Friday, November 19, 2010
He Fought The Law, And The Law Won. Undisputedly.
MIAMI (Reuters) - Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is not. Warren Buffet, one of the riches men in the world pays no income taxes. He pays tax lawyers millions a year in fees to show him how to avoid taxes. Actor Wesley Snipes made million by hard work, but his accountants and advisers counselled him to evade taxes. The result is that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates go around the world doing good dees; Wesley Snipes goes to jail.
Wesley Snipes was ordered on Friday, 19 November 2010, to start serving a three-year prison sentence for failing to file income tax returns by a federal judge who rejected the Hollywood star's bid for a new trial.
"The defendant Snipes had a fair trial ... The time has come for the judgment to be enforced," U.S. District Judge Terrell Hodges said in his ruling.
Revoking bail for the 48-year-old star of the "Blade" trilogy, the judge ordered him to report to prison as directed by the U.S. Marshals Service or Bureau of Prisons.
It was not clear when or where Snipes would begin serving his time behind bars, however. His lawyer, Daniel Meachum, has said he would appeal if a new trial was denied.
Meachum told the Orlando Sentinel the ruling was shocking.
"Wesley is very disappointed but staying strong and positive," the newspaper quoted Meachum as saying.
Snipes had already lost his appeal of the prison sentence stemming from his 2008 conviction in Hodges' Ocala, Florida, court on three counts of "willful failure to file tax returns" for 1999 through 2001.
Snipes was found not guilty of five other counts in the high-profile felony tax case.
In seeking a new trial, Meachum had argued that jurors in the original trial were biased and that the prosecution's star witness had his own criminal problems.
At his sentencing, prosecutors said Snipes, a resident of Windermere, Florida, had earned more than $38 million since 1999 but had filed no tax returns or paid any taxes through October 2006.
Although he is best known for his roles in action films, Snipes has also had critical success in comedies like "White Men Can't Jump" in 1992. He played the lead in director Spike Lee's interracial drama "Jungle Fever" in 1991 and also played the jazz saxophonist in Lee's "Mo' Better Blues" in 1990.
Eric Thompson, a supervisor in the U.S. Marshals Service office in Orlando, Florida, said the Bureau of Prisons would notify Snipes and his lawyer of a surrender date.
"He'll probably get it by certified mail," Thompson said.
He declined to say what prison was likely to be selected for Snipes except to say that it would not be in Florida.
A listing for Snipes already posted on the Federal Bureau of Prisons website says his prisoner ID or registration number as 43355-018, his location is "in transit" and his release date is "unknown."
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Violence Against Social Security Judges Increasing.
http://www.amazon.com/socialNsecurity-Confessions-Social-Security-Judge/dp/1449569757
The PowerPoint released by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform ("The Deficit Commission"), said we should "Reform Social Security for its own sake, not for deficit reduction."
Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Not now, not ever. However it has everything to do with political theater and public disinformation.
SocialSecurity is a political football, and now we are beginning the political Super Bowl Season.
Critics of Social Security have frequently made alarming claims about the future of the system to support calls for "reform". Opportunists are posturing and trying to humanize the Social Security Administration (SSA). In order to do that the first group they sieze upon to spot light are the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) at SSA, the 1300-1400 judges who decide disability cases.
So now the SSA and its programs are at center stage of the public political debate. An avalanche of news articles has been triggered. One Associated Press article about violence against SSA ALJs became the most frequently Email-ed article on Yahoo within 48 hours of publication two days ago. However, the article can be very misleading without some insider background information.
The public is being manipulated with these articles. These articles are a diversion. They seek to make the judges appear as victims, while it is the American public who are being victimized. The judges are gatekeepers for the Social Security Trust Fund. To understand how and why read "socialNsecurity, Confessions of a Social Security Judge" at www.judgelondonsteverson.com.
The AP article "Violence Against Social Security Judges" could have been written 10 or even 20 years ago. Why now? The incidents cited are over 10 years old. The incidents of violence have not increased, only the threats. The threats are commonplace and go with the job.
The number one complain in disability cases in back pain. The second most common complain is a mental inpairment. Many of these claimants are seriously mentally impaired; some are certifiably insane. They talk out of their heads; and , they make threats. The ALJ is the first and sometimes only embodiment of the SSA and the Federal Governmant, so they make threats against them. But they have no means or opportunity to carry out the threats. So, by and large the threats are harmless.
Some judges will not hold a hearing without an armed Federal Protective Service officer in the hearing room. Not me. I would postpone the hearing first. I only had to do that once in my entire career as an ALJ.
Judges in Illinois were carrying guns to work in their brief cases 15 and 20 years ago. They probably still are today. The ones that I knew about, had permits to carry a fire arm. The state and the city fire arm licensing authorities must have been satisfied that there is and was a valid threat to their safety.
I have been threated. Attorneys representing claimants have been threated in my courtroom. I have heard things like "if I loose my benefits, I will kill you". That was said by a Mexican gang member with tear drops tatoos on his face and neck to an attorney in my court room.
I never let them know where I lived. I did not give out my home address. After work, I was always cautious and vigilant in the parking lot. We had to park in the same lot as the claimants. They knew our cars.
I never went straight home after work. I drove around and made sure no one was following me.
I lived less than one mile from the Downey Hearing Office. I was prepared to meet violence at the office but not at home. I was a military veteran, so danger and threats went with the job. However, my family was not to be put at risk. If I was going to be shot, it would be at the office, not at home. If a vengeful claimant was going to blow up something it was going to be the office, not my home. An Oklahoma City type of attack was acceptable, but not violence at my private residence where my wife and 3 little children lived.
In July 1990 the Downey, CA Office Of Hearings And Appeals (OHA) was at 11903 Downey Avenue. I was assigned to the Downey OHA, so I bought a house on Downey Avenue. It was less than two miles from my home to the office. I could have walked to work in half an hour. For many months I did not drive to work; I rode a bicycle. I stopped riding the bicycle when several vision impaired claimants almost ran me down in the parking lot. It was safer to drive than to get killed or injured on a bicycle. I was exposed to greater physical threats from routine anonymous claimants coming and going in the parking lot than I was from disgruntled revenge seeking claimants who intended to subject me to physical injury.
In the ALJ Training School in Fredericksberg, VA we told to try to remain anonymous in the field. Judge Tommy D. Capshaw told us to try to keep a low profile. He told us to get rid of the personalized license plates on our cars and to keep unlisted phone numbers. I rented a post office box for my personal mail. Periodicals, like Time and Newsweek magazine and the Christian Science Monitor, came to the office.
I never gave out my home address. My business cards listed the office address as my address. The cards were printed by SSA OHA without my request. Darlene Robertson, the Office Manager at OHA at that time, just came into my office one morning and gave me a box of cards.
