The M3 version of the EVMs includes the VVPAT system.[6]In recent elections, various opposition parties have alleged faulty EVMs after they failed to defeat the incumbent.[8][9]After rulings of Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court of India in 2011 directed the Election Commission to include a paper trail as well to help confirm the reliable operation of EVMs.[9][10]The Election Commission developed EVMs with voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) system between 2012 and 2013. The system was tried on a pilot basis in the 2014 Indian general election.[11][12]Voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) and EVMs are now used in every assembly and general election in India.[13][14]On 9 April 2019, Supreme Court of India ordered the Election Commission of India to use VVPAT paper trail system in every assembly constituency and verify these before signNowing the final results. The Election Commission of India has acted under this order and deployed VVPAT verification for 20,625 EVMs in the 2019 Indian general election.[15][16][17]The Election Commission of India states that their machines, system checks, safeguard procedures and election protocols are "fully tamper proof". A team led by Vemuri Hari Prasad of NetIndia Private Limited has shown that if criminals get physical possession of the EVMs before the voting, they can change the hardware inside and thus manipulate the results.[18]The Prasad team recommended a VVPAT paper trail system for verification.[18]The Election Commission states that along with VVPAT method, immediately prior to the election day, a sample number of votes for each political party nominee is entered into each machine, in the presence of polling agents. At the end of this sample trial run, the votes counted and matched with the entered sample votes, to ensure that the machine's hardware has not been tampered with, it is operating reliably and that there were no hidden votes pre-recorded in each machine.[19]Machines that yield a faulty result have been replaced to ensure a reliable electoral process.[20][21]Contents1 History 1.1 EVM and Indian judiciary 1.2 Electronic voting2 Design and technology3 Procedure to use4 Benefits5 Limitations6 Security issues 6.1 2019 allegations7 Voter-verifiable paper audit trail8 Exports9 See also10 Further reading11 References12 External linksHistoryIndia used paper ballots till the 1990s. The sheer scale of the Indian elections with more than half a billion people eligible to vote, combined with election-related criminal activity, led Indian election authority and high courts to transition to electronic voting.[2][22]According to Arvind Verma – a professor of Criminal Justice with a focus on South Asia, Indian elections have been marked by criminal fraud and ballot tampering since the 1950s. The first major election with large scale organized booth capturing were observed in 1957.[22]The journalist Prem Shankar Jha, states Milan Vaishnav, documented the booth capturing activity by Congress party leaders, and the opposition parties soon resorted to the same fraudulent activity in the 1960s.[23]A booth-capture was the phenomenon where party loyalists, criminal gangs and upper-caste musclemen entered the booth with force in villages and remote areas, and stuffed the ballot boxes with pre-filled fake paper ballots.[24][25]This problem grew between the 1950s and 1980s and became a serious and large scale problem in states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar,[2][22]later spreading to Andhra Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and West Bengal accompanied with election day violence.[26]Another logistical problem was the printing of paper ballots, transporting and safely storing them, and physically counting hundreds of millions of votes.[1][22]The Election Commission of India, led by T.N. Seshan, sought a solution by developing Electronic voting machines in the 1990s.[22][27]These devices were designed to prevent fraud by limiting how fast new votes can be entered into the electronic machine.[22]By limiting the rate of vote entered every minute to five, the Commission aimed to increase the time required to cast fake ballots, therefore, allow the security forces to intervene in cooperation with the volunteers of the competing political parties and the media.[2][22][5]The Commission introduced other features such as EVM initialization procedures just before the elections.[7]Officials tested each machine prior to the start of voting to confirm its reliable operation in the front of independent polling agents. They added a security lock “close” button which saved the votes already cast in the device's permanent memory but disabled the device's ability to accept additional votes in the case of any attempt to open the unit or tamper.[2][19]The Commission decided to conduct the elections over several weeks in order to move and post a large number of security forces at each booth. On the day of voting, the ballots were also locked and then saved in a secure location under the watch of state security and local volunteer citizens. Additionally, the Election Commission also created a database of thumb impressions and electronic voting signatures, open to inspection by polling agent volunteers and outside observers.[2]The EVMs-based system at each booth matches the voter with a registered card with this electronic database in order to ensure that a voter cannot cast a ballot more than once.[2][5]According to Debnath and other scholars, these efforts of the Election Commission of India – developed in consultations with the Indian courts, experts and volunteer feedback from different political parties – have reduced electoral fraud in India and made the elections fairer and more competitive.[5]EVM and Indian judiciaryEVM and electronic voting have been the subject of numerous court cases in Indian courts including the Supreme Court of India. The first case was filed in the 1980s even before EVMs were used in any election. The AC Jose vs. Sivan Pillai case was a case seeking a stay order on the use of EVMs for Kerala election.[28]The case was reviewed by the Supreme Court. It ruled on March 5, 1984, that the extant laws of India – in particular, Sections 59–61 of the Representation of People Act 1951 – specified paper ballots and it therefore forbade the use of any other technology including electronic voting. The Court stated that the use of an alternate technology would require the Indian parliament to amend the law.[28]The parliament of India amended the Representation of People Act in December 1988. Section 61A of the amended law empowered the Election Commission to deploy voting machines instead of paper ballots. The amended law became effective from March 15, 1989.[28]The use of EVMs, their reliability and speculations about fraud through the use of EVMs have been the subject of many lawsuits before state high courts and the Supreme Court of India. These courts have either dismissed the cases as frivolous or ruled in the favor of the Election Commission and the EVMs.[29]Of these, in the 2002 ruling on the J. Jayalalithaa and Ors vs. Election Commission of India case, the Supreme Court of India stated that the use of EVMs in elections was constitutionally valid.[29][30]Electronic votingThe Indian electronic voting machine (EVM) were developed in 1989 by Election Commission of India in collaboration with Bharat Electronics Limited and Electronics Corporation of India Limited. The Industrial designers of the EVMs were faculty members at the Industrial Design Centre, IIT Bombay. The EVMs were first used in 1982 in the by-election to North Paravur Assembly Constituency in Kerala for a limited number of polling stations.[31]The EVMs were first time used on an experimental basis in selected constituencies of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi. The EVMs were used first time in the general election (entire state) to the assembly of Goa in 1999. In 2003, all by-elections and state elections were held using EVMs, encouraged by this election commission decided to use only EVMs for Lok Sabha elections in 2004.Design and technologyBallot Unit (left), control unit (right)An EVM consists of two units, a control unit, and the balloting unit.[32]The two units are joined by a five-meter cable. Balloting unit facilitates voting by a voter via labeled buttons while the control unit controls the ballot units, stores voting counts and displays the results on 7 segment LED displays. The controller used in EVMs has its operating program etched permanently in silicon at the time of manufacturing by the manufacturer. No one (including the manufacturer) can change the program once the controller is manufactured. The control unit is operated by one of the polling booth officers, while the balloting unit is operated by the voter in privacy. The officer confirms the voter's identification then electronically activates the ballot unit to accept a new vote. Once the voter enters the vote, the balloting unit displays the vote to the voter, records it in its memory. A "close" command issued from the control unit by the polling booth officer registers the vote, relocks the unit to prevent multiple votes. The process is repeated when the next voter with a new voter ID arrives before the polling booth officer.[32]EVMs are powered by an ordinary 6 volt alkaline battery[33]manufactured by Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore and Electronics Corporation of India Limited, Hyderabad. This design enables the use of EVMs throughout the country without interruptions because several parts of India do not have the power supply and/or erratic power supply. The two units cannot work without the other. After a poll closes on a particular election day, the units are separated and the control units moved and stored separately in locked and guarded premises.[32]Both units have numerous tamper-proof protocols. Their hardware, by design, can only be programmed once at the time of their manufacture and they cannot be reprogrammed.[34][7]They do not have any wireless communication components inside, nor any internet interface and related hardware.