₦airaland Forum

bigfrancis21:
She has several options. She can look into transferring into another program in the same school that doesn't require a GRE score or she could look for admission and transfer to another school/program that will accept her without a GRE score. Her low academic performance may have been what prompted the school to double-check her GRE score. I don't think it will affect her SEVIS records if she's able to transfer to another program within the same school or to another school in time. Even if she eventually falls out of status, she has 5 months to reinstate back into status (that is obtain admission and enroll in the new school).

lije:
Who forced him to contest

Spanishmilf:
Is it possible to deport a greencard owner

jazzman7711:
YOU ARE VERY STUPID.

UNDER WHAT LAW OF GOD OR MAN DO YOU AVENGE THE DEATH OF 1,000 PEOPLE BY KILLING 50,000 PEOPLE IN REVENGE AND PROMISING TO KILL MORE?

WHERE IN YOUR BIBLE IS THAT PERMITTED?

FAKE CHRISTIANS REVELLING IN THE MASS MURDER OF CHILDREN.

ALL THOSE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT CHILDREN BEING BOMBED TO SHREDS BY ISRAEL, DO YOU DRINK THEIR BLOOD IN YOUR DREAMS?

EVIL VAMPIRES.

YOU WILL ANSWER TO YOUR MAKER ONE DAY FOR YOUR WICKEDNESS.

Watianoengineer:
Bastard man killing innocent Muslims. I pray almighty Allah vindicate Palestine and give them strength to conquer Isreal. Isreal must be conquered for peace to return to the middle east

malali:
Twoods, you are right, i am wrong. Kill everybody in Gaza, Kill the women, kill the babies.

malali:
No one should be killed.
I condemn what hamas did.
I condemn what the isrealis are doing.
Infants shouldn't have to die.....this is 2024, we are not barbarians.
What has war ever solved ?

malali:
Hamas not Palestinians.......Palestinians are innocent.
I will never support anyone killing infants.

Elidrisy20:
no need for it, go make research on the issue,

malali:
Palestine came out of thing air ? I wont continue this discuss with you, because you cant debate without emotions, name calling and cursing is not necessary. I pray your life, house and job gets occupied one day.

Elidrisy20:
islam existed before the jews

Elidrisy20:
hamas that you are talking they are freedom fighter, [b]before the existence of America,Islam has been in existence [/b]and will continue to be, come to the issue of Europeans go check on the history Spain,Italy,France, Britain, German e.t.c then come and speak to me, not these rubbish you just spite, Fulani contribute to the growth of economy, unlike your ppl you are armrobbers,kidnappers,fruadsters, ritualist,.
I pray you survive this year, because your brothers might use you for money

malali:
Give them their land, Oct 7th was not random
If i make you a prisoner in your own house
you will snap eventually.

malali:
Be humane, you are a human being first before any other thing.
40,000 people dead including babies and women.
It doesnt have to be about anything.

malali:
Tunji-Ojo
Isreal is killing 40,000 Palestinian muslims in a genocidal fashion.
2 - 3 days prior to ramadan, you are doing a Photo Op with Isreali Ambassador.
Thats just being tone deaf to muslims.
I do not know who is advising you.
I thought you have "Omoluabi" sense.

I hope you last on this Job.
Show some diplomacy.
Countries are sending aid to Palestine.
I hope you dont fall on your own sword.

DeepSight:
Just look at the bold. Who would imagine that one has been talking about what can be done after he has confessed and done a plea deal. Clearly one has since been talking about all options which would have been available from the get go, pre confession, pre deal. This conversation could not be read any other way save by a re.tard.

You huff and puff but are beyond shallow. You have no sense of nuance, subtlety and fine detail whatsoever. You repeatedly misunderstand what is being said in a most embarrassing way: it is painful to watch.

One has tried to be most gentlemanly to you, but its useless. You are simply vacant.

If you don't know it, American law is rooted in the same English Common law as Nigerian law, and I have rendered legal advise in over 40 countries including places as far away as Russia, the UK and the UAE.

You are dense. I have nothing more to say to you. Good night.

DeepSight:
Just look at the bold. Who would imagine that one has been talking about what can be done after he has confessed and done a plea deal. Clearly one has since been talking about all options which would have been available from the get go, pre confession, pre deal. This conversation could not be read any other way save by a re.tard.

You huff and puff but are beyond shallow. You have no sense of nuance, subtlety and fine detail whatsoever. You repeatedly misunderstand what is being said in a most embarrassing way: it is painful to watch.

One has tried to be most gentlemanly to you, but its useless. You are simply vacant.

If you don't know it, American law is rooted in the same English Common law as Nigerian law, and I have rendered legal advise in over 40 countries including places as far away as Russia, the UK and the UAE.

You are dense. I have nothing more to say to you. Good night.

DeepSight:
Maybe you should have read my words more carefully. I didnt present it as some defense. My exact words were that it could be "played in interesting directions." This is the third time you have shown a lack of attention to words while sounding omniscient. I think you presume too much.

And what is the Fifth Amendment here if not protection against self-incrimination. How you can claim that that cannot be spun in interesting directions in a matter like this is beyond me.

Look, enjoy.
I still can't be fluffed by one who miscontrues an example as a statement of fact. You fail to grasp even the most elementary things.

DeepSight:
I honestly think you guys have over simplified this issue and there are layers of rationale that you are simply skipping. It bears repeating that she did not disclose the information to her husband. It bears repeating that he is not an insider - and in this regard it bears repeating that the question as to their marriage, relationship, proximity, et all, only arises if she disclosed to him or conspired with him. Once that is not the case, an argument can be made that this does not meet the test of insider trading. Because you would have to begin to show that even where one comes across information accidentally or randomly, one cannot invest based on that, as a non-insider. Several things bear repeating here which you are glossing over. This is why I have painstakingly tried to delineate and draw lines between the fact of the marriage and how the information was procured. This is why I have tried to give analogies to split the issues. But Mr. Twoods and others say I am speaking grammar.

