View allAll Photos Tagged Docket
Here is the chronology of the complaint for AAB Docket # C08 – 111, the Southwick Recreation Center:
July 21, 2008 Received a building and parking complaint from Scott Ricker, building complaint was regarding lack of vertical access to mezzanine
September 23, 2008 Received building permits/assessed values
October 6, 2008 Dismissed the building complaint regarding vertical access as jurisdiction was not established after review of the building permit history and assessed values. A 1st notice was sent for alleged parking violations.
January 7, 2009 Sent 2nd Notice after owner failed to respond
January 30, 2009 Received letter from Southwick Recreation Center (SRC) stating corrections have been made. No pictures were included.
March 4, 2009 Sent follow-up letter requesting photos of completed work. Phone calls were also made following the sending of this letter to try to close this complaint.
NOTE: The Compliance Officer who was handling this case left the employment of the AAB in March of 2009. The Other Compliance officer was out on Medical Leave at the time and had to catch up on all of the pending issues causing the 11 month gap
February 23, 2010 Scheduled Hearing for May 24, 2010 for the failure to provide pictures showing the corrected parking
May 16, 2010 Received new complaints regarding porta-potties, lack of an accessible picnic table, and new concessions stand service window.
May 24, 2010 Complaint Hearing was held for the handicapped parking only. SRC members did not attend the hearing. The Board voted to find in favor of the complainant. The Board also voted that a site visit be conducted and a Fine Hearing be scheduled.
June 8, 2010 Boards Decision was sent out along with a new 1st notice citing the new complaints received by the Board. Also sent out was the Notice for a site visit on June 24, 2010 and Notice of a Fine Hearing for August 23, 2010 for the non compliance regarding the handicapped parking.
June 10, 2010 Rescheduled Fine Hearing for November 1, 2010 as the SRC Board President will be out of state on August 23, 2010.
June 24, 2010 Site visit was conducted. Scott Ricker was asked to leave the property by the SRC Board president Kirk Sanders. The SRC Board president informed Scott that he would receive a trespass summons in the mail,
July 22, 2010 Received letter from Kirk Sanders, explaining the history regarding the trespass notice being sent to Mr. Ricker. Also received photos of the corrected handicapped parking. (two (2) years from when the complaint was received)
July 24, 2010 Boards Compliance Officer went to the site unannounced as a multiday event (Southwick Days) was being held at the SRC and neighboring school grounds, Concession stand was not open for public use.
September 12 & 13, 2010 Received emails from Mr. Ricker about the summons and hearing date.
September 22, 2010 Site report sent. Porta-potty issue resolved at the time of the site visit. The handicapped parking did not comply at the time of the site visit. No accessible picnic table was provided at the time of the site visit. The building the complainant stated was being used as a concession stand, was built as a shed according to the building permit. The building inspector and members of the SRC stated that they hoped to use it as a concession stand in the future. The building also has two (2) windows without glass and blocked with fold down boards. I informed them that the Board would make the final decision at the Complaint hearing.
October 14, 2010 Received photos of corrected concession stand service window. Accessible picnic table only outstanding issue
October 19 & 20, 2010 Sent an email to Mr. Sanders reminding him of the last outstanding issue (the accessible picnic table) and informed him that the hearing could not be cancelled until such time that the Board has been provided photos of the compliant picnic table. He wrote back that he will send a status report as soon as he has more information. A Complaint Hearing is still scheduled for November 1, 2010 for the non compliant picnic table.
In our next meetup, we will learn about the Chicago Justice Project’s (CJP) ongoing engagement with the Office of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Timothy Evans.
CJP’s engagement is seeking to open access to all the data created by the Court since they started collecting the data in the 1980s (the courts have told CJP they started collecting data either in 1980 or 1988). This means that when approved CJP would receive about 30 years of Court data. CJP requested all the data maintained by the Clerk’s Office on each criminal case filed, appropriately de-identified. To give you some idea how much data we are talking about here are some facts about the Cook County Justice System:
• The Circuit Court of Cook County is the largest unified court system in the US
• The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office is the largest prosecutors office in the US
• The Cook County Jail is the largest jail in the country
This is not a onetime release! CJP is seeking an agreement that would require regular updates of court data be released on an ongoing basis moving forward removing all the current barriers to this data.
Of course, since the Court maintains ownership over the data, but does not maintain the data, the approval by Judge Evans of any request seeking access to court data is only the first step. The second step is having the data released by the Cook County Clerk of the Circuit Court, Dorothy Brown’s Office. It took CJP 27 months to get access to the 5 years of conviction data that was the basis of the Convicted in Cook Project.
CJP anticipates significant resistance from the Clerk’s Office to this request. This is the beginning of CJP’s outreach to see if we can build a community of people that will help CJP advocate for the fulfillment of this agreement.
Tracy Siska, Executive Director of the Chicago Justice Project, will talk about CJP’s efforts in more detail and what it will take to get the Court and Clerk to fulfill their request.
Also, we'll cover the results of Smart Chicago's recent PACER postcard campaign, where we helped send dozens of postcards to Chief Judge Ruben Castillo of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, asking him to look into issues with PACER , the system run by the federal judiciary that provides access to court dockets.
Buenas, mi nombre es Amarilis Santos, yo terminé mi caso con con el abogado Rafael Gómez, se los recomiendo 100%. Trabaja rápido, bueno, bonito y barato. Ya lo saben, cualquier problema llamen Rafael Gomez.