[34]The balloting unit has an internal real-time clock and a protocol by which it records every input-output event with a time stamp whenever they are connected to a battery pack.[34]The designers intentionally opted for battery power, to prevent the possibility that the power cables might be used to interfere with the reliable functioning of an EVM.[34]An EVM can record a maximum of 3840 (now 2000) votes and can cater to a maximum of 64 candidates. There is provision for 16 candidates in a single balloting unit and up to a maximum of 4 balloting units with 64 candidate names and the respective party symbols can be connected in parallel to the control unit.[32]If there are more than 64 candidates, the conventional ballot paper/box method of polling is deployed by the Election Commission.[32]After a 2013 upgrade, an Indian EVM can cater to a maximum of 384 candidates plus "None Of The Above" option (NOTA).[6]The current electronic voting machines in India are the M3 version with VVPAT capability, the older versions being M1 and M2. They are built and encoded with once-write software (read-only masked memory) at the state-owned and high-security premises of the Bharat Electronics Limited and the Electronics Corporation of India Limited.[6][35]The inventory of election EVMs is securely tracked by the Election Commission of India on a real-time basis with EVM Tracking Software (ETS). This system tracks their digital verification identity and physical presence. The M3 EVMs has embedded hardware and software that enables only a particular control unit to work with a particular voting unit issued by the Election Commission, as another layer of tamper-proofing. Additional means of tamper proofing the machines include several layers of seals. Indian EVMs are stand-alone non-networked machines.[36][37]Procedure to useThe control unit is with the presiding officer or a polling officer and the balloting Unit is placed inside the voting compartment. The balloting unit presents the voter with blue buttons (momentary switch) horizontally labeled with corresponding party symbol and candidate names. The Control Unit, on the other hand, provides the officer-in-charge with a "Ballot" marked button to proceed to the next voter, instead of issuing a ballot paper to them. This activates the ballot unit for a single vote from the next voter in the queue. The voter has to cast his vote by once pressing the blue button on the balloting unit against the candidate and symbol of his choice.As soon as the last voter has voted, the Polling Officer-in-charge of the Control Unit will press the 'Close' Button. Thereafter, the EVM will not accept any votes. Further, after the close of the poll, the Balloting Unit is disconnected from the Control Unit and kept separately. Votes can be recorded only through the Balloting Unit. Again the Presiding officer, at the close of the poll, will hand over to each polling agent present an account of votes recorded. At the time of counting of votes, the total will be tallied with this account and if there is any discrepancy, this will be pointed out by the Counting Agents. During the counting of votes, the results are displayed by pressing the 'Result' button. There are two safeguards to prevent the 'Result' button from being pressed before the counting of votes officially begins. (a) This button cannot be pressed till the 'Close' button is pressed by the Polling Officer-in-charge at the end of the voting process in the polling booth. (b) This button is hidden and sealed; this can be broken only at the counting center in the presence of designated office.BenefitsThe cost per EVM was ₹5,500 (equivalent to ₹44,000 or US$640 in 2018) at the time the machines were purchased in 1989–90. The cost was estimated to be ₹10,500 (equivalent to ₹13,000 or US$180 in 2018) per unit as per an additional order issued in 2014.[38]Even though the initial investment was heavy, it has since been expected to save costs of production and printing of crores of ballot papers, their transportation and storage, substantial reduction in the counting staff and the remuneration paid to them. For each national election, it is estimated that about 10,000 tonnes of the ballot paper are saved. EVMs are easier to transport compared to ballot boxes as they are lighter, more portable, and come with polypropylene carrying cases. Vote counting is also faster. In places where illiteracy is a factor, illiterate people find EVMs easier than ballot paper system. Bogus voting is greatly reduced as the vote is recorded only once. The unit can store the result in its memory before it is erased manually. The battery is required only to activate the EVMs at the time of polling and counting and as soon as the polling is over, the battery can be switched off. The shelf life of Indian EVMs is estimated at 15 years.[39]LimitationsMain article: TotaliserA candidate can know how many people from a polling station voted for him. This is a signNow issue particularly if lop-sided votes for/against a candidate are cast in individual polling stations and the winning candidate might show favoritism or hold a grudge on specific areas. The Election Commission of India has stated that the manufacturers of the EVMs have developed a Totaliser unit which can connect several balloting units and would display only the overall results from an Assembly or a Lok Sabha constituency instead of votes from individual polling stations.[40][41]Security issuesAn international conference on the Indian EVMs and its tamperability of the said machines was held under the chairmanship of Subramanian Swamy, President of the Janata Party and former Union Cabinet Minister for Law, Commerce and Justice at Chennai on 13 February 2010. The conclusion was that the Election Commission of India was shirking its responsibility on the transparency in the working of the EVMs.[42]In April 2010, an independent security analysis was released by a research team led by Hari K. Prasad, Rop Gonggrijp, and Alex Halderman.[18]In order to mitigate these threats, the researchers suggest moving to a voting system that provides greater transparency, such as paper ballots, precinct count optical scan, or a voter verified paper audit trail, since, in any of these systems, skeptical voters could, in principle, observe the physical counting process to gain confidence that the outcome is fair.[43]But Election Commission of India points out that for such tampering of the EVMs, one needs physical access to EVMs, and pretty high tech skills are required. Given that EVMs are stored under strict security which can be monitored by candidates or their agents all the time, its impossible to gain physical access to the machines. Plus, to impact the results of an election, hundreds to thousands of machines will be needed to tamper with, which is almost impossible given the hi-tech and time-consuming nature of the tampering process.[44][45]Manufacturers of Electronic Voting Machines, namely Electronics Corporation of India Limited, Hyderabad and Bharat Electronics Limited, Bengaluru have said that EVMs are unhackable and tamper-proof as programming for EVMs is done at a secure manufacturing facility in ECIL and BEL (where operations are logged electronically) and not with chip manufacturers.[34]Control and ballot units in EVMs and VVPATs have an anti-tamper mechanism by which they become non-operational if it is illegally opened. EVMs are standalone machines, have no radio frequency transmission device features , operate on battery packs and cannot be reprogrammed. The control Unit of EVMs has a real-time clock that logs every event on its right from the time it was switched on. The anti-tamper mechanism in the machine can detect even 100-millisecond variations.On 25 July 2011, responding to a PIL (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 312 of 2011), Supreme Court of India asked EC to consider request to modify EVMs and respond within three months. The petitioner Rajendra Satyanarayan Gilda had alleged that EC has failed to take any decision despite his repeated representation. The petitioner suggested that the EVMs should be modified to give a slip printed with the symbol of the party in whose favour the voter cast his ballot.[9][46][47][48]On 17 January 2012, Delhi High Court in its ruling on Dr. Subramanian Swamy's Writ Petition (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11879 of 2009) challenging the use of EVMs in the present form said that EVMs are not "tamper-proof". Further, it said that it is "difficult" to issue any directions to the EC in this regard. However, the court added that the EC should itself hold wider consultations with the executive, political parties and other stake holders on the matter.[49][50]Swamy appealed against Delhi High Court's refusal to order a VVPAT system in Supreme Court. On 27 September 2012, Election Commission's advocate Ashok Desai submitted to a Supreme Court bench of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi that field trial for VVPAT system is in progress and that a status report will be submitted by early January 2013. Desai said that on pressing of each vote, a paper receipt will be printed, which will be visible to the voters inside a glass but cannot be taken out of the machine. Dr. Swamy said that the new system was acceptable to him.The Supreme Court posted the matter for further hearing to 22 January 2013[51][52]and on 8 October 2013, it delivered a verdict, that the Election Commission of India will use VVPAT.[53]Another similar writ petition filed by the Asom Gana Parishad is still pending before the Gauhati High Court.[54]2019 allegationsSyed Shuja, described as a "self-claimed expert" on EVMs by The India Today,[55]has alleged that Indian EVMs can be hacked, and have been hacked by Indian political parties such as the AAP, BJP, Congress, SP and others.[56]Shuja appeared from a remote location using Skype in January 2019 for a press conference organized by the Indian Journalists’ Association[57]and the London-based Foreign Press Association.