I was the only ALJ who lived in Downey; all the other judges lived over 20 miles away in anonymous neighborhoods. David Chase Linehand kept an apartment in Downey, but he lived in San Bernadino, CA.
In about 1995 OHA moved to a new 15 year leased space above the Downey National Bank at 8345 Firestone Boulevard. This was one block off Downey Avenue, but it was one mile closer to my home. My commuting distance to work was cut in half.
This closer proximity to my home frightened me. I was concerned for the safety of my wife and children. All of my children were under 6 years of age. My wife was overly concerned and was frequently cautioning me never to give out our home address. She had seen some of the claimants entering and leaving the office and she was frightened by their appearance. Some of them looked dangerous at first glance.
We received complaints from the management of the bank downstairs that the claimants were disturbing their customers. Often claimants would enter the bank thinking they were at the OHA, which was on the second floor. Many claimants had complained that the Notice of Hearing was deficient was too vauge about the office address. The address in the Notice only gave a street address; it did not contain the suite number. Many claimants came to hearings late because they had had trouble locating the OHA. They had been in the bank downstairs, or they had gone to the Embassy Suites hotel next door.
My wife never allowed me to entertain the staff at our home because she did not want to give out our home address. We had hosted birthday parties for our children where one or two of the office staff had attended, but those were rare. Even though I lived closer to the office than any other judge, I tried to keep home and office as far away from each other as possible.
These were merely precautions. I had no illusions about how precarious our real safety net was. For the first five years I was a judge, our office had no security guard or agent from the Federal Protective Service. For the next ten years the guards in most offices did not search incoming claimants and were not allowed to use a wand to detect concealed metallic objects, such as guns or knives. For the next five years the office management staff appeared to spend so much time harassing the security guard that he spent as much time as possible away from his post avoiding management. Any safety measure could always be circumvented. Every e-mail sent can be retrieved with a few mouse strokes. Most claimants brought along a friend or family member who was a potential threat to the office personnel. One random glance or a photo snapped from a phone-camera at someone's social security number, and that number became a commodity for sale on the streets of Los Angeles. One phone call and our sanctuary could become our killing field. I was prepared to accept that level of risk at the office but not at home.
My next door neighbors were Richard and Sally Randolf. Sally was an elementary school teacher in Pico Rivera, CA. One day without any warning someone walked up to her front door in broad daylight and fired three shots through her front door. She had two children the same ages as my children. They were at home. We never found out what the motive was for the shooting. Fortunately no one was killed. I had the agonizing feeling that they were looking for my home but went to the wrong address. Our house numbers were only three consecutive numbers apart. I still believe that I dodged a bullet that day. To this day, we do not know who or why someone would shoot throngh the front door of a residence on my block. This case remains an "unsolved shooting incident" at the Downey Police Department.
The AP reporter acknowledged that while no judges were harmed this year, there have been past incidents. The first example cited was that of a female judge in the Los Angeles Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR). She was hit over the head with a chair during a hearing. That is not exactly accurate, but I am familiar with the incident. The ALJ made some fundamental mistakes. The incident was avoidable. The judge deviated too far from standard procedure.
The ALJ in question had been transferred from the Long Beach Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) to the Downtown Los Angeles ODAR. She conducted the hearing in a formal manner. She wore a black robe; she sat at the judge's bench; she remained distant and removed from the claimant who was seated at the claimant's table which was below and separated from the judge's bench. Aside from the judge and the court reporter there were only two other people in the hearing room. Those were the claimant and her adult daughter. the claimant was not represented by an attorney and no attorney was present.
The claimant was alleging a mental impairment. She claimed that she could not engage in work on a consistent basis because her mental impairment prevented her from maintaining persistence, concentration, and pace. The ALJ was not convinced and something about her questions and her demeanor must have relayed that message to the claimant and her daughter. The judge was going to deny her claim. The conversational exchanges became heated. So, the ALJ closed the hearing and left the hearing room. Then she made a fundamental error.
The judge left the room, removed her robe, came back to the hearing room, and sat down at the table with the claimant and her daughter. It is not clear why she felt this little friendly chat was necessary. She had already as much as told the claimant that she was not going to win her case. She was not going to receive disability benefits. The conversation became heated. The claimant's daughter became excited and irate. The judge jumped up and tried to leave the hearing room and the daughter picked up a chair and threw it at the judge. This was predictable. The judge lowered the barrier and put herself on the same level with the claimant.
This is not the kind of violence that most judges are afraid of. Most judges would not have put themselves in this kind of a risky situation. This was practically an invitation to precipitate an incident. Moreover, usually the cases are so tightly scheduled, one after another, that most judges would not have had time to have a nice little touchie-feelie chat with a mentally deranged claimant who did not have a lawyer present to represent her.
WASHINGTON – Judges who hear Social Security disability cases are facing a growing number of violent threats from claimants angry over being denied benefits or frustrated at lengthy delays in processing claims.
There were at least 80 threats to kill or harm administrative law judges or staff over the past year — an 18 percent increase over the previous reporting period, according to data collected by the agency.
The data was released to the Association of Administrative Law Judges and made available to The Associated Press.
One claimant in Albuquerque, N.M., called his congressman's office to say he was going to "take his guns and shoot employees" in the Social Security hearing office. In Eugene, Ore., a man who was denied benefits said he is "ready to join the Taliban and hurt some people." Another claimant denied benefits told a judge in Greenville, S.C., that he was a sniper in the military and "would go take care of the problem."
"I'm not sure the number is as significant as the kind of threats being made," said Randall Frye, a judge based in Charlotte, N.C., and the president of the judges' union. "There seem to be more threats of serious bodily harm, not only to the judge but to the judge's family."
Fifty of the incidents came between March and August, including that of a Pittsburgh claimant who threatened to kill herself outside the hearing office or fly a plane into the building like a disgruntled tax protester did earlier this year at the Internal Revenue Service building in Austin, Texas.
A Senate subcommittee is expected to hear testimony on Monday at a field hearing in Akron, Ohio, about the rising number of threats, as well as the status of the massive backlog in applications for disability benefits, which are available to people who can't work because of medical problems.
Nearly 2 million people are waiting to find out if they qualify for benefits, with many having to wait more than two years to see their first payment.
Judges say some claimants become desperate after years of fighting for money to help make ends meet.
"To many of them, we're their last best hope for getting relief in the form of income and medical benefits," said Judge Mark Brown, a vice president of the judge's union and an administrative law judge hearing cases in St. Louis.
