Annette Gilliam, Esq.

03/11/2026

On March 6, 2025, U.S. Small Business Administration Administrator Kelly Loeffler announced a series of reforms that will put American citizens first by ending taxpayer benefits for illegal aliens. In addition, the SBA will move six offices out of sanctuary cities. These actions support President Trump’s agenda to secure our borders and spend taxpayer money on American citizens.

In the coming days, the SBA will draft a new policy that requires SBA loan applications to include a citizenship verification provision to ensure that only legal, eligible applicants access SBA programs. Lenders will be required to confirm that applicant businesses are not owned in whole or in part by an illegal alien, consistent with President Trump’s executive order ending the taxpayer subsidization of open borders.

The SBA will relocate the following regional offices that do not comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, New York City, and Seattle. These regional offices will be moved to less costly, more accessible locations that better serve the small business community and comply with federal immigration law.

WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Small Business Administration Administrator Kelly Loeffler announced a series of reforms to put American citizens first by ending taxpayer benefits for illegal aliens and moving SBA offices out of sanctuary cities.

03/10/2026

THE FOLLOWING IS GENERAL INFORMATION AND NOT SPECIFIC LEGAL ADVICE FOR ANYONE'S INDIVIDUAL SITUATION:

This is the Federal law on Unlawful Presence and Inadmissibility:

Unlawful presence is any period of time when you are present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or when you are present in the United States after your “period of stay authorized by the Secretary” expires. Unless an exception applies, you will be found inadmissible based on your accrual of unlawful presence if you:
Seek admission again within 3 years of leaving the United States before removal proceedings begin, after you accrued more than 180 days but less than 1 year of unlawful presence during a single stay;
Seek admission again within 10 years of leaving or being removed from the United States, after you accrued 1 year or more of unlawful presence during a single stay; or
Reenter or try to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled after you accrued more than 1 year of unlawful presence, in total, during 1 or more stays in the United States.

Inadmissibility Under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I):
If you are an alien, you are not a lawful permanent resident of the United States, and no exception applies, then you are inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) if:
- You accrued more than 180 days but less than 1 year of unlawful presence during a single stay in the United States on or after April 1, 1997;
- You voluntarily left the United States before DHS initiated either expedited removal proceedings under INA 235(b)(1) or removal proceedings before an immigration judge under INA 240; and
- You again seek admission within 3 years of when you left after accruing unlawful presence.

The statutory 3-year period starts when you leave the United States.

If you are inadmissible under this ground of inadmissibility, you may be eligible to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility. The legal requirements and procedures to apply for the waiver depend on the immigration benefit you seek. You are not inadmissible under this ground of inadmissibility if you accrued more than 180 days but less than 1 year of unlawful presence and left the United States after removal proceedings began, but before the 1-year mark.

However, even if you are not inadmissible under this ground of inadmissibility, you could be inadmissible under other grounds. If you leave the United States after removal proceedings begin, including voluntarily, you must inform the Executive Office for Immigration Review. If you fail to attend removal proceedings or if the immigration judge orders you removed when you are not physically present at the hearing, you could still be inadmissible, even if the reason you did not attend the removal proceedings was because you left.

Inadmissibility Under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II): If you are an alien, you are not a lawful permanent resident of the United States, and no exception applies, you are inadmissible if:
- You accrued 1 year or more of unlawful presence during a single stay in the United States on or after April 1, 1997;
- You left the United States or were removed from the United States under any provision of law; and
- You again seek admission within 10 years of when you left or were removed after accruing unlawful presence.

This ground of inadmissibility applies whether you leave before, during, or after DHS-initiated removal proceedings.

The statutory 10-year period starts when you leave or are removed from the United States.

If you are inadmissible under this ground of inadmissibility, you may be eligible to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility. The legal requirements and procedures for applying for the waiver depend on the immigration benefit you seek.