[58]He alleged that the EVM units can be wirelessly tampered with, and have been tampered with the help of Reliance Communications. He also made allegations of many murders and other criminal activity associated with EVMs tampering, allegations he could not substantiate nor did he present any evidence for his allegations before journalists gathered in London for the Shuja press interview.[59]The possibility of EVM tampering as described by Shuja have been rejected by the Election Commission of India.[55]The Commission stated that the Indian EVMs do not contain any wireless chips and related communication components.[59]The Election Commission reiterated that their official EVMs are manufactured in India under very strict supervisory and security conditions and there are "rigorous Standard Operating Procedures meticulously observed at all stages under the supervision of a Committee of eminent technical experts constituted way back in 2010".[55]The commission has charged Shuja under Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code (titled "Punishment for Statements Conducing to Public Mischief") by lodging a First Information Report against him with the Delhi Police.[60]The Bharatiya Janata Party attributed this claim to the opposing Indian National Congress as an attempt by them to manipulate the electorate with fake news before forthcoming elections.[61]In January 2019, the London-based press conference organizer stated, "The Foreign Press Association strongly disassociates itself with any claims made by the speaker Syed Shuja during the #IJA event [about Indian EVMs and related matters] in London yesterday. Not one of the masked speaker’s accusations has so far been corroborated."[58]The India Today called Shuja's allegations as "sensationalism without substance."[58]Voter-verifiable paper audit trailFurther information: Voter-verified paper audit trailOn 8 October 2010 Election Commission appointed an expert technical committee headed by Prof. P. V. Indiresan (former Director of IIT-M) when at an all-party meeting majority of political parties backed the proposal to have a VVPAT in EVMs to counter the charges of tampering. The committee was tasked to examine the possibility of introduction of a paper trail so that voters can get a printout that will show symbol of the party to which the vote was cast.[10]After studying the issue, the committee recommended introduction of VVPAT system.[62]On 21 June 2011, Election Commission accepted Indiresan committee's recommendations and decided to conduct field trials of the system.[63]On 26 July 2011, field trials of the VVPAT system were conducted at Ladakh in Jammu and Kashmir, Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala, Cherrapunjee in Meghalaya, East Delhi in Delhi and Jaisalmer in Rajasthan.[64][65]The Election Commission on 19 January 2012 agreed to add a "paper trail" of the vote cast. The upgrade of EVMs that followed modified the EVM software and a printer was attached to the machine. With the VVPAT system, when a vote is cast, it is recorded in its memory and simultaneously a serial number and vote data is printed out. This states Anil Kumar, the managing director of the state-owned EVM manufacturer Bharat Electronic Limited, ensures more confidence in the voting results.[66]The printouts, Kumar said, "are used later to cross-check the voting data stored in the EVMs".[11][67]Voter-verifiable paper audit trail was first used in an election in India in September 2013 in Noksen in Nagaland.[68]The voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) system was introduced in 8 of 543 parliamentary constituencies in 2014.[69][70][71]VVPAT was implemented in the 2014 elections at Lucknow, Gandhinagar, Bangalore South,[72]Chennai Central, Jadavpur, Raipur, Patna Sahib[73][74]and Mizoram constituencies.[75][76][77]On 8 October 2013, Supreme Court of India delivered its verdict on Subramanian Swamy's PIL, that Election Commission of India will use VVPAT along with EVMs in a phased manner.[53][78][79]In June 2018, Election Commission of India decided that all VVPATs will have a built-in-hood to protect the printer and other devices from excess light and heat.[80]ExportsNepal, Bhutan, Namibia and Kenya have purchased India-manufactured EVMs. Fiji was expected to use Indian EVMs in its elections in 2014. In 2013, the Election Commission of Namibia acquired 1700 control units and 3500 ballot units from India's Bharat Electronics Limited; these units will be used in the regional and presidential elections in 2014.[81]Several other Asian and African countries are reportedly interested in using them as well.[82]See alsoRisk-limiting auditVoting machineElectoral fraudNone of the aboveFurther reading"WP (C) No. 11879 of 2009" (PDF). High Courts of India. 17 January 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 31 January 2012. Retrieved 6 July 2012. Delhi High Court judgement saying EVMs are not foolproof.ReferencesVerma, Arvind (2005). "Policing Elections in India". India Review. 4 (3–4): 354–376. doi:10.1080/14736480500302217.Madhavan Somanathan (2019). "India's electoral democracy: How EVMs curb electoral fraud". Brookings Institution, Washington DC.Kumar, D. Ashok; Begum, T. Ummal Sariba (2012). Electronic voting machine — A review. IEEE. doi:10.1109/icprime.2012.6208285. ISBN 978-1-4673-1039-0.Wilkinson, Steven (2005). "Elections in India: Behind the Congress Comeback". Journal of Democracy. Project Muse. 16 (1): 153–167. doi:10.1353/jod.2005.0018.Debnath, Sisir; Kapoor, Mudit; Ravi, Shamika (2017). "The Impact of Electronic Voting Machines on Electoral Frauds, Democracy, and Development". SSRN Journal. Elsevier BV: 1–59. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3041197.Lok Sabha elections 2019: Check FAQs related to EVMS, India Today (March 15, 2019)A look inside the electronic voting machine, The Hindu (March 10, 2019)"CPI(M), JD(S) back Advani on EVM manipulation issue". The Hindu. Chennai, India. 6 July 2009. Retrieved 23 June 2012."SC asks EC to consider request to modify EVMs". The Times of India. 26 July 2011. Retrieved 15 February 2012.Ranjan, Rakesh (15 December 2011). "Delhi HC to decide on EVMs". The Pioneer. Retrieved 10 January 2012."New EVMs to have paper trail". The Times of India. 20 January 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2012."EVM-paper trail introduced in 8 of 543 constituencies". Daily News and Analysis. 27 April 2014. Retrieved 10 January 2019."EC announces Lok Sabha election dates: VVPATs, to be used in all polling stations, help bring more accuracy in voting"."What are EVMs, VVPAT and how safe they are". The Times of India. 6 December 2018. Retrieved 10 January 2019."Count VVPAT slips of 5 booths in each assembly seat: SC"."SC Directs ECI To Increase VVPAT Verification From One EVM To Five EVMs Per Constituency"."When the SC Says No for Software Audit Review of EVMs & VVPAT at Present".Wolchok, Scott; Wustrow, Eric; Halderman, J. Alex; Prasad, Hari K.; Kankipati, Arun; Sakhamuri, Sai Krishna; Yagati, Vasavya; Gonggrijp, Rop (October 2010). Security Analysis of India's Electronic Voting Machines (PDF). 17th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security.Electronic Voting Machine, The Election Commission of IndiaCEO issues clarification, says faulty EVM polled votes for Congress, not BJP, United News of India (April 26, 2019)Goa's faulty EVM polled votes for Congress, not BJP: CEO, Business Standard (April 26, 2019)Arvind Verma (2009). "Situational Prevention and Elections in India". International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. 4 (2): 86–89.Milan Vaishnav (2017). When Crime Pays: Money and Muscle in Indian Politics. Yale University Press. pp. 87–88. ISBN 978-0-300-21620-2.Arvind Verma (2009). "Situational Prevention and Elections in India". International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences. 4 (2): 86–87., Quote: "Organized 'booth capturing' began in 1957 when a group of upper-caste muscle-men chased away the electorate and forcibly cast the votes for their candidate (Sen, 2004). Such booth capturing (the forcible casting of votes in favor of a particular candidate) and the use of force to prevent genuine voters from exercising their rights slowly became a serious problem in most parts of India and especially in States like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh."Milan Vaishnav (2017). When Crime Pays: Money and Muscle in Indian Politics. Yale University Press. pp. 87, 111. ISBN 978-0-300-21620-2.N. S. Saksena (1993). India, Towards Anarchy, 1967-1992. Abhinav Publications. pp. 38–39. ISBN 978-81-7017-296-3.Milan Vaishnav (2017). When Crime Pays: Money and Muscle in Indian Politics. Yale University Press. pp. 110–111. ISBN 978-0-300-21620-2.Alok Shukla. EVM Electronic Voting Machines. Leadstart. pp. 70–73. ISBN 978-93-5201-122-3.Alok Shukla. EVM Electronic Voting Machines. Leadstart. pp. 72–74. ISBN 978-93-5201-122-3.Nandan Nilekani (2012). Imagining India: Ideas for the New Century. Penguin. pp. 115–117. ISBN 978-0-14-341799-6."Electronic Voting Machine, Chapter 39, Reference handbook, Election commission of India". Press Information Bureau. Archived from the original on 7 March 2009. Retrieved 1 September 2010. Used in Hazaribagh District.Vishesh Shrivastava; Girish Tere (2016). "An Analysis of Electronic Voting Machine for its Effectiveness". International Journal of Computing Experiments. 1 (1): 8–12."ECI Voting Equipments". Election Commission of India. Retrieved 10 January 2019."EVMs foolproof, can't be tampered with, says former ECIL chairman"."All Questions About EVMs Are Answered Here"."Election Commission plans to replace all pre-2006 EVMs with advanced M3 machines"."Zero Complaints Came Up After Lok Sabha Polls, Claims Expert Behind EVMs"."Electronics Corp, Bharat Electronics get EVM contracts". The Indian Express. 7 March 2014. Retrieved 10 January 2019."Shelf-life of 50% EVMs ending, have to buy 14 lakh for 2019: EC". The Indian Express. 25 October 2015. Retrieved 10 January 2019."New counting method for Assembly polls". India Today. 4 December 2008. Retrieved 10 January 2019."Know Your Electronic Voting Machine" (PDF). Press Information Bureau. Retrieved 1 September 2010."Swamy for expert panel on secure EVMs". The Hindu. Chennai, India. Archived from the original on 3 February 2013. Retrieved 22 June 2012.Ramani, Srinivasan (18 December 2017). "It takes a heck of a lot to hack an EVM". The Hindu. Retrieved 10 January 2019."EVMs cannot be tampered: K J Rao". Indian Express. 