View allAll Photos Tagged docket
Lamson cash system. Individual sales persons would put cash and dockets in the wooden container and send it along the wire to the cashier who would then send back the correct change. Old Tailem Town.
I never knew Brendan Scanlon, but over the last few months I’ve met his parents, a few of his friends, and I’ve known the art of SOLVE from around the city for quite a while. I’ll never know the pain and sorrow felt by those people over the senseless acts that took Brendan from our midst, but coming to care about those I’ve met quite strongly, and reading more about the incident in the newspaper (since the trial of his alleged murderer has once again made it to the docket after numerous postponements and delays) I was totally moved when I visited the alley where it happened. I knew there were a few pieces of art there made in memory of Brendan, but they really moved me when I stood with them. Admittedly, writing this and posting photos feels a little exploitative since I wasn’t directly affected when the incident occurred, but I started thinking today about the ways I (and perhaps you) have felt an impact; from my new friends’ sorrow and dismay over having to revisit the events as the trial reengages to our city’s void of SOLVE’s art—something I wish dearly I could’ve seen more of--and that he would’ve been around as I became more involved in documenting Chicago’s street art scene and got to meet some really great people along the way. I knew others had lost that night, but until today I didn’t really realize how much we were all missing. I don’t imagine I can be of much comfort to the great people I've met who had Brendan ripped out of their lives, but I’m going to work my ass off to document of as much of his work as I can find. Rest in Peace, Brendan.
They could do with training their staff in how to be nice. He was totally charmless.
We went upstairs for dinner at 7 last night and I was not impressed. First of all, while our waitress was polite, and managed to rattle off all the specials which were written on the back of her docket book, she was not totally familiar with the beer menu. My partner was given the choice of ordering either a half or a pint of Timothy Taylor's Landlord, available only in a bottle. I was confused because I thought maybe it was a guest ale so she was confused when a large bottle arrived, having asked for a half. Once we placed our order, we did not have any further contact with the waitress till it came to settling the bill, which left us feeling as if we were not a priority really. I mentioned that the salmon starter I ordered could really have done with some more horseradish in the dressing but I don't think that was fed back anywhere. I was also bemused when one of the managers, wearing a dark checked shirt, cleared my empty beer glass away, without giving me an opportunity to order another one. And when I asked the runner who brought us our mains for a pint, I went a full 15 minutes without receiving a drop. I eventually got one from the manager but there was no real apology forth coming.
The food, apart from the starter was good but it was noticeable that the service changed once the dining room filled up. And I really get annoyed when people ask if everything was alright while clearing the table - what if it wasn't, as in the case of the starter? I was not willing to pay the £9 service charge at the end because we never got the level of attention I expected for that price.
There's a pizzeria nearby, so maybe next time, we'll just pop in and admire the decor while having a pint and then head off for a pizza. Our expectations will be meet there.
I heard back from Gordon's Operations manager, having emailed them last week, and I was eventually offered a complimentary bottle of champagne when I next visit - yes, I was under whelmed with that response as well.
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. From left, Justice Menis E. Ketchum, Justice Robin Jean Davis, and Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman listen to arguments. Photo by Jennifer Bundy
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.
E-Bay seller's note on listing: "Cover from Post Office Department to PM at Ann Arbour. Based on the postmark this cover is circa 1825. The contents are gone but the docketing reads 'P. O. Department Notice given given of Complaint of Powers relative to Packages being taken out at this office'. The post office at Ann Arbor was established December 8, 1824." Listed on eBay on July 9, 2014, in a "buy-it-now" sale, for $100.00.
So farm season's in full swing and I've been doing some very lame cooking with it, so it seems like a good time to break out the "30 Days of Dinner" challenge again. I had every intention of grilling tonight, with turkey burgers on the docket, but the US-Belgium game went (ludicrously) into extra time, so it was juuuuuuust late enough when I got started with dinner prep to not want to deal with lighting the grill. So my "kick myself in the butt to be more creative by documenting our every dinner" inaugural entry is... what I've been making pretty much every day since the scape harvest: pasta with scape-and-basil pesto. For added interest and farmshare consumption, tonight's toss-in was sauteed zucchini and broccoli, rather than our standby of chicken. The game also ended juuuuust early enough that I had enough get-up-and-go to make salads on the side, using up some farmshare lettuce, radicchio, scallions, and cucumber. While it was uninspired, it did feel nice to pull so many different types of veggies out of the fridge. It's well and truly summer now!
--Schn.
My day was hurried. My phone died just after I pressed snooze this morning so I woke late and had to rush to get ready in time for work. When I arrived at the office I learned that I had an interview in the afternoon, for which I was not prepared or dressed and I had scheduled a full day of home visits with clients. I ran home for an early lunch to change into more appropriate interview attire and brush up on the job description, then ran around to see my clients, back to the office for an interview, closed things up, ran over to pick up my son, got him home in time to jump in the car to go for my free massage. The massage was wonderful but I arrived home at 7:15 and the money I had left for the guys to buy pizza for dinner was still where I left it and they were sitting in front of the computer and phone respectively, playing cut the rope and watching Zappa videos. "bonding" my partner said. I am not a big pizza fan so I ordered a pasta dish and a pizza for the boys. When the driver arrived there was only a pizza. I phoned and asked for my pasta and she said they would send another. 45 minutes later I phoned again. This time the man on the other end said he didn't have a docket with my address. When he finally found it he said it was only for pizza. Finally after the delivery driver returned to the restaurant and explained, they realised that I had in fact ordered and paid for pasta and pizza. My pasta arrived at 9:15 and I was thrilled, my grumbling tummy excited for the olives, cashew nuts, and sundried tomatoes it was about to experience, and when I opened up the box, it was the wrong pasta! ravioli filled with cheese which I can't eat tossed with spinach and tomatoes. At that point I had to laugh. Thank you for the opportunity to sit back and laugh and say bless to the Cuban pizza guys who just couldn't get it together tonight. I've had off days too.