ESTA ES UNA MUESTRA DE CÓMO LOS TRIBUNALES DE NJ DECIDEN ALGUNOS CASOS DE ACCIDENTES. NUESTRA FIRMA NO PARTICIPÓ COMO ABOGADO EN ESTE CASO. ESTE ES SIMPLEMENTE UN RESUMEN DE MUESTRA CON FINES INFORMATIVOS. LOS RESULTADOS PASADOS NO GARANTIZAN RESULTADOS FUTUROS. LA SELECCIÓN DE UN ABOGADO ES IMPORTANTE. DÉ ESTE ASUNTO PENSAMIENTO CUIDADOSO. VEA NUESTRA PÁGINA ACERCA DE PARA OBTENER AVISO LEGAL.
Samuel MARTIN, III, Demandante Apelante,
v.
ESCUELAS PÚBLICAS DE NEWARK, Demandado-Demandado.
DOCKET NO. A-0338-18T4.
Tribunal Superior de Nueva Jersey, División de Apelaciones.
Argumentó el 18 de septiembre de 2019.
Decidido el 4 de octubre de 2019.
En apelación del Departamento de Trabajo y Desarrollo de la Fuerza Laboral de Nueva Jersey, División de Compensación para Trabajadores, Petición de Reclamación No. 2011-17344.
Joseph Michael Accardi argumentó la causa del apelante (Rothenberg, Rubenstein, Berliner & Shinrod, LLC, abogados; Joseph Michael Accardi, abogado y en los escritos).
Joseph Vincent Biancamano argumentó la causa del demandado (Biancamano & Di Stefano, PC, abogados; Joseph Vincent Biancamano, de abogado y en el escrito).
Ante los jueces Fuentes, Haas y Mayer.
150 * 150 El dictamen del tribunal fue emitido por
MAYER, J.A.D.
El peticionario Samuel Martin, III apela de una orden del 13 de agosto de 2018 del Tribunal de Compensación para Trabajadores que niega su solicitud de beneficios médicos y por discapacidad temporal. El peticionario solicitó el reembolso de los medicamentos opioides recetados continuos para tratar una lesión en la espalda baja sufrida durante su empleo con las Escuelas Públicas de Newark encuestadas. Afirmamos.
En mayo de 2011, Martin se lesionó la espalda en un accidente automovilístico relacionado con el trabajo. En noviembre de 2014, Martin recibió una indemnización por discapacidad parcial del quince por ciento por la lesión ortopédica en la parte inferior de la espalda como resultado del accidente laboral y el agravamiento de una hernia y un bulto de disco lumbar preexistentes.
Después de recibir la indemnización por discapacidad parcial, Martin presentó una moción basada en la negativa del demandado a pagar las recetas de Percocet después de septiembre de 2017. Martin afirmó que necesitaba Percocet para aliviar el dolor continuo y recurrente posterior al accidente automovilístico. La Demandada se opuso a la moción y el asunto fue programado ante un juez del Tribunal de Compensación para Trabajadores.
El juez de compensación llevó a cabo audiencias para determinar si se debería obligar al demandado a pagar el medicamento opioide recetado de Martin de acuerdo con la Ley de Compensación Laboral (Ley), N.J.S.A. 34: 15-1 a -142, específicamente N.J.S.A. 34: 15-15. El juez escuchó el testimonio de Martin; El médico tratante de Martin, Patricio Grob, D.O .; y el experto médico de Martin, Harris Bram, M.D.
El Dr. Grob, un cirujano ortopédico, testificó que comenzó a tratar a Martin en junio de 2011 y continuó tratándolo hasta septiembre de 2017. En septiembre de 2017, el Dr. Grob liberó al peticionario y descubrió que Martin alcanzó la máxima mejoría médica. Al darle el alta, el médico le dio una receta final a Percocet como cortesía para Martin.
Ho Ho Kus(07423) Leonia(07605) Little Ferry(07643) Lodi(07644) Lyndhurst(07071) Mahwah(07430) Mahwah(07495) Maywood(07607) Midland Park(07432) Midland Pk(07432) Montvale(07645) Moonachie(07074) Morsemere(07657) N Arlington(07031) N Milford(07646)New Milford(07646) North Arlington(07031) Palisades Park(07650) Palisades Pk(07650) Paramus(07652) Paramus(07653) Park Ridge(07656) Radburn(07410) Ramsey(07446) Ridgefield(07657) Ridgefield Park(07660) Ridgefield Pk(07660) River Edge(07661) Rochelle Park(07662) Rockleigh(07647) Rutherford(07070) S Hackensack(07606) Saddle Brook(07663) Saddle River(07458) South Hackensack(07606) Teaneck(07666) Tenafly(07670) Teterboro(07608) Teterboro(07699) Wallington(07057) Westwood(07677) Wood Ridge(07075) Wood-Ridge(07075) Wyckoff(07481) Arlington(07032) Bayonne(07002) Bergenline(07087) East Newark(07029) Guttenberg(07093) Harrison(07029) Hoboken(07030) Jersey City(07097) Kearny(07032) North Bergen(07047)
Brown v. Board of Education, National Historic Site.
Topeka, Kansas
Theme: "Expressions for Freedom and Equality"
Show: May 1 - June 30, 2013
Reception: TBA
Artwork Due: April 15, 2013 (Postmarked Deadline)
Sign up at: www.thedreamrocket.com
"We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place.
Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
-From the opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.
Contact Person: Jennifer Marsh at jennifer@thedreamrocket.com
Location: Brown v. Board of Education
1515 SE Monroe Street, Topeka, Kansas 66612
Phone: (785) 354-4273
Website: www.nps.gov/brvb/contacts.htm
Museum Contact Person: Dave Schafer, Superintendent
Interactive Link:
mms.nps.gov/ram/mwr/road31.swf
"The Road to Justice" is an interactive activity that allows you to think like an African American student in 1950. Find your way through the many challenges to a successful outcome!
