Answer To The Complaint Form. Answer To The Complaint: Fill & Download for Free

Use the Reverse Psychology! Make a Difference cleverly.Print a Notice: ₹10 Coins Accepted Here.Also, print a copy of Reserve Bank of India notification.Since, everyone’s is trying to get rid of 10 rupee coins apparently. You’ll become popular in your neighbourhood as a shop which accepts ₹10 coins.People will make an extra purchase in lieu of their coins. You’ll also notice people aren’t bargaining much.Eventually, it will not only boost the sales but also make a difference in society’s misinformation.Wondering what to do with the coins?Go to your bank (once a month) with a bag/ pouch of coins like this.Just like merchants in medieval movies with swag. And deposit it in the bank account. Banks will have no problem in accepting coins, they won’t refuse it.P.S. Spare 5 mins and know the difference between fake and original ₹10 coins. Have a Rs 10 coin? Check for fake.If possible print a notice of that too.‘Teach a Lesson’ to customers and Deal like a Swagger (chatur baniya).EDIT: A lot of Quorans commented that some Banks aren't really accepting ₹10 coins. Some of them saying, there would be a lot of inconvenience to the cashiers while counting all those coins.In the former case: Meet the manager and complain him (sometimes it can be just that cashiers are ignoring you). If the Branch Manager doesn't co-operate, tell him that you'll file a complaint against him and the Bank.Most likely, he would cooperate you when you say you’d file a complaint. If he doesn’t, file the complaint online. Wait for the action.Here is the link to Grievance Registration FormRead Mrinal Saurabh's answer (how he filed a complaint against a Bank and was addressed really quick).For the latter case: Remember, the question is about a shop.In a most likely situation, you'll have at most of ₹10,000 worth of ₹10 coins in a month. That makes 1,000 coins.Banks generally have a daily inconvenience limit where they are bound to take even ₹1 coins but in a limited capacity of ₹10,000 or ₹20,000. If you insist them to deposit more than that they’d probably ask you to come deposit the rest of it next day.This was in addition to Piyush Vicky Anand’s comment.Moreover, you're actually educating your neighbourhood that these coins are in circulation. They won't mind it taking back from you in hope of returning back to you again.I Write because I Read and I Must.You may like my other answers, like these: Anshuman Agrahari's answer to When did you realize that you had grown up?Anshuman Agrahari's answer to India: What are things that make Indians sad?Anshuman Agrahari's answer to What is the best Facebook/Twitter post that you've ever seen?Anshuman Agrahari's answer to Is India really changing under PM Modi?