While no judges were harmed this year, there have been past incidents: A judge in Los Angeles was hit over the head with a chair during a hearing and a judge in Newburgh, N.Y., was punched by a claimant when he showed up for work.
In January, a gunman possibly upset about a reduction in his Social Security benefits killed a security guard during a furious gunbattle at a Nevada federal courthouse.
About 1,400 administrative law judges handle appeals of Social Security disability claims at about 150 offices across the country. Many are in leased office space rather than government buildings.
Brown said the agency provides a single private security guard for each office building that houses judges. Frye said he has sought more security and a review of the policy that keeps guards out of hearing rooms. He said Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue has promised to look into it.
Social Security Administration spokeswoman Trish Nicasio said the agency continually evaluates the level and effectiveness of office security and makes changes as needed.
"We are taking appropriate steps to protect our employees and visitors while still providing the level of face-to-face service the public expects and deserves," Nicasio said.
Visitors and their belongings are screened before entering hearing offices and hearings room, she said, and reception desks are equipped with duress alarms to notify the guard immediately of any disturbance.
Chief Judge John M. Roll of the U.S. District Court of Arizona was shot and killed on January 8, 2011 by a gunman in front of a Tucson, Arizona Safeway grocery store. He was 63
Judge Roll was appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1991 and has been chief judge since 2006. His district is part of the sprawling Ninth Circuit, which covers federal courts throughout the West. He served as a state judge and as an assistant United States attorney for Arizona before he was appointed to the federal bench.
Judge London Steverson was appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990.
Security Worries Spur Some Judges to Pack Heat, Use 24-Hour Guards
The PowerPoint released by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform ("The Deficit Commission"), said we should "Reform Social Security for its own sake, not for deficit reduction."
Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Not now, not ever. However it has everything to do with political theater and public disinformation.
SocialSecurity is a political football, and now we are beginning the political Super Bowl Season.
Critics of Social Security have frequently made alarming claims about the future of the system to support calls for "reform". Opportunists are posturing and trying to humanize the Social Security Administration (SSA). In order to do that the first group they sieze upon to spot light are the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) at SSA, the 1300-1400 judges who decide disability cases.
So now the SSA and its programs are at center stage of the public political debate. An avalanche of news articles has been triggered. One Associated Press article about violence against SSA ALJs became the most frequently Email-ed article on Yahoo within 48 hours of publication two days ago. However, the article can be very misleading without some insider background information.
The public is being manipulated with these articles. These articles are a diversion. They seek to make the judges appear as victims, while it is the American public who are being victimized. The judges are gatekeepers for the Social Security Trust Fund. To understand how and why read "socialNsecurity, Confessions of a Social Security Judge" at www.judgelondonsteverson.com.
The AP article "Violence Against Social Security Judges" could have been written 10 or even 20 years ago. Why now? The incidents cited are over 10 years old. The incidents of violence have not increased, only the threats. The threats are commonplace and go with the job.
The number one complain in disability cases in back pain. The second most common complain is a mental inpairment. Many of these claimants are seriously mentally impaired; some are certifiably insane. They talk out of their heads; and , they make threats. The ALJ is the first and sometimes only embodiment of the SSA and the Federal Governmant, so they make threats against them. But they have no means or opportunity to carry out the threats. So, by and large the threats are harmless.
Some judges will not hold a hearing without an armed Federal Protective Service officer in the hearing room. Not me. I would postpone the hearing first. I only had to do that once in my entire career as an ALJ.
Judges in Illinois were carrying guns to work in their brief cases 15 and 20 years ago. They probably still are today. The ones that I knew about, had permits to carry a fire arm. The state and the city fire arm licensing authorities must have been satisfied that there is and was a valid threat to their safety.
I have been threated. Attorneys representing claimants have been threated in my courtroom. I have heard things like "if I loose my benefits, I will kill you". That was said by a Mexican gang member with tear drops tatoos on his face and neck to an attorney in my court room.
I never let them know where I lived. I did not give out my home address. After work, I was always cautious and vigilant in the parking lot. We had to park in the same lot as the claimants. They knew our cars.
I never went straight home after work. I drove around and made sure no one was following me.
I lived less than one mile from the Downey Hearing Office. I was prepared to meet violence at the office but not at home. I was a military veteran, so danger and threats went with the job. However, my family was not to be put at risk. If I was going to be shot, it would be at the office, not at home. If a vengeful claimant was going to blow up something it was going to be the office, not my home. An Oklahoma City type of attack was acceptable, but not violence at my private residence where my wife and 3 little children lived.
In July 1990 the Downey, CA Office Of Hearings And Appeals (OHA) was at 11903 Downey Avenue. I was assigned to the Downey OHA, so I bought a house on Downey Avenue. It was less than two miles from my home to the office. I could have walked to work in half an hour. For many months I did not drive to work; I rode a bicycle. I stopped riding the bicycle when several vision impaired claimants almost ran me down in the parking lot. It was safer to drive than to get killed or injured on a bicycle. I was exposed to greater physical threats from routine anonymous claimants coming and going in the parking lot than I was from disgruntled revenge seeking claimants who intended to subject me to physical injury.
In the ALJ Training School in Fredericksberg, VA we told to try to remain anonymous in the field. Judge Tommy D. Capshaw told us to try to keep a low profile. He told us to get rid of the personalized license plates on our cars and to keep unlisted phone numbers. I rented a post office box for my personal mail. Periodicals, like Time and Newsweek magazine and the Christian Science Monitor, came to the office.
I never gave out my home address. My business cards listed the office address as my address. The cards were printed by SSA OHA without my request. Darlene Robertson, the Office Manager at OHA at that time, just came into my office one morning and gave me a box of cards.
I was the only ALJ who lived in Downey; all the other judges lived over 20 miles away in anonymous neighborhoods. David Chase Linehand kept an apartment in Downey, but he lived in San Bernadino, CA.
In about 1995 OHA moved to a new 15 year leased space above the Downey National Bank at 8345 Firestone Boulevard. This was one block off Downey Avenue, but it was one mile closer to my home. My commuting distance to work was cut in half.
This closer proximity to my home frightened me. I was concerned for the safety of my wife and children. All of my children were under 6 years of age. My wife was overly concerned and was frequently cautioning me never to give out our home address. She had seen some of the claimants entering and leaving the office and she was frightened by their appearance. Some of them looked dangerous at first glance.
We received complaints from the management of the bank downstairs that the claimants were disturbing their customers. Often claimants would enter the bank thinking they were at the OHA, which was on the second floor. Many claimants had complained that the Notice of Hearing was deficient was too vauge about the office address. The address in the Notice only gave a street address; it did not contain the suite number. Many claimants came to hearings late because they had had trouble locating the OHA. They had been in the bank downstairs, or they had gone to the Embassy Suites hotel next door.