"The Brave Warrior of Justice"
www.nps.gov/features/malu/feat0002/wof/index.htm
"The Civil War: 150 Years"
www.nps.gov/civilwar150/index.html
History & Culture
"The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is one of the most pivotal opinions ever rendered by that body. This landmark decision highlights the U.S. Supreme Court’s role in affecting changes in national and social policy. Often when people think of the case, they remember a little girl whose parents sued so that she could attend an all-white school in her neighborhood. In reality, the story of Brown v. Board of Education is far more complex.
In December, 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court had on its docket cases from Kansas, Delaware, the District of Columbia, South Carolina, and Virginia, all of which challenged the constitutionality of racial segregation in public schools. The U.S. Supreme Court had consolidated these five cases under one name, Oliver Brown et al. v. the Board of Education of Topeka. One of the justices later explained that the U.S. Supreme Court felt it was better to have representative cases from different parts of the country. They decided to put Brown first “so that the whole question would not smack of being a purely Southern one.” (For more information on each of the five cases, click on the highlighted state's name above.)
This collection of cases was the culmination of years of legal groundwork laid by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in its work to end segregation. None of the cases would have been possible without individuals who were courageous enough to take a stand against the segregated system."
-Brown v. Board of Education, NPS, Website
via
I am frequently contacted by patent and trademark practitioners who have been served with a “Request for Information and Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. 11.22(f)” from the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). In Fiscal Year 2018, the OED Director issued over 100 such “Requests” (also referred to as “RFIs”). Some clients come to me after they have already answered an RFI on their own and have subsequently received a second or follow-up RFI. The vast majority of my clients–and I have represented over 100 patent attorneys, patent agents and trademark attorneys in OED ethics investigations–prefer to be represented from the start.
I have culled from my experience a list of some of the most frequently asked questions for those clients who are new to the OED investigatory process. I attempt to answer those below. In addition, I suggest that you read my 2017 article, “You Just Received an OED Bar Grievance. Now What?” (click here).
FAQs About Responding to OED Request for Information Under 37 C.F.R. 11.22(f)
What is an RFI?
A “request for information and evidence” is a document that is drafted by the staff attorneys of the OED to aid in their determination of whether the recipient or another practitioner may have engaged in unethical conduct. The RFI itself is drafted in the form of a letter. The letter is always sent by certified mail, return receipt requested.
The “typical” RFI includes three parts: (1) a statement or narrative summary of alleged facts “under consideration”; (2) a list of written questions and demands for relevant documentation (similar in substance and style to Rule 33 interrogatories and Rule 34 document requests in litigation); and (3) a brief summary of the USPTO’s ethics rules that may be implicated by the conduct described in the factual allegations.
Why am I receiving an RFI?
The predicate for issuance of an RFI is the receipt by the OED Director of a “grievance” regarding a specified patent or trademark practitioner. In PTO-speak, a “grievance” means “a written submission from any source received by the OED Director that presents possible grounds for discipline of a specified practitioner.” See 37 C.F.R. 11.1. A “grievance” may include a formal written complaint that someone (often a client or another practitioner) files with the OED Director, although “grievances” are much broader than simply traditional bar complaints. “A written submission from any source” can include, for example, newspaper and journal articles, such as an article posted in IP 360, court decisions, and referrals from a member of the patent or trademark examining corps.
Essentially, a grievance can be anything as long as it is written, it identifies a specific practitioner, and it identifies conduct that, if proven, presents “possible” grounds that the practitioner violated one or more of the USPTO’s ethics rules. Even anonymous grievances are accepted and there is no oath requirement, fee, or other formality that must be met for a written complaint to rise to the level of a “grievance.”
What does issuance of an RFI mean?
Not every complaint against an IP practitioner rises to the level of a “grievance.” The OED receives hundreds of complaints about alleged practitioner misconduct each year. When it receives a complaint, it first vets the complaint to determine if the complaint involves someone within the OED’s disciplinary jurisdiction and whether that person’s conduct is the type of behavior that the ethics rules of the USPTO are designed to remedy.
The OED, for example, often weeds out private matters, such as mill run attorney-client fee disputes that do not raise issues of blatant over-billing, incompetency, or fraud. If OED screens out a complaint, it will typically report to the complaining party (assuming one can be readily identified) to thank them for the information and advise them the matter is not being investigated. Non-investigated complaints do not get reported to the practitioner, so a practitioner may never know that a complaint had been filed against him or her.
When the OED issues an RFI, it means that the matter has past the OED initial screening process. The OED has thus made a preliminary assessment that the facts alleged in the complaint–assuming they are true and can be proven–may warrant a conclusion that a specifically identified patent or trademark practitioner may have violated at least one of the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct.
Must I respond to the RFI?
Yes. While it is captioned a “request” for information, it is more accurate to say that the RFI is a “demand” for information. Indeed, practitioners have an independent ethical duty to “cooperate with the Office of Enrollment and Discipline in an investigation of any matter before it.” See 37 C.F.R. 11.801(b). Thus, even if the underlying facts or law involved in the “grievance” are without merit, a practitioner can still be disciplined independently if it is found the practitioner failed to cooperate with the OED’s investigation.
When must I respond to the RFI?
The RFI itself sets forth a deadline for responding. Typically, first RFIs have a 30-day written response period, although some RFIs may demand a faster response period depending upon the circumstances. Notably, the response deadline is calculated from the date stamped on the RFI itself–which may be one or two weeks before the practitioner actually receives it. In other words, two weeks of a one-month clock may have already run without the practitioner’s knowledge. This could create angst in preparing a response.