Inadmissibility Under INA 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I): You are permanently inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) if:
- You accrued an aggregate period of more than 1 year of unlawful presence in the United States on or after April 1, 1997;
- You then left or were removed from the United States; and
- You entered or attempted to reenter the United States on or after April 1, 1997, without a DHS officer admitting or paroling you into the United States.

“Aggregate period” means the total number of days of unlawful presence that you accumulated during all of your stays in the United States combined.

If this ground of inadmissibility applies to you, you will be permanently inadmissible.

Although you are permanently inadmissible under this ground, you may ask for permission to reapply for admission to the United States, but only if you have been physically outside the United States for at least 10 years since the date of your last departure. This permission is called “consent to reapply for admission” to the United States. You must apply for consent to reapply for admission from outside the United States after waiting 10 years from your last departure from the United States. If the government denies your application for consent to reapply for admission, then you remain inadmissible under this ground.

Find additional information about consent to reapply for admission on Form I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States after Deportation or Removal page.

There are certain exceptions and waivers that are available to specific categories of aliens who are inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(C). If an exception applies to you, then you are not inadmissible under this ground of inadmissibility.

If you are inadmissible under any ground in INA 212(a), including INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i) and INA212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), you generally cannot obtain a visa from the U.S. Department of State, enter the United States at a port of entry, or obtain an immigration benefit such as adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident (a Green Card) in the United States unless you first obtain a waiver or another form of relief (such as consent to reapply for admission).

01/31/2024

STATUS AS OF MARCH 2026:
Following Trump's appellate losses, Trump petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review. As of March 6, 2026, the Supreme Court rescheduled its internal conference to discuss whether they will take up Trump's petition. No new date is scheduled yet. Trump posted a $91 million bond to stay enforcement of Carroll's $83.3 million judgment, while he appeals.

My response to all the people who believe E. Jean Carroll's allegations against Donald J. Trump:

1. Do you really believe that Trump who was known by everybody 30 years ago would go to the ladies lingerie department of Bergdorf Goodman in the middle of the day and walk in the dressing room area with lots of people trying on clothes and s*xually assault Carroll, without her screaming for help and without anyone noticing?

2. Although, I don't know for a fact, it has been reported on social media that E. Jean Carroll previously accused many men of s*xual assault over the years, including a babysitter's boyfriend, a camp counselor, a dentist, a college date, one of her bosses, and a CBS chief executive, Les Moonves. She seems to repeatedly sue and/or defames people hoping to get a nuisance payoff OR she could just be a s*xually promiscuous woman who feels guilty about her past and wants to assuage her guilt. The documentary on her on TV that I saw indicated she was a very strange person.

3. There's no confirming video evidence (Bergdorf Goodman could find no surveillance tape of the incident or of Trump or Carroll being in the lingerie department) because of Carroll's decades-long delay in proceeding with litigation, which hinders the defense more than the plaintiff in this "believe-all-women" era.

4. Carroll didn't file a report the alleged day it happened and so no percipient witnesses were identified who could be called to support Carroll's testimony or Trump's defense.

5. Carroll conveniently first alleged the assault in 2019 when she was promoting her book "What Do We Need Men For?", which featured a list of "The Most Hideous Men of My Life." IMHO, that sounds like she's a man-hater, which comports with all her previous allegations mentioned above.

6. Carroll told her lawyer in 2023 that she couldn't remember the date Trump allegedly attacked her, and at various times, she said it was in the 1980s, in the 1990s, in 1994, in 1995, in 1996, or in the 2000s. I know of no other litigation where a plaintiff can be so vague and ambiguous on facts required to prove the event. How is a defendant to defend himself against such vagueness? Vagueness is usually fatal to a case.

7. The Donna Karan blazer dress she claims to have worn that day was not even marketed until after Carroll's alleged assault dates.

8. Carroll's social media posts IMHO make her seem obsessed with s*x, such as (1) "How do you know your 'unwanted s*xual advance' is unwanted, until you advance it?" and (2) "S*x Tip I Learned From My Dog: When in heat, chase the male until he collapses with exhaustion ... then jump him!"