7 August 2009. Retrieved 17 September 2012.Lakshman, Narayan (10 August 2010). "Hot debate over Electronic Voting Machines". The Hindu. Chennai, India."SC order on EVM". Supreme Court of India. 25 July 2011. Retrieved 15 February 2012."SC seeks EC reply on EVM modification". The Assam Tribune. 25 July 2011. Retrieved 15 February 2012."Do EVMs need modification? SC asks EC to decide in 3 weeks". Indian Express. 25 July 2011. Retrieved 15 February 2012."EVMs not tamper-proof, but no paper trail: Delhi HC". The Times of India. 17 January 2012. Retrieved 19 January 2012."EVMs not tamper-proof: Delhi HC". The Pioneer. 18 January 2012. Retrieved 19 January 2012."Field trial of new EVMs with paper trail under way: ECI informs SC". Law et al. News. 27 September 2012. Archived from the original on 9 February 2016. Retrieved 27 September 2012."Supreme Court hearing in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13735/2012". Supreme Court of India. New Delhi. Retrieved 27 September 2012."Supreme Court asks Election Commission to introduce paper trail in EVMs". India Today. 8 October 2013. Retrieved 10 January 2019."EC buys time on paper trail". The Telegraph. Calcutta, India. 5 December 2011. Retrieved 20 January 2012."Motivated slugfest: Election Commission slams man claiming EVMs can be hacked". India Today. 21 January 2019. Retrieved 22 January 2019."Rigged EVM".Under attack from BJP, Kapil Sibal tries to save face after EVM hacking drama, India Today (January 22, 2019)Foreign Press Association distances itself from Syed Shuja's wild claims about 2014 rigging, India Today (January 22, 2019)Mystery man Shuja makes wild claims as London event to show EVM hacking flops, India Today (January 21, 2019)"EVM hacking claim: EC asks Delhi Police to lodge FIR". Press Trust of India. 22 January 2019. Retrieved 22 January 2019."EVM hacking claim a Congress-sponsored conspiracy to defame Indian democracy: BJP". Press Trust of India. 22 January 2019. Retrieved 22 January 2019."EVM with paper trail to be tested in 200 places". The Times of India. 1 June 2011. Retrieved 28 July 2012."Election Commission to introduce EVM and VVPAT system for more transparent electronic voting". The Economic Times. 21 June 2011. Retrieved 28 July 2012."New voting machines found perfect: Election Commission". Kolkata News. 28 July 2011. Retrieved 28 July 2012."New Voting Machines Found Perfect: EC". Daijiworld.com. 28 July 2011. Retrieved 28 July 2012.New EVMs to have paper trail, The Times of India (January 19, 2012)"New EVMs to have paper trail: BEL". Firstpost. 19 January 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2012."Nagaland first to use VVPAT device for voting". Business Standard. 4 September 2013. Retrieved 10 January 2019."LS polls: Voters to get 'automated-receipts' at Gandhinagar". Business Standard. Press Trust of India. 29 April 2014. Retrieved 10 January 2019."VVPAT machine to be on demonstration for 10 days". The Hindu. 4 April 2014. Retrieved 10 January 2019."VVPAT to be introduced in Jadavpur constituency". India TV News. 2 April 2014. Retrieved 10 January 2019."VVPAT to Debut in B'lore South". The New Indian Express. 4 April 2014. Retrieved 10 January 2019."Patna Sahib electorate can see who they voted for". The Times of India. Retrieved 10 January 2019."400 EVMs on standby for Patna Sahib, Pataliputra". The Times of India. Retrieved 10 January 2019."Election Commission of India". Election Commission of India. Retrieved 10 January 2019."VVPAT, a revolutionary step in voting transparency". Daily News and Analysis. 27 April 2014. Retrieved 27 April 2014."EVM slip will help verify your vote". The Times of India. Retrieved 10 January 2019."Civil Appeal No.9093 of 2013". Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original on 2 May 2014. Retrieved 10 January 2019."Elections 2014: SC directive to EC for paper trail in EVMs". The Hindu. 8 October 2013. Retrieved 10 January 2019.Vishnoi, Anubhuti (11 June 2018). "All VVPATs in 2019 to come with hood to keep light at bay". The Economic Times. Retrieved 10 January 2019."ECN unveils 'tamper-free' voting machines". Namibian Sun. 5 July 2013. Archived from the original on 9 July 2013.Tiwari, Rajnish; Herstatt, Cornelius (January 2012). "India – A Lead Market for Frugal Innovations? Extending the Lead Market Theory to Emerging Economies" (PDF). Hamburg University of Technology. p. 18. Retrieved 11 March 2013."Supreme Court issues contempt notice to Election Commission of India". Critic Brain - India News, Politics, Opinions - on Thoughts on Talks. 1 July 2016. Archived from the original on 21 January 2018. Retrieved 31 December 2018.External links"Electronic Voting Machine". Election Commission of India.Security Analysis of India's Electronic Voting Machines, Scott Wolchok et al, A paper presented at the 17th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security ConferenceCategories:Science and technology in IndiaElections in IndiaElectronic voting by countryElection technologyNavigation menuNot logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView historySearchMain pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia storeInteractionHelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact pageToolsWhat links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata itemCite this pagePrint/exportCreate a bookDownload as PDFPrintable versionLanguagesभोजपुरीहिन्दीاردوEdit linksThis page was last edited on 5 August 2019, at 18:09 (UTC).Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersCookie statementMobile view
-
What likely happened to Kris Kremers and Lisanne Froon after getting lost in the Panamanian jungle?
My personal guess is that they were murdered. And that they had been dead since April 1st. The photos taken on April 8th was taken by the murderer to mislead the police. So was those cellphone signal checking and calling 112/911.April 1st morning: The two girls were enjoying their hike.Picture #505Picture #507Picture #508: Last “happy” “regular” picture the girls took.April 1st afternoon/evening: Girls went missing.April 1st-6th: Cellphone activities and signal checks, attempts to call the emergency but the cellphones has no signal.April 3rd: Search for the girls began.…(7 days after their disappearance.)…April 8th 1 am to 4 am: 90 photos taken in the dark by Lisanne’s Canon SX270. First was picture #510 (#509 missing/deleted).Some of the many night time pictures.April 11th: Last attempt of signal check on Kremers’ cellphone.My thought:1)Where did picture #509 went?That is the critical pictures between the last happy picture #508, and the first of the night time photos #510 seven days later.The investigators have noted that the girls didn’t delete any other pictures, except #509. So they do not know why they would delete #509, which in this situation would be very crucial to the investigation.Another interesting thing is that the #509 picture was totally deleted and cannot be restored. When a camera deletes a picture, usually it can be restored. It would take a PC computer to totally delete a picture. If so this would mean foul play.2) No goodbye messages.When people know that it is hopeless, and they will die, they would leave behind goodbye massages to love ones. This is done to let their love ones know that they love them, and to explain how they got themselves into the life threatening situation.They can write something down. And in this case, the girls could have made a goodbye video with their camera or cellphone. At the very least, they would have taken a goodbye picture of themselves on their camera or cellphone.The only reason the girls didn’t leave any goodbye message is that they weren’t able to. However given that “they” can take 90 photos on the 7th days after they disappeared, on April 8th, it shows that “they” easily could have left a goodbye message.And by “they”, perhaps I am no longer referring to the 2 girls, but their murderer.It takes only a few minutes to leave one goodbye video. “Mama, Papa, I love you!” Certainly by April 8th, it must come upon the girls that this might be it, and they should leave a goodbye message (if they were alive). They know they were in grave danger, and they were still strong enough to take 90 photos at night, so why didn’t they leave a goodbye message?3) Not a single picture of the girlsThe only picture we have is the back of the head of one of the girls at night. It was almost as if the girls don’t want their face to be seen at all. Why all the secrecy?That picture of one of the girls’ back of the head at night, unfortunately, does not prove that she was still alive. And if she was dead, why would the other girl take a picture of the back of her dead friend’s head?4) Who took those 90 night time photos on April 8th? Who was checking the cellphone signals and calling 112/911 between April 1st and 11th?Given the above, it seems unlikely that those pictures were taken by the 2 girls. Once again, why no goodbye messages then? Some people suspect it was an animal or monkey that took the pictures. But I say it was their murderer(s).The cellphone signal checking thing can easily be done by the murderer, to “pretend” that the girls were alive when they were already murdered. It is no rocket science. The murderer knew there was no signal in that location so the calls will never go through. That’s why the murderer was confident to call the police, because he knew he would not actually need to talk to the police. And the murdered did this for 6 days from April 1st to 6th, and then return one more time on April 11th.5) There were other murders in the area after these 2 girls.The area that they hiked in was not the safest place. There were other “unrelated” murders in the same area. Could be the cartel. Could be some tribes.Conclusion:The rainforest is a very dangerous place. These 2 girls could have died of natural cause easily. However in this case, being in a naturally dangerous location does not automatically mean it wasn’t a murder. There are evidence that indicates foul play. However even so, we might never catch the killer.