If the practitioner cannot make the deadline, then the onus is on the practitioner to contact the OED in a timely manner (usually seven days prior to the response deadline) to request an extension of time. Not all extension requests are granted, and sometimes the OED will ask for the practitioner to provide partial answers by the deadline with the balance due by the agreed-upon extension date. Extensions of time are a matter of privilege, and the OED Director has wide latitude in granting extension requests and imposing conditions for an extension of time. A recipient of an RFI who needs more time would be wise to provide the OED Director with a detailed explanation of the reasons why more time is required. Some of the more common reasons justifying an RFI response extension include the practitioner’s (or their counsel’s) travel, lack of availability due to preexisting work or family obligations, health issues, trials and hearings, delay in receiving the RFI, and the practitioner’s need for time to engage counsel.
What should an RFI response look like?
No style guidelines exist for responding to an RFI. It just has to be in writing–but it does not even need to be typed. I have seen responses that are captioned like pleadings, legal briefs, or discovery responses. Many responses are in the form of a letter. The only real formality is the requirement that the response be “wet signed” when filed–either by the practitioner being investigated (if not represented by counsel) or by the practitioner’s OED defense counsel. The signature is not under penalty of perjury. The OED is not picky about the formatting of the response and is more interested in its substance, including whether the information being provided is responsive to the requests.
A practitioner may wish to volunteer information to the OED that the request does not expressly call for. There are strategic considerations involved in deciding whether or what type of information to volunteer to the OED.
Whatever information you decide to provide, the single most important thing to remember is that the response must be truthful. OED will seek to verify the information provided, and discrepancies may be a cause for concern–including further investigation. The OED does not suffer kindly those whom it believes have misled them in an ethics investigation.
May I withhold information from OED?
That is one of the trickiest questions clients face when determining how much information to provide. Often times RFIs call for information or documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product immunity doctrine. There is no bar counsel response exception to the attorney-client privilege. Practitioners therefore must give careful consideration to whether they may produce and rely upon privileged information, or whether they are obliged to maintain the privilege. One must consider what affects a waiver of privilege might have and whether counsel under investigation may overcome a client’s privilege if necessary for the lawyer to defend themselves in an ethics investigation.
For example, in a matter where a current or former client is the grieving party, a practitioner has a right of self-defense and is generally free to rely upon what would otherwise be privileged communications in order to defend themselves in the OED investigation. But many other investigations are not prompted by a client grievance. Whether a practitioner can, or should, waive a non-grieving client’s right of confidentiality or privilege normally requires a case-specific analysis of the relevant facts and law.
Can I challenge the scope or legality of the investigation?
In litigation when a person receives an improper discovery request, they have a ready available remedy: they can seek review by an independent judicial officer, who will resolve the matter and the parties will be bound by the court’s ruling.
No judicial officer exists to police the OED Director, who is only permitted to make a “reasonable inquiry” into the matter. If a practitioner believes the OED Director’s inquiry is unreasonable, his or her “remedy” is to first file a petition with the very person who issued the inquiry at issue: the OED Director. See 37 CFR 11.2(b)(e).
Once that petition is denied (assume it will be), the practitioner must then file a second petition–this one to the USPTO Director to exercise his supervisory authority “in appropriate circumstances in disciplinary matters.” It can take several months for the petitions’ process to work its way through the system. A decision by the PTO Director denying a practitioner’s petition for review constitutes a “final agency action” which may then be reviewed by a federal district court judge.
In other words, the path to review by a judicial officer is as slow as it is burdensome, and it can be many months before a judicial officer has the opportunity to review what is essentially a discovery request. Thus, while it is possible to challenge the scope and reasonableness of an ethics investigation, care must be taken to ensure that proper internal remedies are exhausted before seeking review by a district court judge.
To whom must I report the OED investigation?
OED ethics investigations are protected by the federal Privacy Act. Indeed, because of the Privacy Act, the OED is prohibited from disclosing to the public–including clients–the facts involved, legal issues, or even the existence of a grievance or ethics investigation.
Still, practitioners who are employed may be required under the terms of their employment to disclose the grievance–especially if the grievance arises from the lawyer’s provision of legal services. Moreover, some practitioners have malpractice insurance that may provide coverage for the cost of ethics defense counsel, and if counsel owes a duty to report an ethics inquiry to their malpractice carrier depends upon the terms of the applicable insurance policy.
What will OED do when it receives my response?
The first step is for the OED to docket and review the response. The staff attorney is going to determine if the response has actually answered the questions in the RFI. A sure fire way to receive a second, or follow-up, RFI is by failing to respond fully to the questions in an initial RFI.
In addition, the staff attorney is going to be trying to verify the positions asserted in the response. The OED staff attorneys are pretty good detectives when it comes to finding alleged inaccuracies in an RFI response or inconsistencies between a response and other information. The OED will need to decide, normally within the first couple of months after receiving a practitioner’s response, whether to issue a second or subsequent RFI. It is not at all unusual for the OED staff to issue multiple RFIs in a given investigation.
The OED may use the information in the responses to determine what are the relevant facts. They will be asking: What facts are undisputed? What facts disputed? If there is a dispute of fact, what is the evidence on both sides of the dispute? Is the dispute material? What if any disciplinary rules were violated by the practitioner? Is there evidence of aggravating circumstances or mitigating circumstances? And what is the appropriate disposition of the matter?
Once the OED staff attorney has concluded his or her investigation, they will memorialize their findings and report their recommendations in a written memorandum to the OED leadership. The OED Director and his advisors will utilize this information in determining whether to close the investigation or proceed to filing a disciplinary complaint against the practitioner.
