Return-Path: Delivered-To: diana@transocean.com Received: from vps.transocean.com by vps.transocean.com (Dovecot) with LMTP id KQaWDqTAkFg8dwAAInt2oQ for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:51:48 -0800 Return-path: Envelope-to: diana@transocean.com Delivery-date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:51:48 -0800 Received: from [66.23.198.123] (port=49667 helo=kieralashe.com) by vps.transocean.com with esmtp (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1cYbek-0008KB-Dp for diana@transocean.com; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:51:48 -0800 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:44:24 -0500 From: Melissa Tucker Mime-Version: 1 Subject: Your Best-Buy Give-Away status has changed. Claim up to 100.00 before 2/10/17 and you're automatically entered under *diana@transocean.com-Customer.22609823* again. Message-ID: <1Fce9549976fjELoUxBXlbgmaKAzv9Vr@mx01.kieralashe.com> Reply-To: melissa.tucker@kieralashe.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Xomgq22609823FG40PRhH28W6d" To: diana@transocean.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.7 X-Spam-Score: 47 X-Spam-Bar: ++++ X-Ham-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "vps.transocean.com", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see root\@localhost for details. Content preview: For many abroad, the ban raised questions about how an American president could undertake such an action suddenly and unilaterally, seemingly unfettered by checks and balances. The order???s apparent breaches with usual protocol over how policy is made, and potentially with the law, are already creating major problems in its enforcement http://www.kieralashe.com/bb-o/?0999735236824523457835324857326278456 [...] Content analysis details: (4.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.2 URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the ABUSE SURBL blocklist [URIs: kieralashe.com] 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: kieralashe.com] -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% [cf: 100] 1.9 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level above 50% [cf: 100] 0.9 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) 2.0 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS X-Spam-Flag: NO --Xomgq22609823FG40PRhH28W6d Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit For many abroad, the ban raised questions about how an American president could undertake such an action suddenly and unilaterally, seemingly unfettered by checks and balances. The order???s apparent breaches with usual protocol over how policy is made, and potentially with the law, are already creating major problems in its enforcement http://www.kieralashe.com/bb-o/?0999735236824523457835324857326278456 Best Buy Card Claim Thanks, please see your card-here http://www.kieralashe.com/co/blank-09849712 If you do not want to go on a African Safari you can end messages here now (http://memm.kieralashe.com) . 41 Center st / Naples / FL / 34108 Those practices are meant to vet a policy for its legality and ability to be enforced, as well as for unforeseen consequences. The process also lets agencies begin planning how they will execute the policy and allows those affected to prepare. The administration appears to have largely skipped that process, drafting this and other recent orders within a small circle of political advisers. Relevant agencies and the National Security Council were granted little or no review over the immigration order before it was signed. There is no law mandating such an internal review. But, by forgoing it, the administration circumvented an important internal check on executive power, while creating the impression that it is making critical national policy in slapdash fashion. The result has been to leave the vast federal bureaucracy badly prepared to interpret and enforce the sweeping proscriptions. The outcome was confusion at the borders, as Customs and Border Protection officials struggled to enforce the order. But internal vetting is about more than practicalities and legalities; it is also meant to protect the core values and interests of the United States. More voices are emerging to challenge the order on those grounds, a concern that will probably remain even if the administration amends the order to pass legal muster. Is the order legal? For judges to issue emergency stays, like those that have already emerged, they must determine that there is a high likelihood that the legal challenge will succeed ??? meaning that they think the ban is probably legally deficient, at least when applied to people who have already reached the United States and are holding valid papers. T. Alexander Aleinikoff, a former general counsel to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and a former deputy commissioner of the United Nations refugee agency, said that the ban could conflict with both federal and constitutional law. The refugee convention, a United Nations treaty that is incorporated into United States law, prohibits discrimination against refugees on the basis of religion. The immigration and nationality act also prohibits such discrimination in the issuance of visas. ???There is also the constitutional argument that this is religious discrimination,??? Professor Aleinikoff added. --Xomgq22609823FG40PRhH28W6d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
For many abroad, the ban raised questions about how an American president could undertake such an action suddenly and unilaterally, seemingly unfettered by checks and balances. The order???s apparent breaches with usual protocol over how policy is made, and potentially with the law, are already creating major problems in its enforcement

Best Buy-Card Claim #8445

Best Buy Card Claim

Thanks, please see your card-here →

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

If you do not want to go on a African Safari you can end messages here now.
41 Center st / Naples / FL / 34108

 

 
Those practices are meant to vet a policy for its legality and ability to be enforced, as well as for unforeseen consequences. The process also lets agencies begin planning how they will execute the policy and allows those affected to prepare.
The administration appears to have largely skipped that process, drafting this and other recent orders within a small circle of political advisers. Relevant agencies and the National Security Council were granted little or no review over the immigration order before it was signed.
There is no law mandating such an internal review. But, by forgoing it, the administration circumvented an important internal check on executive power, while creating the impression that it is making critical national policy in slapdash fashion.
The result has been to leave the vast federal bureaucracy badly prepared to interpret and enforce the sweeping proscriptions. The outcome was confusion at the borders, as Customs and Border Protection officials struggled to enforce the order.
But internal vetting is about more than practicalities and legalities; it is also meant to protect the core values and interests of the United States. More voices are emerging to challenge the order on those grounds, a concern that will probably remain even if the administration amends the order to pass legal muster.
Is the order legal?
For judges to issue emergency stays, like those that have already emerged, they must determine that there is a high likelihood that the legal challenge will succeed ??? meaning that they think the ban is probably legally deficient, at least when applied to people who have already reached the United States and are holding valid papers.
T. Alexander Aleinikoff, a former general counsel to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and a former deputy commissioner of the United Nations refugee agency, said that the ban could conflict with both federal and constitutional law.
The refugee convention, a United Nations treaty that is incorporated into United States law, prohibits discrimination against refugees on the basis of religion. The immigration and nationality act also prohibits such discrimination in the issuance of visas.
???There is also the constitutional argument that this is religious discrimination,??? Professor Aleinikoff added.
 


 

--Xomgq22609823FG40PRhH28W6d--