Oh well. Perhaps I am. Or perhaps they simply dont think as lawyers are trained to think.

PS: I am not an American Lawyer. I am a Nigerian, Common Law Lawyer. So I readily admit I do not know all American laws. I will readily raise up my hands and say, thank you for schooling me if someone comes along and shows me an American law that says you cannot invest in any company which may be invested in or taken over by a company which a relative of yours is presently working in, if you came across that information accidentally. And in the absence of such a law, then its something that has to be reasoned out jurisprudentially. What is jurisprudence? It simply means the philosophy behind the law. And that is why I have been raising analogies.

But oh well.

DeepSight:
Well you are entitled to your opinion - but for one who could not distinguish between an obvious analogy and a statement of fact, I will not be too worried about your assessment of me.

magnum247:
You fail to get the point. It’s a crime because he got caught and why was he caught? Because he spoke when he didn’t have to. A lot of these so called big men do this. When they say information is power, what do you think the power actually used for??
Would it also have been a crime too if he was hit with a huge loss on those investments?

DeepSight:
Well its obvious you have chosen to side step the simple questions I posed to you, as well as the careful analogies I put up which were directed at eliciting a deep and thoughtful probe into the reasoning behind both the law and the facts as applied. Not surprising, since you could mistake an analogy for statement of fact in your other riposte.

Its ok, perhaps the conversation is not a useful one.
Thanks for your time.

DeepSight:
Yes, ineffectual counsel is where I am headed. Weak, not thorough and thoughtful enough. I also believe that the woman ought to have sought counsel before reporting anything (I may have missed it if she did).

DeepSight:
I did say myself it was an irrelevancy. There is a reason I mentioned it though and it has to do with some of the responsibilities of board members. But we can let this go, I had said ahead it was an irrelevancy, and specifically sought your permission or pardon to still say.



Jesus, how could it miss you that I did not say he randomly made that investment? I was drawing a hypothetical scenario (an imaginary scenario) as a tool in thought development. Could it be that you are unacquainted with this method of thought development?



And she did not divulge the information to her husband, so what on Earth are you on about, my good man?



I think this is debatable.

And in that regard I might offer another thought development analogy. Please dont goof again and presume I am saying it is what happened. Here goes - what if he came across that information legitimately in the normal course of his own business? Would he still then be barred from making that investment?

Again, there is a reason for this question, so be careful - it is targeted at the specific question as to how he came about the information and to dissect it as separate from the fact that he is married to that particular employee.



It doesn't. Courts and Regulators can be wrong. Law is an extremely philosophical discipline and sometimes it takes very painstaking philosophical analysis of the rationale of a law (jurisprudence) to convince a court that it has been wrong. And this is why you have the appellate system.

Achoghim:
The man shouldn’t have told the wife what he did, considering that he violated her privacy rights. Also, the woman shouldn’t have reported the husband. The both of them are wrong here

aribisala0:
Even a bad defence lawyer will have something to say
Are you not saying something?

aribisala0:
People who have no knowledge talk ignorantly
This man invested nearly 3 million dollars in a company whose share price has been stable for months a few weeks before a major event making a killing
As an investigator
I would be interested in
1. Where did he get The money. Hardly anyone keeps that kind of cash. So did he get a loan or liquidate other assets?
2. Previous investment behaviour and success
3. Any possible insider source of information

A very simple investigation

DeepSight:
Well if you have filled out Conflict of Interest Forms they were based on policies prepared by someone who occupied the sorts of positions I have occupied. As Head of Legal and Compliance in several multinationals.

Calm down and walk with me, there are reasons why I raise these questions.

Please note that I am speaking here as a competitive and adversarial lawyer. In other words, I am testing what arguments will stand if I was required to present a defensive case.

As to the person you said I insulted, well, he spoke very derogatorily to me as well.

DeepSight:
A person not married to her could also have such proximity.



I don't want to quibble about irrelevancies but permit me to say the article called her a manager not a director. There is a difference and it has implications.

However the question of being married is what you have raised. Let me frame this in a strange manner. Let's assume that while that marriage was in place, he nevertheless randomly made that investment without overhearing anything from his wife.

Has it occurred to you that a person not married to her could equally overhear and profit by making the exact same investment. Such as a friend, or heck a nanny.

DeepSight:
Again, I ask that you dwell carefully on this. Because what I am trying to do here is call into question the objection on the grounds of his marriage alone. Thus, I am questioning if the marriage taken alone would render his investment illegal.

The reason I am asking this is because I would seek to dispute the further ground that he got the information from her illegally, on the grounds that it was accidental. She did not divulge. Thus there was no conspiracy.

nairalanda1:
Has nothing to do with Jews.

Everything to do with the fact that if she did not report, the sec would have found out eventually. Records

Next thing she knows, she would have been fired from her job and would be in legal soup.

DeepSight:
He seems only able to think in black and white and obviously only sees things at surface value. He can't interrogate anything deeply or strategically and he can't query anything that is offered at face value. He is also likely one who will accept anything a person in a position of authority says without question. If he were a judge, he will only ever apply the literal rule of interpretation and forget that there also exist the golden rule and the mischief rule.

DeepSight:
He seems only able to think in black and white and obviously only sees things at surface value. He can't interrogate anything deeply or strategically and he can't query anything that is offered at face value. He is also likely one who will accept anything a person in a position of authority says without question. If he were a judge, he will only ever apply the literal rule of interpretation and forget that there also exist the golden rule and the mischief rule.