Should I agree to be interviewed by OED?
Most OED investigations are conducted solely in writing. Some staff attorneys of the OED may request that the practitioner “volunteer” to participate in a face-to-face or telephonic interview. Practitioners who are on the receiving end of such “requests” often feel that participating in an oral interview is mandatory, and the OED likes to remind them about their duty of cooperation when making such requests. However compulsive they may sound, attendance at an OED interview (just like will all business with the USPTO) “is unnecessary” and the business of the Office “should be transacted in writing.” 37 CFR 1.2.
That is not to say that practitioners should not participate in OED interviews. Whether a practitioner should or should not agree to be interviewed by the OED is a decision to be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the risks, the potential of causing more harm than good, and the possible “upside” especially for someone who is at low risk for discipline and who will otherwise present themselves credibly to the OED staff.
Should I permit OED to contact my clients?
Not infrequently OED will ask for permission to contact clients who have not filed a complaint with the bar counsel over the practitioner’s conduct. This request raises another strategic concern for the practitioner facing the request. On the one hand, practitioners want to be helpful in cooperating fully with the OED investigation. On the other hand, practitioners are (rightly) concerned of the potential for reputational harm or interference with their relationships with clients who receive unexpected phone calls from ethics counsel of the USPTO about their own attorney. Practitioners faced with such a Hobson’s Choice should consider the advantages and disadvantages of acceding to such a request in the context of the specific facts of their matter.
How will the investigation end?
An OED investigation can end in one of four ways.
The OED can terminate the investigation with no further action–the file is closed. That is considered the “best” result from a practitioner’s standpoint.
The next best termination is a termination of investigation with a private, non-disciplinary “warning” letter. The OED likes to utilize such letters in cases where the facts or law do not necessarily add up to a strong case of an ethics violation but the matter is not entirely free from doubt. Such warning letters are used to provide reminders to practitioners regarding what rules are implicated by their conduct and to sensitize the practitioner to the ethics issues.
A third way for an OED investigation to terminate is by filing a disciplinary complaint against the practitioner. The complaint, which looks like a civil or criminal complaint filed in a court action, is assigned to an administrative law judge for a merits hearing with live witness testimony. A disciplinary complaint is filed in cases involving generally more serious conduct.
A final way an investigation is terminated is by the practitioner and the OED Director entering into a “settlement” agreement. A settlement agreement, which can be entered into before or after a disciplinary complaint is filed, finally adjudicates the matters addressed with the practitioner and OED Director agreeing to some form of public sanction–either a public reprimand, a suspension from practice before the Office for a period of time, or an order “excluding” a practitioner from practice before the Office (akin to a disbarment).
How long will the investigation last?
OED investigations typically run between six and twelve months.
Should I represent myself?
That is not a good question to ask an OED defense attorney with three kids and a mortgage. But aside from my own self interest, I understand that some individuals have represented themselves before the OED and have done just fine. Still, even the existence of an ethics investigation can cause extreme anxiety. Some practitioners have neither the time nor the stomach for dealing with a government regulator who has the power to strip them of their ability to earn a living.
If can be difficult for a practitioner who is not knowledgeable about the PTO’s disciplinary rules and jurisprudence to spot the ethics issues, objectively assess their own conduct, objectively review the evidence against them, or understand the bounds of their legal exposure. Thus, as with any legal representation, those who choose to represent themselves should proceed cautiously and understand that everything they say and do before the OED may be used against them.
www.ipethicslaw.com/faqs-for-ip-practitioners-who-receive...
"His Majesty's Airship PARSEVAL, HMAS No. 6; 325,000 cuft 295 ft long, two 180 horse power Maybach Engines.[Note possible manned and armed turrets on nose and top]"
From the Bernard Smith Collection (COLL/1691) at the Archives Branch, Marine Corps History Division
OFFICIAL USMC PHOTOGRAPH
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenville,_Illinois
Greenville is a city in Bond County, Illinois, United States, 51 miles (82 km) east of St. Louis. The population as of the 2010 census was 7,000. It is the county seat of Bond County.
Greenville is part of the St. Louis Metropolitan Statistical Area. It is also considered part of the Metro East region of Illinois.
Greenville celebrated its Bicentennial in 2015 as one of the oldest communities in Illinois. It is home to Greenville University, the Richard Bock Museum, the American Farm Heritage Museum, the Armed Forces Museum and the Demoulin Museum and a federal prison, Federal Correctional Institution, Greenville (FCI Greenville). It is also home to internationally known companies, including Nevco Scoreboard, the largest privately owned scoreboard company in the world, and DeMoulin Brothers, the world's oldest and largest manufacturer of band uniforms.
Source: www.americanfarmheritagemuseum.com/about-us.html
The American Farm Heritage Museum was one man's dream. The Museum became a reality when a group of men, mostly farmers, sitting in coffee shop, talked about the dream of building a museum to preserve the farm heritage. Sixty farmers, collectors, and civic leaders held a meeting to share their ideas with the public in April of 2002. It was agreed that Bond County, being near the middle of the state and right along 1-70, would be the perfect place. Meetings were conducted, fundraisers were held, and ideas were passed around. In 2002 the land for the museum was acquired and a name for the museum was chosen.
The American Farm Heritage Museum would sit on seventeen acres, along the south side of interstate 70, just east of the Route 127 overpass. Its goal would be to promote and share the heritage of America's rural life: living, farming and travel. One very generous family purchased the land and leased it for ninety-nine years to the American Farm Heritage Museum, NFP organization. After a year of planning, the first 32'x64' building, with a gambrel roof, was completed. It was finished just days before the first Heritage Days Show in July 2004. This building, originally was to be a tractor maintenance shop, but later became known as the Lil' Red Barn Museum.