-
What are the cool gadgets of 2019 under 5000 rs?
Top 5 cool Gadgets to buy in 2019www.ultragadgets.net1.W606-16 Valcano gloves control interactive mini drone 480P camera2019 new original W606-16 Valcano gloves control interactive mini drone Quadcopter Wifi FPV 480P camera RC helicopterThis 2.4G Glove Control Drone has Gesture glove controller to fully control your drone using hand commands. Built-in altitude hold function makes it easy to operate even for a novice player!1: Product function: One button start/drop, photo/video, WIFI real-time image transmission, mobile phone camera/video, mobile phone control (gravity sensing) VR split screen display, track flight distance 30 meters or more2: Product highlights: look at the WiFi function map transmission screen, only the other hand can hold the phone and the other hand with gloves to control3: Attraction point: gesture remote control, Wifi FPV 480P Camera2. KERUI LED CCTV Wireless Fisheye Bulb Lamp IP Camera 360 Degree960P Wireless Panoramic Home Security WiFi CCTV Fisheye Bulb Lamp IP Camera 360 Degree Home Security BurglarSupport Up to 64GB Mirco TF Card StorageWidely used, simple to install Standard E27 mouth, supports 110 - 220 V, Say goodbye to complex installations Super easy install just like replace a bulb light3.Mini Portable Handheld Electric Sewing Machines Stitch Sew needleworkCordless Clothes Fabrics Sewing Machine Stitch Set 100% Brand new and high quality! Small, handy, lightweight, easy to carry around piece. This hand held sewing machine compact and portable; excellent for on-the-spot repairs and is lightweight and powerful. Repair drapes without taking them down; repair clothing without taking it off; repair bedding without stripping the bed and so much more. Portable and compact, excellent for on-the-spot repairs Requires four AA batteries or a power adaptor(not included) Great for silks, denim, wool, leather and crafts4. Portable Home Theater HD Mini Projector BYINTEK SKY K1/K1plusPortable Home Theater HD Mini Projector Contrast Ratio 1800:1 Projection Distance:1.3m-6.2m (Optional Wired Sync Display For Iphone Ipad Phone Tablet)Optical specifications● Display Tech: LCD● Light source: LED, 30000Hours long life● Brightness: 160 ANSI lumens● Contrast Ratio: 1800:1● Resolution: 800*480 (WVGA) Support to 1080P● Aspect Ratio: support 16:9● Projector Ratio: 1.4:1● Project Dimension: 43-200''● Project distance: 1.3- 6.2m5. Virtual Reality goggle 3D VR Glasses Original BOBOVR Z4/ bobo vr Z4VR Glasses with Gamepad Headphone VR Box 2.0 For 4.0-6.0 inch smartphone Viewing Experience:Immersive
-
Why did you fire your attorney?
Bonnie Shields said she’ll ask for a permanent protection order for me after the deniable domestic assault of 10/11/13. She then dilly dallied…..Here’s my part of my complaint against her to the Attorney Regulation Board. Shields actually denied the deniable domestic assault every happened….. Despite my husband, Harlan Leigh Stein, confessing in the police report….When I fired her, she said she’d file a Motion to be Dismissed (you can’t fire an attorney, only the judge, who gets kickbacks and bribes can) but instead she requested a guardian ad litem to be appointed to me….By the way, attorneys are entirely unregulated. The Board actually twisted one of my questions to help Shields appear good…Lisa FrankelColorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel1300 Broadway,Suite500Denver,CO80203RE: Reply to Bonnie Shields' Response, Case No. 14-1436Dear Mrs. Frankel,Bonnie Shields' libelous stories don't add up and stand in contradiction to documentation (which I've enclosed). She made them up when interviewed substitutes. Additionally, none of these stories and trigger words justify the Motion for GAL. Especially since Shields requested an urgent appointment in contradiction to Title 18. Lack of skill and due care are not a sufficient charge because she admits to having a BA in psychology. Shields is additionally guilty of consumer fraud by not disclosing a conflict of interest in handling her own dismissal from the court, in contradiction to the contract. For all of these reasons - liable, malpractice, misrepresentation, personal injury and fraud - I ask that the Attorney Regulation Board revoke her license.I've enclosed the telephone conference transcript of 3/10/14 (enclosed). GAL is appointed without a hearing. (excerpts) BA in psychology prevents Shields from alleging paranoid schizophrenia without looking at the mental evaluation from 2005. mental evaluation was from 2005 (transcript) but never asked me about the diagnosis. She was directly ordered to get the vocational review and refused. (trascript).I've successfully represented myself in court pro-se at the initial hearing, filed a response to the petition for dissolution of marriage pro-se, and represented myself in mediation and the telephone conference of 12/11/14 and scheduled Temporary Orders myself. (register of action minute order) Seven years in law school are not a requirement for citizens to keep their constitutional rights.Because of her BA in psychology, Shields would have been aware that by threatening me (to have to pay for falsely alleged damages to the house) she causes stresses that invalidate the mental evaluation as non-diagnostic. This would allow her to pursue the appointment of a GAL fraudulently. When she was substituted she got scared and engaged in liable.Shields cost me my safety, health, money, well being, fertility, support, and the pursuit of happiness. Please take the ultimate measures against Shields. I will pursue a civil law suit separately. It is worrisome that she even filed such a flimsy and wordy response full of irrelevant and made-up tales.The notoriety of attorneys makes me worry that the Attorney Regulation Board hasn't been as effective as DORA and I've consulted with our representatives.Shields should be found guilty of the following:Lack of skill and careMalpracticeConsumer fraudMisrepresentationLiableShields lies and engages in liable in each and every paragraph:Page 1I preferred court mediators because I didn't want referrals between attorneys and mediators. I hoped court mediators would be easier. I told the same to Shields.Is Shields being wordy and irrelevant in expectation of a mechanical acquittal? Because this lie doesn't justify the appointment of a GAL and stands in contradiction to any allegations of violence.Page 2Is Mrs. Shields trying to deny the assault? She never looked at the police report (see police report). The CD documenting fracture to my pelvis was on record with the DA since November (see register of action). And after showing lack of due care and skill, Shields still fails to justify appointment of a GAL. Citizens don't lose their right to represent themselves in court because they lie about injuries aren't deprived of their constitutional rights. Enclosed is an MRI report and a review by an occupational therapist.I tightly controlled our time together at $250 per hour. Only bare essential were discussed. Shields was not going to get pep-talks, she was going to get terminated. She did not disclose that attorneys handle their own dismissal, which is a conflict of interests and should have been disclosed. She did not disclose that she entered general representation nor explain the differences between types of representation.Shields never informed me of the mediation waver option and never showed me online forms. She lies.I never yelled or screamed at mediation or anywhere else. This is misrepresentation and liable, and yet doesn't justify the appointment of a GAL. I obviously raise my voice when I'm being taken advantage of by greedy and fraudulent attorneys. That doesn't justify a GAL.The mediator was, as Shields described him, a low class guy earning low wages. He asked me if I've ever been to mediation or if I'm being represented. When I answered "no" he misrepresented the law. When he discovered that I know the law, he looked at the books, as if to "discover" a mistake, but couldn't pull it through. He still wanted to feel important at mediation, and made any real negotiation nearly impossible by interrupting. I put up with him but he prevented successful negotiations.The story of erratic behavior doesn't add up. The billing reflects only one physical meeting and no telephone consultations. At the February 20th meeting I prepared Shields for civil protection hearing in one hour. The other 40 minutes she billed me could reflect the time I interviewed attorney Van Der Jagt for a substitution and Shields spent 40 minutes trying to avoid a civil law suit against her. All of the attorneys I interviewed could see right through her. Please revoke her license.The email record doesn't reflect any of her allegations, except the emails she composed herself in response to no questions by me. At $250 per hour I didn't respond but decided to continue without her representation. She violated the contract, prevented a successful substitution, created complications in the case, and deprived me of unbundled legal representation.Shields always had time on limited representation. When she got the $10,000, although she was supposed to file for a civil protection hearing in mid February but didn't meet me until the 20th, and although she still hadn't filed by March 3rd she nothing to prove that I yelled until she violated the contract and engaged in malpractice by filing the Motion for GAL. Not yelling at a vendor taking advantage of one isn't a prerequisite for enjoying constitutional rights. Shields makes no sense.There is no record of us meeting after the 20th. Her stories of violence aren't adding up. Shields would not have filed a Motion for GAL if a party was violent. She preys on innocent citizens only. She was only in fear of a malpractice law suit - which she simply made worse by not backing out right away. Any fear for her life, like she falsely alleges, would have prevented her from filing this fraudulent motion. She would have rightly filed a Notice of Withdrawal.Japha never alleged any