My wife never allowed me to entertain the staff at our home because she did not want to give out our home address. We had hosted birthday parties for our children where one or two of the office staff had attended, but those were rare. Even though I lived closer to the office than any other judge, I tried to keep home and office as far away from each other as possible.
These were merely precautions. I had no illusions about how precarious our real safety net was. For the first five years I was a judge, our office had no security guard or agent from the Federal Protective Service. For the next ten years the guards in most offices did not search incoming claimants and were not allowed to use a wand to detect concealed metallic objects, such as guns or knives. For the next five years the office management staff appeared to spend so much time harassing the security guard that he spent as much time as possible away from his post avoiding management. Any safety measure could always be circumvented. Every e-mail sent can be retrieved with a few mouse strokes. Most claimants brought along a friend or family member who was a potential threat to the office personnel. One random glance or a photo snapped from a phone-camera at someone's social security number, and that number became a commodity for sale on the streets of Los Angeles. One phone call and our sanctuary could become our killing field. I was prepared to accept that level of risk at the office but not at home.
My next door neighbors were Richard and Sally Randolf. Sally was an elementary school teacher in Pico Rivera, CA. One day without any warning someone walked up to her front door in broad daylight and fired three shots through her front door. She had two children the same ages as my children. They were at home. We never found out what the motive was for the shooting. Fortunately no one was killed. I had the agonizing feeling that they were looking for my home but went to the wrong address. Our house numbers were only three consecutive numbers apart. I still believe that I dodged a bullet that day. To this day, we do not know who or why someone would shoot throngh the front door of a residence on my block. This case remains an "unsolved shooting incident" at the Downey Police Department.
The AP reporter acknowledged that while no judges were harmed this year, there have been past incidents. The first example cited was that of a female judge in the Los Angeles Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR). She was hit over the head with a chair during a hearing. That is not exactly accurate, but I am familiar with the incident. The ALJ made some fundamental mistakes. The incident was avoidable. The judge deviated too far from standard procedure.
The ALJ in question had been transferred from the Long Beach Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) to the Downtown Los Angeles ODAR. She conducted the hearing in a formal manner. She wore a black robe; she sat at the judge's bench; she remained distant and removed from the claimant who was seated at the claimant's table which was below and separated from the judge's bench. Aside from the judge and the court reporter there were only two other people in the hearing room. Those were the claimant and her adult daughter. the claimant was not represented by an attorney and no attorney was present.
The claimant was alleging a mental impairment. She claimed that she could not engage in work on a consistent basis because her mental impairment prevented her from maintaining persistence, concentration, and pace. The ALJ was not convinced and something about her questions and her demeanor must have relayed that message to the claimant and her daughter. The judge was going to deny her claim. The conversational exchanges became heated. So, the ALJ closed the hearing and left the hearing room. Then she made a fundamental error.
The judge left the room, removed her robe, came back to the hearing room, and sat down at the table with the claimant and her daughter. It is not clear why she felt this little friendly chat was necessary. She had already as much as told the claimant that she was not going to win her case. She was not going to receive disability benefits. The conversation became heated. The claimant's daughter became excited and irate. The judge jumped up and tried to leave the hearing room and the daughter picked up a chair and threw it at the judge. This was predictable. The judge lowered the barrier and put herself on the same level with the claimant.
This is not the kind of violence that most judges are afraid of. Most judges would not have put themselves in this kind of a risky situation. This was practically an invitation to precipitate an incident. Moreover, usually the cases are so tightly scheduled, one after another, that most judges would not have had time to have a nice little touchie-feelie chat with a mentally deranged claimant who did not have a lawyer present to represent her.
WASHINGTON – Judges who hear Social Security disability cases are facing a growing number of violent threats from claimants angry over being denied benefits or frustrated at lengthy delays in processing claims.
There were at least 80 threats to kill or harm administrative law judges or staff over the past year — an 18 percent increase over the previous reporting period, according to data collected by the agency.
The data was released to the Association of Administrative Law Judges and made available to The Associated Press.
One claimant in Albuquerque, N.M., called his congressman's office to say he was going to "take his guns and shoot employees" in the Social Security hearing office. In Eugene, Ore., a man who was denied benefits said he is "ready to join the Taliban and hurt some people." Another claimant denied benefits told a judge in Greenville, S.C., that he was a sniper in the military and "would go take care of the problem."
"I'm not sure the number is as significant as the kind of threats being made," said Randall Frye, a judge based in Charlotte, N.C., and the president of the judges' union. "There seem to be more threats of serious bodily harm, not only to the judge but to the judge's family."
Fifty of the incidents came between March and August, including that of a Pittsburgh claimant who threatened to kill herself outside the hearing office or fly a plane into the building like a disgruntled tax protester did earlier this year at the Internal Revenue Service building in Austin, Texas.
A Senate subcommittee is expected to hear testimony on Monday at a field hearing in Akron, Ohio, about the rising number of threats, as well as the status of the massive backlog in applications for disability benefits, which are available to people who can't work because of medical problems.
Nearly 2 million people are waiting to find out if they qualify for benefits, with many having to wait more than two years to see their first payment.
Judges say some claimants become desperate after years of fighting for money to help make ends meet.
"To many of them, we're their last best hope for getting relief in the form of income and medical benefits," said Judge Mark Brown, a vice president of the judge's union and an administrative law judge hearing cases in St. Louis.
While no judges were harmed this year, there have been past incidents: A judge in Los Angeles was hit over the head with a chair during a hearing and a judge in Newburgh, N.Y., was punched by a claimant when he showed up for work.
In January, a gunman possibly upset about a reduction in his Social Security benefits killed a security guard during a furious gunbattle at a Nevada federal courthouse.
About 1,400 administrative law judges handle appeals of Social Security disability claims at about 150 offices across the country. Many are in leased office space rather than government buildings.
Brown said the agency provides a single private security guard for each office building that houses judges. Frye said he has sought more security and a review of the policy that keeps guards out of hearing rooms. He said Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue has promised to look into it.
Social Security Administration spokeswoman Trish Nicasio said the agency continually evaluates the level and effectiveness of office security and makes changes as needed.
"We are taking appropriate steps to protect our employees and visitors while still providing the level of face-to-face service the public expects and deserves," Nicasio said.
Visitors and their belongings are screened before entering hearing offices and hearings room, she said, and reception desks are equipped with duress alarms to notify the guard immediately of any disturbance.
Chief Judge John M. Roll of the U.S. District Court of Arizona was shot and killed on January 8, 2011 by a gunman in front of a Tucson, Arizona Safeway grocery store. He was 63
Judge Roll was appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1991 and has been chief judge since 2006. His district is part of the sprawling Ninth Circuit, which covers federal courts throughout the West. He served as a state judge and as an assistant United States attorney for Arizona before he was appointed to the federal bench.