In the winter of 2005, owners of a truck terminal building in St. Louis gave the building to the Museum, if we took it down. Several members went to work and got the 200'x100' building moved and rebuilt. Since then other buildings and groups have been added to the show grounds.
We are growing with each passing year. Our Main building is the site of numerous events throughout the year. The Lil' Red Barn is a little piece of history, with collections of items from the past. In 2009 this building received the Illinois Governor's Home Town Award. The Tractor Shed displays different makes of tractors and tools of the past. Our Christmas building, which operates as a work shop and houses all the Christmas boxes for The Christmas Lights Wonderland, partners with The Lil' Red Barn, Railroad, Hill's Fort and the Armed Forces Museum to put on a spectacular Christmas display.
The American Heritage Railroad, established in 2003 is a division of the American Farm Heritage Museum. Many rail-enthusiast members realized as farms were connected by the American Railroad so should the Museum have an operating railroad for its historic value, as well as provide a fun ride for visitors. May 10, 2005 the railroad division was officially formed and an intensive search began to procure equipment. Many thousands of hours of volunteer labor, by friends of the railroad, have resulted in over a mile of 13" gauge track being laid, on the grounds. It is our desire to honor the great railroads that have served Bond County, such as the Vandalia, Nickel Plate, Pennsylvania and CB & Q. In 2005 the Ben Winter's Museum railroad was purchased which provided a G-15 diesel train set. The final move of the Ben Winter's railroad was completed in November, in three days with 20 volunteers, 9 trailers and one semi-truck. The collection has grown to include both diesel and steam engines and a variety of rolling stock. The railroad owns three steam locomotives. It is hoped the 1926 Wagner 4-4-2 steam engine will be ready for operation for the 2015 season.
2005 Hill's Fort also joined the Museum. Hill's Fort played an important part in the opening of Northwest Territory. Hill's Fort may have started as early as 1806 when early settlers first arrived. The Fort's location appears on an 1808 survey map by Capt. Isaac Hill, leader of a team commissioned by President Thomas Jefferson to survey the Illinois Territory. The Legislature fixed Hill's Fort as the temporary county seat. Earliest records are preserved from Hill's Fort and include court and marriage dockets. The Bond County seat was later moved to Perrysville and, in 1821 to Greenville, Illinois. No longer useful as a fort or county seat, Hill's Fort was abandoned and fell to ruin.
Following excruciating study of the original site, a replica of the Fort has been recreated on the grounds of the Farm Museum. It is open to the public on the 1st Saturday of the month from May through October and also open, for tours and special occasions. At Christmas time they are open Friday and Saturday nights for the Christmas lights. They dress in period dress and cook over the open fireplace in the cabin, and are eager to answer questions.
In 2012 The Armed Forces Museum, "Memories of Steel", joined our Museum. It maintains as its sole mission, to preserve these important pieces of military history. The Museum houses one of the largest collections of military vehicles in the County. It currently watches over approximately 15 privately-owned and 25 museum-owned vehicles. The members are involved in a program called "Living history" which furnishes displays of t1istoric vehicles and memorabilia and, works with re-enactors at civil events like Armed Forces Day and Veterans Day. Each of these vehicles has an historic story and plays a very important role in connecting us with the soldiers who lived and died in their service to the country.
Better than expected, just refuelled the 6.0lt monster and the figure isnt as bad as was expected. NRMA Drivers Seat.
Volunteers of the first shift of this massive Riverkeeper shoreline cleanup - September 14, 2013.
Learn more about the success of this cleanup, and how you can get involved.
Photo: Gwendolyn Chambers/Riverkeeper
(Annecy, Haute-Savoie, France)
1 photo total at Daily Travel Photo for June 16, 2011.
www.dailytravelphotos.com/archive/2011/06/16/
A small pier leads onto beautiful Annecy Lake.
Guess who's back in the old world? Ouai, c'est moi! For better or for worse, I'm back in beautiful yet expensive France for the summer, lending moral support to my missus, Lady Travelguy, who resides in the Haute-Savoie environs. Leaving Bangkok after 8 months of semi-permanent residence and an apartment to call my own was difficult, to say the least. However, the great food and city I'm leaving behind is replaced by the great food of France, primarily in the form of the best baguettes on earth and access to my own, home-cooked Korean food! And not to mention, my beautiful home away from home: Annecy.
It's gonna be a relatively exciting summer this year with trips to Paris, Taiwan, New York City, and San Francisco booked and already on the docket. So stay tuned for true daily travel photos this summer!
Follow on www.facebook.com/dailytravelphotos
The Supreme Court heard three cases on a Rule 19 Argument Docket in the Circuit Courtroom of the Mason County Courthouse in Point Pleasant on Tuesday, April 21, 2015, as part of LAWS (Legal Advancement for West Virginia Students), a Supreme Court civic education program. High school students from Mason County studied the cases ahead of time with the help of local attorneys and then came to the courthouse to hear the arguments. Photo by Jennifer Bundy
Black and white souvenir postcard from Downer Landing. Reads, at top right, "Downer Landing Boston Harbor." Includes two depictions of the gazebo on Ragged Island and one of a docket with a sailboat.
Gift of David Wylie.
In the collection of the Hingham Historical Society [2015.55.33].