9. Carroll said in The Daily, a New York Times podcast, "Every woman gets to choose her word. Every woman gets to choose how she describes it. This is my way of saying it. This is my word. My word is 'fight.' My word is not the 'victim' word. I have not -- I have not been r***d," she continued. "I have -- something has not been done to me. I fought. That's the thing."

10. IMHO, Carroll's story is strikingly similar to a 2012 episode of Law and Order SVU "Theater and Tricks" wherein a person described a r**e fantasy in Bergdorf Goodman! The character said, "Role-play took place in the dressing room of Bergdorf's. While she was trying on lingerie I would burst in." Carroll admitted being aware of this episode and admitted the similarities with her allegations against Trump were "amazing."

11. Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, had a prior connection to Judge Lewis Kaplan that was not and SHOULD HAVE BEEN disclosed and should have disqualified him from trying her case IMHO. Judge Kaplan was a partner at a law firm with Carroll's attorney and was in a position to supervise her, so Trump could have petitioned to have him recused. IMHO his rulings were blatantly in favor of Carroll, and it's a severe breach of the ethics code to fail to disclose such a prior relationship of the judge with one party.

12. Carroll's lawsuit was only able to be filed so many years after the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS had expired, because the NY democratically controlled legislature passed the Adult Survivors Act in 2022 that tolled the Statute of Limitations for ONE YEAR to let her file against Trump the day after it became effective (so her attorneys knew they were getting the "special dispensation" to "get Trump).

The purpose of a statute of limitations is to protect defendants from having to defend against ancient allegations when documents, videos, and witnesses are no longer available. This change in the New York law seems to be a violation of Trump's Due Process protections prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

13. In one interview with Carroll, Anderson Cooper had to quickly take a break when Carroll shockingly said, "I think most people think of r**e as s*xy..." [cut to break]

01/27/2024

History proves that border walls work. So newspeople, STOP saying border walls don't work.

The Great Wall of China is 13,170.70 miles long. It is a series of fortifications that were built across the historical northern borders of ancient Chinese states and Imperial China as protection against various nomadic groups from the Eurasian Steppe.

Several walls were built from as early as the 7th century BC. THEY WORK! TGE CHINESE HAVE PROVEN IT!

10/01/2023

This is great news! A 3rd party candidate like RFK Jr is a much better Democratic choice than Biden or Harris, but the Democratic Party is determined to ruin our Constitutional Republic on their bumpy Yellow Brick Road to Socialism and Communism!

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will reportedly ditch his effort to challenge President Joe Biden for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination and run as an independent instead. https://bit.ly/3LJibYB

09/20/2023

Just like when the millionaires got bailed out by the government after they caused the mortgage-backed securities fiasco that caused so many people to lose their houses in 2008-9, Biden has just bailed out the banks that failed because of mismanagement. He's always been for the millionaires not tge cheated little people. Taxpayers should NOT bail out rich crooks who screw our people and economy!

Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against three federal agencies for details of the Biden agencies’ decision to expand asset protection to large depositors in the Silicon Valley and Signature Bank government takeovers.
“The costly Biden bank bailouts have all the hallmarks of political favoritism and government overreach,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Certainly, the fact that the responsible Biden officials are hiding documents about the issue suggests that they have something to hide.”

READ: http://jwatch.us/za97VV

05/10/2015

I retired as a Senior Attorney from Southern California Edison Company September 30, 2013. Now, I limit my practice to the following types of legal services:

• Legal research and advice on business and personal issues
• Negotiating and drafting contracts
• Preparing and filing administrative and regulatory actions
• Advising and representing individuals and businesses with administrative and regulatory actions
• Editing manuscripts and other documents (I was Managing Editor of a law journal in law school)
• Mediating disputes among individuals and businesses
• Assisting with business development, planning, and implementation of goals