Judge London Steverson was appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990.
Security Worries Spur Some Judges to Pack Heat, Use 24-Hour Guards
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Social Security Administration Keeps Claimants In The Dark.
(Commissioner Michael Astrue)
Social Security Administration Keeps Claimants In The Dark.
Today’s unprecedented economic crisis is bringing into sharp focus Social Security’s role as the backbone of the country’s retirement security, as well as the irresponsibility of former President George W. Bush’s policies in regard to this critical program.Part of the Bush legacy that Astrue has continued are personnel and labor relations policies that hobble agency staff and undermine SSA’s ability to fulfill its duty to the American public. For example, Commissioner Astrue has implemented a policy prohibiting SSA employees from advising SSA claimants regarding their benefit election options. Because benefit election options, such as month of election, impact the eventual amount of benefits received, this prohibition deprives SSA claimants of advice and information
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
socialNsecurity
http://www.amazon.com/socialNsecurity-Confessions-Social-Security-Judge/dp/1449569757
At last a book is available that explains the Social Security Disability Determination Process in plain English.
This is the ultimate insider's guide to the Social Security Disability Determination System. This book explains the Five Step Disability Evaluation Process and attempts to explain why the System does not work as it was intended. It describes the rules, regulations, exceptions, and court decisions that determine the outcome of an application for disability benefits. This is not another "how to" book about filing for Social Security disability benefits. This book is about how the system works. It concerns the nature of the Social Security Disability Determination process. Written by a veteran Social Security Judge this book will simplify the process and make the Social Security Disability Process work for you.
Have you ever wondered how to get Social Security Disability benefits or why your application was denied?
Whether you are an attorney representing claimants or a claimant trying to act as your own representative, this book will show you how to prevail and collect the benefits to which you are entitled.
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are the two largest Federal assistance programs that provide financial support to those with disabilities. To qualify for benefits, you must meet specific medical criteria outlined by the Social Security Administration (SSA).
The application process can be extremely complicated and confusing.
Have you ever asked yourself:
Who is eligible for Social Security Disability Benefits?
Can I apply for Social Security Disability or SSI?
How could I increase my chance of winning Disability and/or SSI benefits?
How much money would I receive in monthly payments?
Can I work and receive Social Security Disability Payments?
Is my family entitled to Social Security Disability benefits?
What diseases are considered for Social Security Disability benefits and SSI?
Do I have to hire a lawyer?
www.judgelondonsteverson.com
https://www.createspace.com/3406851
--
This is the ultimate insider's guide to the Social Security Disability Determination System. This book explains the Five Step Disability Evaluation Process and attempts to explain why the System does not work as it was intended. It describes the rules, regulations, exceptions, and court decisions that determine the outcome of an application for disability benefits. This is not another "how to" book about filing for Social Security disability benefits. This book is about how the system works. It concerns the nature of the Social Security Disability Determination process. Written by a veteran Social Security Judge this book will simplify the process and make the Social Security Disability Process work for you.
Have you ever wondered how to get Social Security Disability benefits or why your application was denied?
Whether you are an attorney representing claimants or a claimant trying to act as your own representative, this book will show you how to prevail and collect the benefits to which you are entitled.
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are the two largest Federal assistance programs that provide financial support to those with disabilities. To qualify for benefits, you must meet specific medical criteria outlined by the Social Security Administration (SSA).
The application process can be extremely complicated and confusing.
Have you ever asked yourself:
At last a book is available that explains the Social Security Disability Determination Process in plain English.
This is the ultimate insider's guide to the Social Security Disability Determination System. This book explains the Five Step Disability Evaluation Process and attempts to explain why the System does not work as it was intended. It describes the rules, regulations, exceptions, and court decisions that determine the outcome of an application for disability benefits. This is not another "how to" book about filing for Social Security disability benefits. This book is about how the system works. It concerns the nature of the Social Security Disability Determination process. Written by a veteran Social Security Judge this book will simplify the process and make the Social Security Disability Process work for you.
Have you ever wondered how to get Social Security Disability benefits or why your application was denied?
Whether you are an attorney representing claimants or a claimant trying to act as your own representative, this book will show you how to prevail and collect the benefits to which you are entitled.
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are the two largest Federal assistance programs that provide financial support to those with disabilities. To qualify for benefits, you must meet specific medical criteria outlined by the Social Security Administration (SSA).
The application process can be extremely complicated and confusing.
Have you ever asked yourself:
Who is eligible for Social Security Disability Benefits?
Can I apply for Social Security Disability or SSI?
How could I increase my chance of winning Disability and/or SSI benefits?
How much money would I receive in monthly payments?
Can I work and receive Social Security Disability Payments?
Is my family entitled to Social Security Disability benefits?
What diseases are considered for Social Security Disability benefits and SSI?
Do I have to hire a lawyer?
www.judgelondonsteverson.com
https://www.createspace.com/3406851
--
Billions for War, But Not A Penny For Seniors.
As if voters don't have enough to be angry about this election year, the government is expected to announce this week that more than 58 million Social Security recipients will go through another year without an increase in their monthly benefits.
It would mark only the second year without an increase since automatic adjustments for inflation were adopted in 1975. The first year was this year.
"If you're the ruling party, this is not the sort of thing you want to have happening two weeks before an election," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
The cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, are automatically set each year by an inflation measure that was adopted by Congress back in the 1970s. Based on inflation so far this year, the trustees who oversee Social Security project there will be no COLA for 2011.
This announcement about Social Security benefits raises more immediate concerns for older Americans whose savings and home values still haven't recovered from the financial collapse: Many haven't had a raise since January 2009, and they won't be getting one until at least January 2012.
"While people aren't getting COLAs they certainly feel like they're falling further and further behind, particularly in this economy," said David Certner, AARP's legislative policy director. "People are very reliant on Social Security as a major portion of their income and, quite frankly, they have counted on the COLA over the years."
Social Security was the primary source of income for 64 percent of retirees who got benefits in 2008, according to the Social Security Administration. A third relied on Social Security for at least 90 percent of their income.
A little more than 58.7 million people receive Social Security or Supplemental Security Income. The average Social Security benefit is about $1,072 a month.
Seniors prepared to cut back on everything from food to charitable donations to whiskey as word spread Monday that they will have to wait until at least 2012 to see their Social Security checks increase.
The government is expected to announce this week that more than 58 million Social Security recipients will go through a second straight year without an increase in monthly benefits. This year was the first without an increase since automatic adjustments for inflation started in 1975.