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia heard five cases on two Argument Dockets at the West Virginia University College of Law on Wednesday, March 4, 2015. Photo by Jennifer Bundy
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia heard five cases on two Argument Dockets at the West Virginia University College of Law on Wednesday, March 4, 2015. Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman, left, and Justice Brent D. Benjamin listen to arguments. Photo by Jennifer Bundy
The legal needs of our men and women in uniform were front and center for the launch of the Baltimore City District Court Veterans Treatment Docket on October 13, 2015, at the Eastside Courthouse in Baltimore. The Honorable Halee F. Weinstein, herself a U.S. Army veteran, presided over the docket, the first District Court docket of its kind in the state. Attending luminaries included Chief Judge John P. Morrissey, District Court of Maryland; Dr. Adam M. Robinson, Jr., Director of the VA Maryland Health Care System; and Major General Linda L. Singh, Adjutant General of the Maryland National Guard.
Riverkeeper and members of the HSBC Water Programme, tour the Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant on World Water Day. Read the blog post about the day.
The bicyle is on the back of a docket - it was the only paper I had while waiting for my son to arrive at the cafe. The rest is some sketching at Deep Water Point, not far from home.
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia heard five cases on two Argument Dockets at the West Virginia University College of Law on Wednesday, March 4, 2015. Senior Status Justice Thomas E. McHugh, second from right, sat on one of the cases due to the recusal of Justice Brent D. Benjamin. Photo by Jennifer Bundy
After a great christmas holiday in Hamburg, Germany I rather quickly return to what is fast becoming one of my favorite cities and finding here is where winter has docket!
Twitter: tehaha Portfolio: www.ahaphotography.net
This is a Nissan GT-R34 MINE respec V tricked out to 9.9 speed, and 9's for acceleration and launch, handling can be increased with front splitter and rear spoiler but this baby is built for breaking 400kph, which it does, regularly. Faster than the famed Astin Martin Lola on a stretch with the beautiful roar of a stock car engine mixed with the whines and appropriate hisses of twin racing turbos.
No punches were pulled on this baby, and in true suicide machine fashion a roll cage was left out to minimise weight. Carbon fiber racing parts are a BPR creation, inspired in part by the Nissan V8 Supercar Safety Car, with attention to detail from general electrical certification docket to towing tag, from grey plastic inserts undermounting the front lights through to to-the-pixel clean lines thanks to my 60" plasma and spending the night on my knees in front of it.
This baby is almost complete, a sneak peek of the (yet unfinished) project for gear4gamers.com can be found by searching the Forza storefront for 'gear4gamers.com', the design is up in the state it's in atm and free to download, hence the meaning of the word give-away I'd guess!
Editors' Note: Image is courtesy of Missouri City and shows a Tower and Signwall conceptual option for the Texas Parkway/Cartwright Road Beautification Project.
At their regularly scheduled meeting held on Monday, April 19, City Council approved expanding a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone for additional improvements along Texas Parkway and Cartwright Road, approved changes to the Municipal Court schedule to enhance services for the public and recognized the City for winning the Houston Business Journal's Landmark Award for "Best Community Impact".
Here are some actions taken at the meeting:
*Approved a resolution enlarging the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One to include additional projects along the Texas Parkway/Cartwright Road Corridor. The project includes:
*Infrastructure improvements
*Acquisition of rights-of-way
*Reimbursements to landowners for making tracts ready for development
*Phase I of the redevelopment plan includes:
*The addition of sidewalks along a portion of Texas Parkway and at the entrance to City Hall
*Improvements to the intersections at Texas Parkway and Buffalo Run, Lexington, Grand Park and Independence Boulevard
*Improved medians along Cartwright Road
*Phase II will include:
*Signage and improvements to the Highway 90A/Texas Parkway gateway area into the City. Conceptual plans for the intersection include a 28-foot-tall tower with LED lighting and a wall that arcs along the area, with the City's name and logo in mosaic tile inserts
*Completion of sidewalks along Texas Parkway
*Improvement of sidewalks along Cartwright Road
*Addition of trailheads and small plaza areas along the two corridors
Work on the first phase of the project is expected to begin around the end of May, with bids going out next week.
The second phase will begin in the summer.
The expansion of the TIRZ was previously approved by the Missouri City Development Authority and Fort Bend County. It was based on a study by George Johnson, Inc., which included almost one year of input from the public and stakeholders.
The project will be funded through monies currently in the existing TIRZ and Texas Department of Transportation grant funds will pay for portions of the beautification project, including the 28-foot-tall tower. Additional improvements will be funded through a "pay-as-you-go" approach, with no impact on the current City budget. City Manager Frank Simpson said at the Council meeting, "If private developers step forward, they will be reimbursed for the value that is added to the area, which is the purpose of the TIRZ."
*Approved changes to the Municipal Court schedule to make it "more efficient and effective" in meeting the needs of residents. The adjustments included making two temporary judges associate judges, revising the judges' compensation structure accordingly, and authorizing the Court Administrator, working with the judges, to implement the court docket. The modifications will give the public more flexibility in arranging court appearances, making it more convenient for individuals to come to court at different times of the day or week.
*Honored the City for winning the Houston Business Journal's 2010 Landmark Award for "Community Impact" for the Quail Valley Parks Project, emphasizing the social, environmental and economic importance of the project to the City, Fort Bend County and the Houston area. The award was announced on Tuesday, April 6 at the Journal's 10th Annual Landmark Awards banquet, which honored winners in 16 categories for the functionality and beauty of their buildings and/or developments. "This shows that those outside Missouri City know what this 400 acres of parkland means to the City," said Mayor Allen Owen. "I think it's another feather in our cap with our other parks projects."