personal dealings with me. He recycled the liable from Shields to falsely allude to "behaviors" "previously observed" by others - but never the people he was communicating with. Motions enclosed. Wolf can't attest to anything except that I sent him emails asking him to leave the case. He filed redundant motions and prevented a dismissal. I didn't flatter him. He charged me $60-$70 per email and called it harassment. Emails and billing enclosed. No one has ever seen erratic behaviors. It is all liable. And it originates in Shields' fear of a civil law suit.Bonnie Shields uselessly misuses trigger words. The Rabbi is a mover and shaker and fast on the synagogue till. She represents 1400 referrals ofBoulder's richest. In February Shields told me that she and the Petitioner/Offender and the Rabbi are of the same age. Maybe she was asking for permission to accept an invitation. She became evasive after entering general representation.At Temporary Orders Shields said that if the Rabbi showed up in court, Shields could remove her by making her a witness. She could then prevent testimony through time management.When a lower earning spouse interviews a divorce attorney they remain silent, intending to create a money-making scheme with the other party's attorney. I went to the self-help center, got referrals to statutes, read them and then interviewed Shields and others. I told them I'm aware of my legal entitlements. Most said they are the wrong attorney for me. Shields said she'd pursue my legal entitlements. She proceeded to prepare me for pro-se representation. She can't justify the Motion for GAL. All she has is frivolous stories that add up to nothing. She may not be interested in losing business or her license over fraud and malpractice, but the Attorney Regulation Board should only be concerned with the consumers.Interestingly, Shields knew I have an understanding of court proceedings than, and always. Her emails are falsely misconstrued and do not respond to any questions by me.On February 20th Shields said that she and my husband and the Rabbi are the same age. She may have been telling me that she accepted an invitation for February 28th. Her communication skills were sharp on limited representation but became muddled once she got the $10,000. Any invitation from the Rabbi would include remuneration such as food, music, etc. With the legalization and "moralization" of Marijuana, the Rabbi would have experienced a relief in her seizures. Men who she had been romantically involved with would have become interested in her for a more substantial relationship. Shields took a side - supporting the new couple for their incomes and their connections. A GAL would have misrepresented the domestic assault and signed an unfair mediation that would have left most of my in the marital estate in the hands of Shields and others. This may have been discussed at the February 28th meeting. For all I know, Judge Arkin may have authorized Shields to file the Motion for GAL at that time. Judge Moss has done all in her power not to be involved. Ms. Frankel is advised to follow he example. Please revoke Shield's license. I will request the same for Wolf when its time to respond to his flimsy excuses.Judge Arkin may have the same disposition as Shields, but it isn't her job to use abusive discrimination so I might have to handle this through appeals. Wolf may have joined in to side with Arkin. Shields will be sued for all expenses related to an appeal.After entering general representation without disclosure and before Temporary Orders, if I mentioned my adjustment disorder to Shields in connection to Permanent Orders she would tell me not to mention it or the judge will declare me crazy. I'm not crazy and I have already met the Judge. Judge Moss impressed me as an intelligent and enlightened person obligated by statutes created by thoughtful representatives. It made no sense to me that she would have the power or will to declare me crazy.At Temporary Orders I did mention my mental disability in preparation to Permanent Orders. Shields appeared scared as she made the leap and obliterated the civil protection order from the electronic record. Judge Moss took it upon herself to fortify the electronic record and protect the constitution.Shields can't accept these incentive and represent my interests. That is why she composed these fraudulent emails and intended to file for a GAL. She hoped to find something in the medical records to misuse, but couldn't. All she can do is tell stories about how she didn't think I walked right, or how she doesn't think my husband intended to take the Rabbi's eggs, etc. There is nothing she can say to justify the Motion for GAL. She engaged in liable as soon as she realized that she's being substituted.Wolf was also careful not to leave his post before he can guide the next person. I am trying to avoid general representation until I vacate the GAL either through district or appeals court.DORA should immediately begin a study of consumer fraud by attorneys. Regardless of how many attorneys participate in the same lie, it only indicates that they are responding to the same financial opportunities to abuse the law. This is how innocent people end up in prison.Meanwhile I will personally educate the public about the pitfalls of consumer fraud available to attorneys and get a momentum for revision of the court system.Page 3I told Shields that one of my disks is triangular instead of the rectangular. I said I didn't remember the technical term for that injury. She said my tailbone was broken and I repeated that to the court.I noticed that Shields didn't mention litigation fees for civil protection. Based on the DA, I believed that a civil protection order was certain and that the Offender will offer protection without the expenses of a hearing. The Magistrate may have understood better: (Temporary Orders page 71 lines 3-8) "THE COURT: ... You know, The Court took judicial notice of its own filing including case 13M1767 which is the domestic violence case, so I know that that case exists and I know there, there is a domestic violence alleged and that the Respondent in that, in this case is the protected party in, in that case. The court found her testimony credible..."Temporary Orders transcript, Page 70 line 21- Page 71 line 3 "THE COURT: ...file that motion for vocation evaluation... which I think you should, do it yesterday, or tomorrow, if you know what I mean." Shields nodded and agreed. I kept waiting for the order but Shields refused. It was a reason to terminate her services.In December Shields said she'd file for protection in mid February, right after Temporary Orders. She maliciously intended to enter general representation and then prevent dismissal through common consumer fraud and misuse of the judicial system."Conspiracy" is another trigger word. As a real estate broker I understand networking.Page 4"Under the influence" - another trigger word falsely used that doesn't prove the need for GAL. As the customer I decide on who to hire, how to negotiate and how to proceed. Shields wanted to waste time to increase expenses. She was upset because it would have gotten her fired.Shields knew that my permanent disability of 75% was fromIsraelin 2005, before I came to theUnited States. She didn't ask about the diagnosis or any records to perpetuate her fraud. Interesting, her BA in psychology. (Temporary Orders transcript)I read the statutes before I first interviewed Shields and others. I learned about them in the self help center. Other attorneys refused to give information or said they're unsuitable. Shield's strategy was to avoid the waver, prepare the spreadsheet for me to use in mediation pro-se, get a signature to appear at Temporary Orders and then gobble up as much of the retainer as possible while I try to terminate services. Divorce attorneys depend on each other to hide malpractice, maximize earnings without working, and prevent dismissal. DORA should assume regulation immediately and the judicial system needs revision.What does my marriage have to do with a GAL? I asked Petitioner/Offender whether he was planning to rig me with one of Rabbi Deborah Bronstein's eggs. Their affair was public. She has epilepsy and may not be able to carry a pregnancy. She might have had some frozen. I was fertile and only needed hormones and a turkey baster. Petitioner/Offender insisted on IVFs that had no chance of success as well as egg donations. He and his brothers are violent womanizers who maneuver multiple women. They torture their daughters into manic depression.One sister in law had broken teeth when I met her. Later she had broken ribs. I don't knowIllinoislaw, but wonder whether an appeal would have gotten her into safety and away from attorney fraud. I wonder whether attorneys have deprived her of safety and other legal entitlements through malpractice. She, of course, is in no position to talk for her safety.I planned to get a sperm donor as soon as I got the Petition for Dissolution. Petitioner/Offender said I should wait until after the divorce. He was going to offer a settlement so this was only going to take a couple of months. Because of the domestic assault, the back injury, and because of the GAL fraud scheme that prevented me from getting biopsy and treatment for suspected cancer, I'm prevented from using this last year of fertility to get pregnant. I take several weeks to recover from biopsy. This is a possible symptom of small lymphatic cancer. To keep the house, get details of the fraud scheme and to discover the process of appeals I had to stay active, drive around and make calls. I've enclosed a CT scan report and a doctor's letter.Page 5I'm the one who scheduled the hearing for 1/27/14. Shields prepared me for self representation. Attached is the minute order. I represented myself at the initial hearing and filed a response to the petition for dissolution of marriage pro-se. (See register of Action.) Shields used my meticulous accounting as a property manager and read my