"I think it's disgusting," said Paul McNeil, 69, a retired state worker from Warwick, R.I., who said his food and utility costs have gone up, but his income has not. He lamented decisions by lawmakers that he said do not favor seniors.
"They've got this idea that they've got to save money and basically they want to take it out of the people that will give them the least resistance," he said.
Cost-of-living adjustments are automatically set by a measure adopted by Congress in the 1970s that orders raises based on the Consumer Price Index, which measures inflation. If inflation is negative, as in 2009 and 2010, payments remain unchanged.
Still, seniors like McNeil said they'll be thinking about the issue when they go to vote, and experts said the news comes at a bad time for Democrats already facing potentially big losses in November. Seniors are the most loyal of voters, and their support is especially important during midterm elections, when turnout is generally lower.
"If you're the ruling party, this is not the sort of thing you want to have happening two weeks before an election," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
At St. Andrews Estates North, a Boca Raton retirement community, seniors largely took the news in stride, saying they don't blame Washington for the lack of an increase. Most are also collecting pensions or other income, but even so, they prepared to tighten their belts.
Bette Baldwin won't be able to travel or help her children as much. Dorcas Eppright will give less to charity. Jack Dawson will buy cheap whiskey instead of his beloved Canadian Club.
"For people who have worked their whole life and tried to scrimp and save and try to provide for themselves," said Baldwin, a 63-year-old retired teacher, "it's difficult to see that support system might not sustain you."
Baldwin and her husband mapped out their retirements, carefully calculating their income based on their pensions and Social Security checks. Trouble is, they expected an annual cost-of-living increase.
When we cut back, we're cutting back on niceties," Baldwin said. "But there are other people that don't have anything to cut back on. They're cutting back on food and shelter."
Many at St. Andrews said the cost-of-living decision won't affect who they vote for next month. But seniors tied the Social Security issue to what they see as a larger societal problem with debt, entitlements and hopefulness for the future.
"I'm kind of glad in a way," Stella Wehrly, an 86-year-old retired secretary, said of the freeze. "One thing depends on the other and when people aren't working there's not enough people feeding into the Social Security system."
Wehrly and her husband, Hank, said curtailing government spending is necessary to maintain the Social Security system.
"We have a generation now that we're not going to leave a very good legacy for," she said.
Jack Dawson, 77, said the freeze is the right move considering the state of the government and the American economy.
"Who would be surprised what's happened?" he asked. "I feel this is the right decision in light of the malaise."
More than 58.7 million people rely on Social Security checks that average $1,072 monthly. It was the primary source of income for 64 percent of retirees who got benefits in 2008; one-third relied on Social Security for at least 90 percent of their income.
At the Phoenix Knits yarn shop in Phoenix, 73-year-old owner Pat McCartney said she already worries about paying for utilities, groceries and gas. Not having the increase makes her worry even more.
"If I have any major expense, I don't know what I'll do," McCartney said while helping customers with their knitting. "I live on Social Security."
In Kansas City, Mo., Georgia Hollman, 80, said Social Security is her sole source of income. She would have liked a bigger check, but said she's grateful for what she gets.
"There isn't nothing I can do about it but live with it," she said. "Whatever they give us is what we have to take. I'm thankful we get that little bit."
Advocates for seniors argue the Consumer Price Index doesn't adequately weigh the costs that most affect older adults, particularly medical care and housing.
"The existing COLA formula does not account for the economic reality of the true costs that most seniors faced," said Fernando Torres-Gil, director of UCLA's Center for Policy Research on Aging and the first person appointed to the governmental post of assistant secretary for aging, during the Clinton administration.
Still, Torres-Gil said the political reality is different, and many feel seniors are lucky to have their checks determined by the CPI, instead of some new formula that might make it even harder to secure a raise.
"We may just lucky to keep the current index," he said.
(AP)
It would mark only the second year without an increase since automatic adjustments for inflation were adopted in 1975. The first year was this year.
"If you're the ruling party, this is not the sort of thing you want to have happening two weeks before an election," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
The cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, are automatically set each year by an inflation measure that was adopted by Congress back in the 1970s. Based on inflation so far this year, the trustees who oversee Social Security project there will be no COLA for 2011.
This announcement about Social Security benefits raises more immediate concerns for older Americans whose savings and home values still haven't recovered from the financial collapse: Many haven't had a raise since January 2009, and they won't be getting one until at least January 2012.
"While people aren't getting COLAs they certainly feel like they're falling further and further behind, particularly in this economy," said David Certner, AARP's legislative policy director. "People are very reliant on Social Security as a major portion of their income and, quite frankly, they have counted on the COLA over the years."
Social Security was the primary source of income for 64 percent of retirees who got benefits in 2008, according to the Social Security Administration. A third relied on Social Security for at least 90 percent of their income.
A little more than 58.7 million people receive Social Security or Supplemental Security Income. The average Social Security benefit is about $1,072 a month.
Seniors prepared to cut back on everything from food to charitable donations to whiskey as word spread Monday that they will have to wait until at least 2012 to see their Social Security checks increase.
The government is expected to announce this week that more than 58 million Social Security recipients will go through a second straight year without an increase in monthly benefits. This year was the first without an increase since automatic adjustments for inflation started in 1975.
"I think it's disgusting," said Paul McNeil, 69, a retired state worker from Warwick, R.I., who said his food and utility costs have gone up, but his income has not. He lamented decisions by lawmakers that he said do not favor seniors.
"They've got this idea that they've got to save money and basically they want to take it out of the people that will give them the least resistance," he said.
Cost-of-living adjustments are automatically set by a measure adopted by Congress in the 1970s that orders raises based on the Consumer Price Index, which measures inflation. If inflation is negative, as in 2009 and 2010, payments remain unchanged.
Still, seniors like McNeil said they'll be thinking about the issue when they go to vote, and experts said the news comes at a bad time for Democrats already facing potentially big losses in November. Seniors are the most loyal of voters, and their support is especially important during midterm elections, when turnout is generally lower.
"If you're the ruling party, this is not the sort of thing you want to have happening two weeks before an election," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
At St. Andrews Estates North, a Boca Raton retirement community, seniors largely took the news in stride, saying they don't blame Washington for the lack of an increase. Most are also collecting pensions or other income, but even so, they prepared to tighten their belts.
Bette Baldwin won't be able to travel or help her children as much. Dorcas Eppright will give less to charity. Jack Dawson will buy cheap whiskey instead of his beloved Canadian Club.
"For people who have worked their whole life and tried to scrimp and save and try to provide for themselves," said Baldwin, a 63-year-old retired teacher, "it's difficult to see that support system might not sustain you."