*Approved an ordinance authorizing the refund of about $4.8 million in certificates and bonds, which will save a total of about $267,000 or around $38,000 a year over the next seven years. The transaction is expected to be completed by mid-May. The City's favorable credit rating in the bond market allowed it to take advantage of the opportunity to reduce the bond debt for the next eight to nine years remaining on the bond.
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia heard five cases on two Argument Dockets at the West Virginia University College of Law on Wednesday, March 4, 2015. Photo by Jennifer Bundy
N277WA
MD-11
WOA
KBWI
NTSB Identification: ANC05IA064.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Nonscheduled 14 CFR operation of WORLD AIRWAYS INC (D.B.A. World Airways)
Incident occurred Thursday, April 28, 2005 in Anchorage, AK
Probable Cause Approval Date: 06/28/2006
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas MD-11, registration: N277WA
Injuries: 201 Uninjured.
The flight crew was conducting an international passenger flight under Title 14, CFR Part 121, when they smelled and saw smoke in the cockpit. The pilot declared an emergency, and diverted to the nearest airport, where the airplane landed without incident. According to the flight crew, just prior to the smell and smoke, there was a crew change that required the cockpit security door to be opened and closed. An examination of the security door by maintenance personnel and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge (IIC) revealed an excess length of wiring, which provides power to the electrically locking security door, was laying atop the door's metal-encased, unshielded, locking solenoid inside the doorframe. Several of the wires were encased in a plastic anti-chafe mesh. A portion of the mesh was melted, and had the smell of burnt plastic. During a discussion with the IIC, a mechanic said he had seen similar doors overheat when the door and frame were misaligned, prohibiting full extension of the locking bolt. The cockpit door was modified in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01391LA, which meets the FAA's requirements for a reinforced cockpit door. The door uses a "demand access" electrically operated door latching solenoid. The door manufacturer issued an addendum to the airplane manufacturer's maintenance manual. The addendum includes removal, installation, and system tests of the striker/solenoid unit. The installation section does not specifically address the issue of securing excess wiring located above the striker/solenoid within the doorframe. The installation instructions do contain a "caution," referencing the need for the security bolt to engage fully. Failure of the bolt to fully engage will cause the solenoid to remain energized and overheat. Construction of the striker/solenoid assembly is such that the metal-encased electrical coil of the unshielded solenoid is the upper-most portion of the assembly within the doorframe. The installation includes a warning light that illuminates if the solenoid does not shut off. The crew did not report seeing the warning light in-flight, and the light and locking mechanism functioned properly during subsequent tests on the ground; it was not tested in-flight. The conversion of the door was completed on March 21, 2003. Prior to the incident, the new security door had been in service about 16,416 flight hours, and 1170 cycles. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 65-15A, Chapter 11, covers practices and procedures for the installation and maintenance of aircraft electrical wiring. The AC notes that practices and procedures outlined in this section are general recommendations, and are not intended to replace the manufacturer's instructions. Chapter 11, page 441, Slack in Wiring Bundles, states: "Single wires or wire bundles should not be installed with excessive slack." Page 442, Routing and Installations, states: "All wires and wire groups should be routed and installed to protect them from: (2) high temperatures."
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this incident to be:
The inadequate installation of the cockpit security door locking device, which resulted in smoke in the cockpit during normal cruise, and a precautionary landing. A factor associated with the incident was the manufacturer's insufficiently defined installation instructions.
Small Claims suit brought against Dr. Tracey Keefe of Canton Valley Dental. Dr. Keefe refused to remove the known carcinogens she placed in my mouth after I experienced swelling and tumors in my jawbone following the installation of her work and snarled at me that she "doesn't wake up and go to work every day to help people," she "wakes up every day and goes to work to make money!"
Buyer Beware: There are NO refunds and NO returns at Canton Valley Dental. You get what THEY decide to give you.
She actually had her attorneys motion this claim to the regular docket after telling me that I would NEVER be able to prove that her cheap "economy" dental carcinogens cause cancer.
Do you think I did?
I'll let you be the judge...
Read the story here:
danaherbert.blogspot.com/2015/03/dental-causes-of-chronic...
just noticed we had a balcony in work, so what better way to enjoy my sunday shift in work than to head out there on my tea break and snap away.
ps it was bloody scary as i'm pertrified of heights
this was also done freehand, i forgot my tripod.
After some significant challenges — tracking down whether the problem was software or hardware, tracking down which software was bad, and finally correcting the software — "Moira" our 3D printer is up and running again.
So the backlog of models from last spring, when she stopped working, is now back on the docket.
wallpaper at flickr farm4.static.flickr.com/3029/2384119276_68280cbf11_b.jpg
im: digsby
sidebar : aero
dock bottom: object dock
dock top left: y'z docket
system tray, task list, photo slidshow: podxp
hey friends!
i figured it's been a while since i've shown my face around these parts. what's up with you all? i'm just hanging out in my backyard spraypainting some reused tomato cans that i salvaged from the recycling bin at my neighborhood cafe. tomorrow, i'll be filling these with plants and attaching them to the side of my garage.
also on the docket for this weekend:
...more gardening, hopefully planting potatoes and maybe zucchini
...farmer's market
...hanging out with one of my best friends who's in town for a couple of days
...tasting possible wedding cakes
...looking for fabric for the grooms/groomsmen's ties
...finding a dress to wear to my shower next weekend
...getting ready for my trip to nyc.
what are you all up to this weekend?
(oh yeah, and the best part of this weekend? it's the beginning of a whole week of vacation!)
The first shift gets busy at this massive Riverkeeper shoreline cleanup on September 14, 2013.
Learn more about the success of this cleanup, and how you can get involved.
Photo: Gwendolyn Chambers/Riverkeeper