leases. I compose the addendums myself. She can't justify her motion and telephone conference.Bonnie Shields was not hired to "think" but to represent. This is how the constitution of theUnited Statesworks. As I said, Shields tried to talk about her "relationship" with the Rabbi on February 20th, although she didn't know about the Rabbi when she was still unbundled.Bonnie Shields did not disclose different types of representation. She did not disclose her ability to file ex-parte filings. She did not disclose that she will keep herself on my record against my will. She didn't disclose entering representation at all. These constitute consumer fraud. Please revoke her license.Page 6I called Shields' office at 8am to follow up on my letter to terminate services from 3/1/14 (enclosed). I was told to call at 10am. When I called Shields said she'd file a Notice of Withdrawal within 15 minutes. I left for court immediately. The register of action states that she filed her Motions at 3pm (enclosed). I didn't see her letter until I was back - and it is a lie. When exactly does she allege violence took place? She caused a strike against my restraining order and prevented successful substitution and continued litigation. Judge Moss tried to get the case back on track but Wolf was violating my right to be heard and was engaged in malpractice.Shields would not have preyed on a dangerous person.Invitations from the Rabbi would include attractions and remunerations (food, music, etc.) My husband is a sociopathic charmer. Shields looked like she was swept off her feet. She was out of her league.Japha has never stated that he personally had any bad interactions with me. He falsely alleged that others did based on Shield's liable. (enclosed)When I interviewed attorney Van Der Jagt, Shields spent 40 minutes falsely trashing me and he could see right through her. The same happened with all of the other attorneys I interviewed. She knew the GAL was a mistake and that she was being substituted. She didn't want her malpractice to be discovered. Wolf should have immediately entered substitution but instead pursued the GAL fraud scheme through negligent misrepresetnation.My experience with these attorneys has been that they will misuse and misconstrue whatever they can. But if they don't have materials to work with, they will flatly lie and invent things.The liable from Shields affected the secretary in division 4 and even an advocate at the crisis center. Other effects of the liable are to be estimated as I proceed.Mrs. Shields did not send the entire remainder of the retainer to Wolf and kept the difference. She made convenient accounting mistakes, counting a balance as a debt. She overcharged me $400 for a meeting that took only one hour. She stalled on the civil protection order so shouldn't charge me for any of it. Petitioner paid for the first snow plowing directly. But he stopped payments, while Shields charged to process receipts and correspondence. I dispute those charges. I got numerous copies of each correspondence. Is Shields trying to pretend she performed more work that she did? Is she trying to hide the email in which I ask her to desist from fraud? She charged me for those but never desisted. Charges will be disputed.Regarding the 3/10/14 telephone conversation, the transcript is enclosed. Shields lies, can't explain what better decisions she needs to help me make, as I was successful until her fraud scheme. She requests an urgent process without a hearing. Title 18 states that no GAL be appointed without medical records. Shields knows she can have a GAL appointed, prevent me from legal representation, prevent her dismissal, dismiss the mental evaluation because of the threats that create stressors, and have the GAL appoint her back and request unlimited budgets.I counted on Wolf to vacate the GAL. Magistrate Moss said I'd be heard but Wolf prevented it through malpractice. Wolf only referred to "previous considerations by the court." The only consideration was the unexamined allegations by Shields. Shields is fully responsible for the appointment of a GAL. (Enclose the status report)Page 7It wasn't "months later" that the court appointed the GAL. I was instantly deprived of the right for unbundled services, and all that Wolf needed to do was waste time until it was time for Shield's motion to be ruled on. He created a lack of representation, misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation, and in contradiction to the constitution prevented me from being heard. This was appealable, which is another time consuming complication I will take against Shields in civil litigation. Judge Moss saw me represent myself successfully in her court and wasn't sure what to do because of two consecutive cases of unconstitutional misrepresentation. The case kept shifting between divisions 7 and 4. Judge Arkin never met me, she was clueless, and was bound up by Moss's decision of 4/11/14 not to allow me self representation. Everything that is going on in court today is nothing but a technical complication that originated in Shield's initial decision to engage in malpractice. Meanwhile, I'm prevented from legal representation because there is a GAL, or an attorney, on my record. I will aspire to have DORA make general representation illegal as it is unconstitutional and not in line with capitalism.At this point the appeals court is waiting for a FINAL decision regarding the GAL. Not understanding court procedures is not an option anymore. Paranoid schizophrenia is not an option anymore. On 6/17/14 Judge Arkin put an end to the "lets trash Sigal" orgy by attorneys that Shield's fuels out of fear for civil law suit.I didn't retain Wolf to "assess the issue". Shields is being ridiculous. He promised to vacate the GAL and pursue a civil protection hearing. He was hired urgently to substitute Shields but once he had the signature and the Motion for GAL all he needed was some manipulative malpractice to get more money. This is consumer fraud at the least. Once he sends his answers I'll get the clarity with which I can justly request that his license be nicked for more.Shields should really read the Constitution sometimes. The way the United States Constitution works, each party gets to represent its own interests. Shields doesn't seem to have a grasp of this fact. That she would share it with others is worrisome. The judicial system needs to be revised. It is not there to serve the financial interests of Bonnie Shields but to serve the people.If an attorney can promise to pursue vacating the GAL and civil protection in order to be retained and then pursue the exact opposite, DORA needs to assume regulation. Wolf never disclosed this and his license should be revoked for consumer fraud. Meanwhile Shields should lose her license for liable and malpractice.An "Authorization to enter representation" standardized form signed by parties is required. It should state the attorney's understanding of the case before retainer and the intended litigation. Parties should get referrals to statutes at the self-help center and judges will be in a position to assess consumer fraud. If attorneys are not in a position to pursue the party's interest as per the constitution then they must withdraw.It is against theUnited Statesconstitution that attorneys represent whatever image of "justice" they can misconstrue through malpractice. For the Constitution to be upheld, each party must pursue its own interests in court. DORA must reorganize the attorney profession and judicial procedures need to be revised to reflect the same.I wrote consumer reviews. Shields counted on Wolf to fraudulently scare me into deleting them through misrepresentation. She gave me 5 days to erase them. I simply ignored her. Her email is enclosed to show the relationship between the two.Bonnie Shields told me herself that she was neighbors with Judge Arkin at our first meeting. Before retainer attorneys will be silent but avoid lies because the party can assess their statements. After entering general representation they are free to lie, prevent the party from legal advice and from communicating with the court, and keep themselves on record.Shields knew of a collection of rare bourbon bottles. I've had to remove it since then. The attorneys threatened to give the Offender keys to the marital home and have him enter when I'm gone. Petitioner/Offender regularly offers bottles to friends. I let Shields know that any bottles she gets will be permanently marked for identification. (letters from wolf)Weaver's police has always supported me based on evidence. They didn't believe any of the liable. One deputy suggested I could have neighbors testify that there isn't damage to the marital home to counter the false allegations by my attorneys. They got special training from advocates as to how I was prevented from a civil protection hearing by the judicial system.Page 84/11/14 the court denied Mr. Wolfs motion to withdraw because Bonnie Shields prevented me of my constitutional right for limited representation through malpractice. He allegations were never examined. The decision was made on 3/10/14. (lines) Minute order is enclosed. Wolf and Japha invited mistakes and the Judge Arkin completely lost track of what is happening.Substitution was not going to work as long as the Motion for GAL was on record. It allows attorneys to not work and control their own earnings while Shields take the bulk of risk of malpractice and censure of license. The financial incentive is too big.5/9/14 I believe that the public should be educated regarding the consumer traps of general representation. The judicial system should be revised to protect the constitution.I am an ambassador with Community Association Institute. In 2011 the meetings were crowded with homeowners helpless in the face of embezzlement and every bsignNow of statute and rule. Self-regulating HOA managers were only obligated to follow board direction and to "know" the governing documents. Boards were hiring HOA managers