Baldwin and her husband mapped out their retirements, carefully calculating their income based on their pensions and Social Security checks. Trouble is, they expected an annual cost-of-living increase.
When we cut back, we're cutting back on niceties," Baldwin said. "But there are other people that don't have anything to cut back on. They're cutting back on food and shelter."
Many at St. Andrews said the cost-of-living decision won't affect who they vote for next month. But seniors tied the Social Security issue to what they see as a larger societal problem with debt, entitlements and hopefulness for the future.
"I'm kind of glad in a way," Stella Wehrly, an 86-year-old retired secretary, said of the freeze. "One thing depends on the other and when people aren't working there's not enough people feeding into the Social Security system."
Wehrly and her husband, Hank, said curtailing government spending is necessary to maintain the Social Security system.
"We have a generation now that we're not going to leave a very good legacy for," she said.
Jack Dawson, 77, said the freeze is the right move considering the state of the government and the American economy.
"Who would be surprised what's happened?" he asked. "I feel this is the right decision in light of the malaise."
More than 58.7 million people rely on Social Security checks that average $1,072 monthly. It was the primary source of income for 64 percent of retirees who got benefits in 2008; one-third relied on Social Security for at least 90 percent of their income.
At the Phoenix Knits yarn shop in Phoenix, 73-year-old owner Pat McCartney said she already worries about paying for utilities, groceries and gas. Not having the increase makes her worry even more.
"If I have any major expense, I don't know what I'll do," McCartney said while helping customers with their knitting. "I live on Social Security."
In Kansas City, Mo., Georgia Hollman, 80, said Social Security is her sole source of income. She would have liked a bigger check, but said she's grateful for what she gets.
"There isn't nothing I can do about it but live with it," she said. "Whatever they give us is what we have to take. I'm thankful we get that little bit."
Advocates for seniors argue the Consumer Price Index doesn't adequately weigh the costs that most affect older adults, particularly medical care and housing.
"The existing COLA formula does not account for the economic reality of the true costs that most seniors faced," said Fernando Torres-Gil, director of UCLA's Center for Policy Research on Aging and the first person appointed to the governmental post of assistant secretary for aging, during the Clinton administration.
Still, Torres-Gil said the political reality is different, and many feel seniors are lucky to have their checks determined by the CPI, instead of some new formula that might make it even harder to secure a raise.
"We may just lucky to keep the current index," he said.
(AP)
Friday, October 8, 2010
Social Security Checks Sent to The Dead.
SOCIAL SECURITY SENT 72,000 Checks To Dead People.
A new report from the Social Security Office of the Inspector General says that the agency sent nearly 89,000 checks for $250 each to people who were dead or in prison. The payments were part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Of those who got checks, 71,668 – which totaled $18 million – went to people who had died. Incarcerated people received 17,348 checks, which added up to $4.3 million.
Some inmates were eligible to receive the payments because they'd been receiving Social Security before being locked up.
About half of the payments have been returned, but the Inspector General does not have the authority to attempt to find and take back the balance of them.
As part of the Obama's stimulus plan, a check was sent to a Maryland woman who died more than 40 years ago.
The woman's son, 83-year-old James Hagner, said he got the surprise when he checked his mailbox late last week.
"It shocked me and I laughed all at the same time," Hagner said. "I don't even expect to get one my own self, and I get one for my mother for 43 years ago?"
His mother, Rose, died on Memorial Day in 1967. Hagner said he'd like to frame it and hang it on his wall.
"I just want to keep it as a souvenir, that's all. I'll never cash it," Hagner said.
The reported noted that the Administration was not entirely at fault:
These conditions occurred because SSA (1) was unaware of beneficiary deaths and incarcerations that were reported after it had certified the ERPs, (2) relied on questionable data in its payment records, and (3) did not review all available records, such as the Numident for death information and Prisoner Update Processing System (PUPS) for beneficiary incarcerations.
In response to the report, Social Security Administration press person Mark Lassiter said: "Inaccurate payments are unacceptable".
That statement is not likely to put down the firestorm of criticism that will come from the press, the Congress and taxpayers. The sums of the mistake are relatively small compared to the cost of most programs, but as there is more talk about the damage that the deficit will have on the economy and future generations. The inefficiency of the federal government will come under more scrutiny.
The release of the information could hardly come at a worse time. Republicans are likely to seize on the report as an example of what is wrong with a federal government controlled by Democrats. It is the kind of information that people can hardly help but talk about incessantly.
The Social Security Administration has continued to pay millions of dollars in benefits to dead Americans, and other elderly U.S. residents are at risk of losing badly needed aid because they’re improperly recorded as deceased, federal investigators warn.
The consequences of either bureaucratic error can be severe.
“The addition of erroneous death entries can lead to benefit termination, cause severe financial hardship and distress to affected individuals,” investigators with the Social Security Administration’s Office of Inspector General noted in the report, which was quietly released recently.
The mistakes cost taxpayers and individual beneficiaries in different ways. Taxpayers are losing money when benefits are paid to the deceased. Individuals get into trouble when they’re prematurely pronounced dead.
In Southern California and elsewhere last year, investigators analyzed 305 Social Security beneficiaries who were recorded as deceased in their Social Security Administration files. At least 140 of them were still alive.
All told, investigators say, more than 6,000 current Social Security beneficiaries are recorded as being deceased.
In 1962, Lockheed Corp. charged the government $34,560 for 54 toilet covers or $640 each. The covers were meant for use on Navy ships. The story still circulates around Washington as an example of government waste and lack of oversight of expenses. To the legend of the toilet seat can now be added the legend of the checks to the dead.
A new report from the Social Security Office of the Inspector General says that the agency sent nearly 89,000 checks for $250 each to people who were dead or in prison. The payments were part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Of those who got checks, 71,668 – which totaled $18 million – went to people who had died. Incarcerated people received 17,348 checks, which added up to $4.3 million.
Some inmates were eligible to receive the payments because they'd been receiving Social Security before being locked up.
About half of the payments have been returned, but the Inspector General does not have the authority to attempt to find and take back the balance of them.
As part of the Obama's stimulus plan, a check was sent to a Maryland woman who died more than 40 years ago.
The woman's son, 83-year-old James Hagner, said he got the surprise when he checked his mailbox late last week.
"It shocked me and I laughed all at the same time," Hagner said. "I don't even expect to get one my own self, and I get one for my mother for 43 years ago?"
His mother, Rose, died on Memorial Day in 1967. Hagner said he'd like to frame it and hang it on his wall.
"I just want to keep it as a souvenir, that's all. I'll never cash it," Hagner said.