At the time of my writing, most of the existing answers to this question were written before either the memorandum of the conversation[1] or the redacted version of the complaint[2] were made public. Having now seen both, I think we can start firming up opinions.The phone callMy full answer in response to the contents of the memorandum are here, but the short version is that I don’t consider it a “smoking gun” as much as “a loaded gun with the safety off.”[3]Based on the memorandum alone, you can see the contours of potentially inappropriate behavior, but there is nothing concrete to point to and say, objectively, “That was wrong!”For me, however, the main concern is not so much what happened on the call, but what happened around and about the call.We know that that money was ordered withheld just prior to the call, we know that Giuliani was already actively engaging with Ukrainian officials about investigating the Bidens, and we know that the money was released as soon a reports surfaced about the whistleblower’s complaint.[4] [5]What we don’t know - and what the memorandum does not clarify - are the hard connections behind those things. We have credible allegations[6] , not helped by Trump’s own changing story[7] , but, as yet, no evidence.And this is where the whistleblower’s complaint becomes concerning.The complaintFirst and foremost, we must address the whistleblower’s credibility. Much has been made about the fact that the whistleblower did not have first-hand knowledge of the phone call. However, the complaint provides a very accurate summary of the call when viewed side-by-side with the memorandum.The call did open with pleasantries;The call did then go on to the President’s desire for the Ukraine to pursue the named investigations; and,Giuliani and Barr were both named by the President multiple times as needing to be put in contact with Ukrainian officials.This, to me, strongly indicates that the whistleblower is credible; and, indeed, that is the assessment of Acting DNI Joseph Maguire[8] and Inspector General Michael Atkinson[9]The Complainant is '[a]n employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community. . . .The Complainant's Letter acknowledges that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President's telephone call. . . . Other information obtained during the ICIG's preliminary review, however, supports the Complainant's allegation that, among other things, during the call the President 'sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid.' Further, although the ICIG's preliminary review identified some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate, such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible.'".Moreover, subsequent disclosures have made it plain that the whistleblower was acting with first-hand knowledge - if not on the call itself, on the matters it concerned (h/t Dan Rosenthal)[10] [11] :The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.” As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix.What’s not (yet) in evidence, however, despite the Inspector General’s preliminary investigation, is evidence to support the allegation that the President “sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid.”However, on that point, the complaint makes disturbing allegations:The word-for-word transcript is already highly classified (just as the memorandum of the call is). It strikes me as very unusual that there may have been perceived the need to “lock it down” even further.It might be claimed that such a move would be necessary if the call contained highly sensitive intelligence or national security information. However, the Administration has already scuttled that possibility, because the crux of the Department of Justice’s opinion on withholding the whistleblower’s complaint did not pertain to “the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity.”[12]Indeed, the Administration’s official story to-date is that the call was nothing more than routine, diplomatic pleasantries (and the whistleblower says that was the expectation of officials when the call started).From there, much of the complaint focuses on the travels and meetings of Giuliani, and the connections between Ukrainian officials he allegedly met and their connection to ongoing allegations of the Bidens’ corruption[13] and Crowdstrike conspiracy theory[14] that both the President and Giuliani have kept in mainstream attention.Now, Giuliani has stated that he was working on official government business, but the State Department unequivocally disputed that[15] .Mr. Giuliani is a private citizen and acts in a personal capacity as a lawyer for President Trump. He does not speak on behalf of the U.S. Government.If that’s the case, then Giuliani faces some significant questions of his own[16] , even without approaching the President’s intent for sending his personal lawyer to conduct diplomacy. But then it does raise questions about why the President would use his personal lawyer, and not well established diplomatic channels and experienced persons, to advance his and the country’s interests with Ukraine - especially given what we know about how Trump’s lawyers have conducted themselves on his behalf previously[17] .It’s disquieting.The other concern which needs to be raised in this context is the Administration’s handling of the complaint. And by that I don’t just mean whether it was appropriate for the Acting DNI to seek OLC or White House advice on whether to forward the complaint to Congress, but how the White House handled the complaint once it had knowledge of it.Here are President Trump’s own words[18] :Q Mr. President, do you know the identity of the whistleblower? Do you know the identity of the whistleblower?PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don’t know the identity of the whistleblower. I just hear it’s a partisan person, meaning it comes out from another party. But I don’t have any idea. But I can say it was a totally appropriate conversation. It was actually a beautiful conversation.. . .Q Mr. President, on the whistleblower, have you read the complaint? Have you read the complaint of the —PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, I haven’t. It’s — it’s —Q Who in your White House has?PRESIDENT TRUMP: I just tell you, it is — everybody has read it and they laugh at it.That raises alarm bells that the complaint was inappropriately circulated and that some effort was made to discern the whistleblower’s identity - even if not by the President himself. It also raises alarms about how any evidence which may support the whistleblower’s complaint was handled before Congress and the public were made aware of its existence.Again, disquieting.Having said all that, like the memorandum, the complaint in and of itself does not contain hard evidence of wrong-doing except what was related to the whistleblower. However, the complaint itself reads credibly; and, as previously noted, both the Inspector General and Acting DNI treat it credibly. I believe Congress and the American people should as well.In short, if the memorandum of the call was a loaded gun with the safety off, the complaint is enough to suggest that someone is handling it dangerously.Footnotes[1] Unclassified09.2019.pdf[2] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6430349/20190812-Whistleblower-Complaint-Unclass.pdf[3] Carter Moore's answer to Having read the transcript of Trump's conversation with the Ukraine President, is this an impeachable offence?[4] A Timeline of the Trump-Ukraine Scandal[5] The timeline of Trump’s decision to withhold aid to Ukraine is increasingly suspicious[6] Biden probe was condition for Trump-Zelenskiy talks, says former Ukrainian adviser[7] Trump changes story on withholding Ukraine aid[8] Maguire Opening Statement 9.26[9] READ: Inspector General letter on whistleblower complaint[10] Intelligence community watchdog debunks whistleblower conspiracy pushed by Trump and other Republicans[11] https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf[12] READ: Office of Legal Counsel memo on handling the whistleblower complaint[13] I Wrote About the Bidens and Ukraine Years Ago. Then the Right-Wing Spin Machine Turned the Story Upside Down.[14] What You Need to Know About Trump’s Crowdstrike Conspiracy Theory[15] Giuliani says State Department asked him to take call from Ukrainian official[16] “Giuliani Is at Risk of Criminal Exposure”: Why Rudy’s Ukrainian Adventure Could End His Legal Career[17] Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen enters prison[18] Remarks by President Trump and Prime Minister Morrison of Australia Before Bilateral Meeting | The White House

This is Exhibit A in why you should not trust The Federalist. It’s a propaganda rag that simply doesn’t care about whether what they print is true or not.https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdfThat somewhat messy link goes to a press release from the Intelligence Committee Inspector General. He was concerned enough about the false information being spread that he felt he had to speak out about it. I’ll give you the key graf as far as the Federalist article goes:The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.Emphasis mine. There was no recent change to the whistleblower rules.I suggest that you consider that the “journalists” at The Federalist could have picked up the phone at any time and called the ICIG’s office and gotten this information. But they didn’t bother. I also suggest that you look at the other answers to this question, see which ones blindly accepted the assertion, and adjust your expectations of those people accordingly.