who exempted them from HOA fees and authorized embezzlement schemes. Homeowners who wanted financial disclosure suffered liable, intimidation and even racial slurs. Annual meeting and elections were regularly cancelled and boards nominated themselves. HOA managers didn't need to work or maintain properties, but only to cater to the boards exclusively.When I joined Community Association Institute DORA was already conducting a research. Now that DORA is assuming regulation homeowners are satisfied and Community Association Institute is offering valuable property management classes that were previously irrelevant to HOA mangers.I quit my job as an HOA manager and became a real estate broker because real estate brokers are DORA regulated and try to keep on their best behaviors.5/28/14 - Rose Zapor used common exploitation techniques that were never going to work ("You will soon find that I'm your only friend and no one else.") When she realized I had testimonies regarding no damage to the house, Roze Zapor misrepresented that I refuse to participate in hearings although I always called the secretary of division 7 asking to be included. She later stated that I've been previously removed from the court. That is also false. It could be liable from Shields. So between Shields and Zapor one should lose their license or both. Following my appeal I was included in a telephone conversation on 6/17/14. Now that I was heard, Zapor withdrew. I worry about her elderly victims.Rose Zapor ordered a flimsy 1.5 hour mental evaluation from an unsuitable doctor. Bonnie Shields and Robert Wolf created stressors that make any mental evaluation dismissable. An 8 hour hearing was scheduled around the useless evaluation although I'm deprived of legal representation. This is a scam.I asked the judge to take a 12 hour complete, current and valid evaluation. I asked her to stay the case for 6 months for an admissible evaluation.The Petitioner/Offender pleaded that I was not going to engage in mental evaluation "fully or meaningfully." ( attach motion ) This is word jugglery, as mental evaluation also examines the way a person participates. The Petitioner/Offender is extremely capable. Fighting him was going to be hard. Shields armed him with everything he needed, although the statutes are clear and the law is on my side. This will be the subject of a malpractice law suit.I sent Shield an itemized demand letter. I'm additionally requesting the entire $8,600 back. I will also file for personal injury, liable and malpractice. I'm waiting to estimate total damages regarding litigation, health, finances, well being, the bourbon collection, storage, etc.Page 8 - Response1. Shields didn't advise me of a mediation waver. She lies.2. Shields prepared me for self-representation at the telephone conference of 12/11/14. I scheduled Temporary Orders myself.3. Is Shields bragging about a few services rendered right at $250 per hour unbundled? Seven years of law school are not a prerequisite for citizens to enjoy their constitutional rights or to avoid the appointment of a GAL. She fails to show need for a GAL.4. Shields told she should have scheduled the vocational report "yesterday".5. At Temporary Orders David Japha demonstrated to the court that I'm financially capable, that I can hire vendors as a property manager and supervise them, that I can calculate profits in my head, that I can hire vendors and accomplish goals, that I'm not delusional (Petitioner was asked to testify), that I can concentrate on studies, that I'm a real estate broker with a limited authority to practice law. This renders all of Shield's arguments void and null. She can't justify either the Motion for GAL or the urgent procedure.6. Enforcement of Temporary Orders is being addressed, following Wolf's attempts to financially exhaust me.7. I only filed for a restraining order because Shields said she'd file a Notice of Withdrawal within 15 minutes. This is consumer fraud and malpractice. Zapor did the same by suggesting that I file for a restraining order in division 4. She was looking for excuses why she needed to retain an attorney in general representation after Wolf. But like I said, if attorneys are short of circumstances which they can twist and misrepresent, they simply invent them.8. What is the value of talking to a member of the ethics committee if Shields engages in misrepresentation and financial fraud? Whatever advice they gave is irrelevant or relies on the fact that attorneys aren't regulated, they want to make decisions without refering to police and medical records, and they pursue unjust enrichment, exhausting households, putting people through pain and suffering and avoiding consequences. Shields did not disclose Colorado Constitution Section 25 or Section 6. DORA should require that.9. I have the transcript from 3/10/14. The Geneva Convention is mentioned in page _ line -. My behavior was natural for any citizen who is taken advantage of by an attorney. Shields did not disclose that being "nice" to a manipulative and greedy attorney is a prerequisite for citizens to keep their legal entitlements. Court rules should be revised, but Shields should have a responsibility not to abuse them. Attorneys should be regulated, but Shields should have the responsibility not to exploit parties.Under what authority does Shields signNow that culture did not influence her decision? Again, She can't justify a GAL or an urgent appointment.10. Shields falsely kept nearly $2,900 in extra fees. All disputed.Page 9 - Responses to Questions1. I was not advised of the mediation waver.2. At court Shields confirmed that she'll order the vocational review and that she should have already done so.3. Question 3 was misrepresented. Shields rejected the stipulation ("mutual protection"). correctly while unbundled. Wolf presented it again falsely claiming he composed it. He can't possibly misconstrue this as representing my interest, at least not without relying on liable from Shields. But then he should admit consumer fraud in the promises he made in order to get retained.4. Shields acted out of greed, malice and corruption.5. Shields lied to the magistrate and engaged in liable. She told the magistrate that I think the magistrate takes bribes, which at the time I had no reason to believe. This is harmful liable. She said I yelled about civil protection order which is another lie. Her safety concerns are all fraud.6. I did not formally retain Mrs. Shields. She asked to be paid for her time in court in advance and gave me a contract stating the services my money gives me. This is consumer fraud.In conclusion - Bonnie Shields could not have engaged in anything but fraud, misrepresentation and malpractice when she filed her motion. None of her lies justify the Motion for GAL or the urgent appointment.To the extent that the attorneys can justify their behaviors, DORA should assume regulation.Reply to The ExhibitsNone of my emails attached justify a Motion for GAL, especially deprived of a hearing.Exhibit : The emails were fraudulently composed, and not in response to any questions. At $250 per hour I didn't respond but attempted termination of servicesExhibit: I didn't receive the letter until coming back from court. On the phone she misrepresented that she will file a Notice within 15, after 10am.The court appointed the GAL solely based on Shields' unexamined allegations. Wolf only referred to "previous decisions by the court," namely, the 3/10/14 decision to have him represent me . Arkin is clueless and I've been deprived of legal representation. The appeal was denied because a final decision wasn't made yet. A civil attorney told me there is no recourse but to wait for a final decision and appeal it. Shields has created a real problem by exploiting a serious consumer trap that needs to be revised.I will eventually get DORA to regulate attorneys and the judicial system revised. It is historically unprecedented that attorneys don't exploit parties, but so was the end of slavery.Writing to the Attorney Regulation Board is like writing Santa. You imagine there is somebody in your corner and that there is somebody in charge. It is an illusion. But it takes so long to process these complaints that by the time it is rejected you are past your initial grief.
Trusted esignature solution— what our customers are saying
Get legally-binding signatures now!
Related searches to Erase Electronic signature Document Fast
Frequently asked questions
How do i add an electronic signature to a word document?
How to create an electronic signature in paint?
How to sign a pdf without certificate?
Get more for Erase Electronic signature Document Fast
- How To Electronic signature Louisiana Sports Word
- How Do I Electronic signature Louisiana Sports Word
- Help Me With Electronic signature Louisiana Sports Word
- How Can I Electronic signature Louisiana Sports Word
- Can I Electronic signature Louisiana Sports Word
- How To Electronic signature Louisiana Sports PDF
- How Do I Electronic signature Louisiana Sports PDF
- Help Me With Electronic signature Louisiana Sports PDF
Find out other Erase Electronic signature Document Fast
- Antenna and wave propagation antenna and wave propagation laboratory manual government engineering college rajkot antenna and form
- Imperialism scavenger hunt form
- Minor name change ashtabula county ohio form
- Form nrcs cpa 1202
- Courier request form 22486784
- Admit card format for steno typist hpslsa nic
- Miller big blue 401dx form
- Ignou duplicate marksheet form pdf 444880211
- Nursing acknowledgement form midway college midway
- An697 designing with a pcb antenna silicon labs form
- Bill nye fossils answer key pdf form
- Damu nyeusi pdf download 524873096 form
- Steelworkers pension trust form
- Recoupment bill for regular study centers form
- Regus house rules 415909066 form
- Form of charge over account created by surplus international
- Daily menu production record form
- Contract transfer agreement the raintree commons form
- 5197566505 form
- Cbp form 4647 pdf