The reported noted that the Administration was not entirely at fault:
These conditions occurred because SSA (1) was unaware of beneficiary deaths and incarcerations that were reported after it had certified the ERPs, (2) relied on questionable data in its payment records, and (3) did not review all available records, such as the Numident for death information and Prisoner Update Processing System (PUPS) for beneficiary incarcerations.
In response to the report, Social Security Administration press person Mark Lassiter said: "Inaccurate payments are unacceptable".
That statement is not likely to put down the firestorm of criticism that will come from the press, the Congress and taxpayers. The sums of the mistake are relatively small compared to the cost of most programs, but as there is more talk about the damage that the deficit will have on the economy and future generations. The inefficiency of the federal government will come under more scrutiny.
The release of the information could hardly come at a worse time. Republicans are likely to seize on the report as an example of what is wrong with a federal government controlled by Democrats. It is the kind of information that people can hardly help but talk about incessantly.
The Social Security Administration has continued to pay millions of dollars in benefits to dead Americans, and other elderly U.S. residents are at risk of losing badly needed aid because they’re improperly recorded as deceased, federal investigators warn.
The consequences of either bureaucratic error can be severe.
“The addition of erroneous death entries can lead to benefit termination, cause severe financial hardship and distress to affected individuals,” investigators with the Social Security Administration’s Office of Inspector General noted in the report, which was quietly released recently.
The mistakes cost taxpayers and individual beneficiaries in different ways. Taxpayers are losing money when benefits are paid to the deceased. Individuals get into trouble when they’re prematurely pronounced dead.
In Southern California and elsewhere last year, investigators analyzed 305 Social Security beneficiaries who were recorded as deceased in their Social Security Administration files. At least 140 of them were still alive.
All told, investigators say, more than 6,000 current Social Security beneficiaries are recorded as being deceased.
In 1962, Lockheed Corp. charged the government $34,560 for 54 toilet covers or $640 each. The covers were meant for use on Navy ships. The story still circulates around Washington as an example of government waste and lack of oversight of expenses. To the legend of the toilet seat can now be added the legend of the checks to the dead.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
MSPB FY 2009 Appeals Processing Results.
MSPB FY 2009 Appeals Processing Results
Just in case anyone was interested -
The track record of your odds at getting an adverse agency decision reversed before the Merit Systems Protection Board. (MSPB).
The 2009 stats were release, and here is what they say:
Of the total of 7,998 decisions filed, only 174 resulted in the MSPB overturning the decision of the Agency.
The MSPB recently published its FY 2009 Annual
Report containing summaries of significant Board
decisions and detailed case processing results. The MSPB
issued 7,998 total decisions in FY 2009.
Significant Board decisions addressed issues such as MSPB appeals
procedures, alternative personnel systems, discrimination,
retirement, suitability, the Whistleblower Protection
Act, and veterans' rights under the Veterans
Employment Opportunities and Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Acts.
MSPB's regional and field offices issued
almost 7,000 decisions with an average
processing time of 83 days. Of those, almost
56 percent (3,485 cases) were dismissed—
usually for lack of jurisdiction or timeliness.
MSPB's settlement and mediation programs provided an
opportunity for the parties to reach mutually acceptable
resolutions to their cases. As a result, almost 62 percent
of the remaining 2,780 appeals (1,720 cases) were settled
by the parties, meaning that MSPB did not rule on those
cases. Of the 1,060 appeals that were adjudicated on the
merits, 81 percent (859 cases) of the agencies' decisions
were affirmed, 16 percent (174 cases) were reversed and 2
percent (23 cases) were mitigated.
At headquarters, the Board issued 1,027 decisions
with an average processing time of 94 days or less. Of
the 850 decisions on Petition for Review (PFR) of Initial
Decisions issued by the Board, 79 percent (668 cases)
were denied, almost 10 percent (80 cases) were granted,
almost 6 percent (47 cases) were denied but reopened by
the Board, and less than 7 percent (55 cases)
were settled or dismissed. Of the 127 cases
that were reviewed by the Board, 49 percent
(62 cases) were remanded for reconsideration,
35 percent (44 cases) were affirmed, 7 percent
(9 cases) were reversed, and the remaining 9
percent of cases had other outcomes.
In addition, MSPB continues to issue legally supportable decisions, as evidenced
by the fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit left unchanged (dismissed or affirmed) over
90 percent of MSPB decisions that were appealed to
the Court. These results indicate that MSPB continues
to ensure that the Federal workforce has access to lots of
due process but very little justice.
Just in case anyone was interested -
The track record of your odds at getting an adverse agency decision reversed before the Merit Systems Protection Board. (MSPB).
The 2009 stats were release, and here is what they say:
Of the total of 7,998 decisions filed, only 174 resulted in the MSPB overturning the decision of the Agency.
The MSPB recently published its FY 2009 Annual
Report containing summaries of significant Board
decisions and detailed case processing results. The MSPB
issued 7,998 total decisions in FY 2009.
Significant Board decisions addressed issues such as MSPB appeals
procedures, alternative personnel systems, discrimination,
retirement, suitability, the Whistleblower Protection
Act, and veterans' rights under the Veterans
Employment Opportunities and Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Acts.
MSPB's regional and field offices issued
almost 7,000 decisions with an average
processing time of 83 days. Of those, almost
56 percent (3,485 cases) were dismissed—
usually for lack of jurisdiction or timeliness.
MSPB's settlement and mediation programs provided an
opportunity for the parties to reach mutually acceptable
resolutions to their cases. As a result, almost 62 percent
of the remaining 2,780 appeals (1,720 cases) were settled
by the parties, meaning that MSPB did not rule on those
cases. Of the 1,060 appeals that were adjudicated on the
merits, 81 percent (859 cases) of the agencies' decisions
were affirmed, 16 percent (174 cases) were reversed and 2
percent (23 cases) were mitigated.
At headquarters, the Board issued 1,027 decisions
with an average processing time of 94 days or less. Of
the 850 decisions on Petition for Review (PFR) of Initial
Decisions issued by the Board, 79 percent (668 cases)
were denied, almost 10 percent (80 cases) were granted,
almost 6 percent (47 cases) were denied but reopened by
the Board, and less than 7 percent (55 cases)
were settled or dismissed. Of the 127 cases
that were reviewed by the Board, 49 percent
(62 cases) were remanded for reconsideration,
35 percent (44 cases) were affirmed, 7 percent
(9 cases) were reversed, and the remaining 9
percent of cases had other outcomes.
In addition, MSPB continues to issue legally supportable decisions, as evidenced
by the fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit left unchanged (dismissed or affirmed) over
90 percent of MSPB decisions that were appealed to
the Court. These results indicate that MSPB continues
to ensure that the Federal workforce has access to lots of
due process but very little justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