I attended the Barrett Jackson Spring 2025 Car Show at WestWorld in Scottsdale with my son.
This lift vendor is showcasing their lift with a 1965 Shelby Cobra. I believe it's a 289. Any help or correction with the identification will be appreciated.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_Cobra
The AC Cobra, sold in the United States as the Shelby Cobra and AC Shelby Cobra, is a sports car manufactured by British company AC Cars, with a Ford V8 engine. It was produced intermittently in both the United Kingdom and later the United States since 1962.
Like many British manufacturers, AC Cars had been using the Bristol straight-6 engine in its small-volume production, including its AC Ace two-seater roadster. The Ace had a hand-built body with a steel tube frame, and aluminium body panels that were made using English wheeling machines. The engine was a pre-World War II design by BMW which by the 1960s was considered dated. In 1961 Bristol decided to cease production of its engine.
In September 1961, Ford provided Shelby with two engines.
AC exported completed, painted, and trimmed cars (less engine and gearbox) to Shelby who then finished the cars in his workshop in Los Angeles by installing the engine and gearbox and correcting any bodywork flaws
finance.yahoo.com/news/barrett-jackson-kicks-off-2025-215...
"Barrett-Jackson delivered many magical experiences for everyone who joined us in Scottsdale," said Steve Davis, president of Barrett-Jackson. "From the excitement of the auction block to the thrill rides, exhibits, STEM Fest and live music, there was truly something that everyone in the family could enjoy. We filled our docket with so much diversity that collectors from every walk of life found something they loved. We stay on top of the trends and consign the vehicles that people want, proving once again that the car collector hobby is thriving. Those trends include the growing popularity of Resto-Mods, SUVs and trucks, which are gaining momentum because they appeal to such a broad cross section of people. Iâm especially proud of our support for important charities again this year. We not only raised millions of dollars but also critical awareness that will help make a positive impact on so many communities."
www.classic-car-auctions.info/usa/scottsdale/2025-barrett...
In 2025, Barrett-Jackson earned $198 million by selling 2013 car lots and $5.2 million from 957 pieces of automobilia. A further $6.2 million was raised for charity.
The first production 2025 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 VIN001 achieved $3.7 million as a charity lot and the highest result at the Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale 2025 collector car auction in Arizona, USA. The most expensive regular lots were a 2023 Hennessey Venom F5 Roadster ($2,200,000) and a 2014 Pagani Huayra ($1,925,000). DJ Marshmello's 2020 Ford GT Liquid Carbon Special Edition achieved a strong $1,780,000.
The top four results at the Barrett-Jackson Scottsdale 2025 collector car auction were all for modern supercars. The top result was for charity (see below) while the most expensive regular car in the sale was for the nearly new 2023 Hennessy Venom F5 Roadster. This F5 Roadster was the second of only 30 produced and was sold with only 681 miles on the clock.
Special car
Barrett Jackson 2025
Where I started work after leaving school, my first job. Borrowed many plans from here over the 3 1/2years I was there..
Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board.
Was at Head Office for a few weeks during early training before we were let loose into a drawing office, I went down to 414 Pitt St. under Kevin Seaton, in the Detail Section. Drawing maps of suburbs at 40ft to and Inch, if I remember correctly. I still have a log book of all the drawings I completed, so will look them up!
see the Head Office Heritage classification..
www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDe...
I've been a fan as long as I can remember, through the not-so-good, to great, and then downright bad years. And now, they are back to approaching great again. Big games of 'American Football' on the docket Sunday afternoon. I am most definitely passionate about sport, especially 'my teams.' The Niners are one of them. Can't wait!
Captured with Camera+, processed with Snapseed on my iPhone 5. Watermark added in Aperture.
{Lightbox - I like it, but I'm biased! - Check it out by typing L}
Thank you for stopping by, looking and commenting. I'll be wading into your 'stream as well.
The deadline for submission of written comments on the dockets listed below is 5pm, Monday, March 3.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2014
PUBLIC HEARING: 1:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER (CITY HALL - 1E07)
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 16 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE #4264 M.C.S., AS AMENDED, WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 11, 2014 IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER (CITY HALL - 1E07) ON THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING LAW OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
ZONING DOCKET 022/14 – Request by 3021 ST CLAUDE LLC for a Conditional Use to permit a cocktail lounge in a B-1A Neighborhood Business District on Square 400, Lot 4 Pt. 3 R Pt. 14 and 15 or Lot 19, in the Third Municipal District, bounded by Saint Claude Avenue, Feliciana, Montegut, and Marais Streets. The municipal addresses are 3021-3023 SAINT CLAUDE AVENUE. (PD 7)
ZONING DOCKET 023/14 – Request by COLEMAN E. ADLER II for a Conditional Use to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in a retail establishment with a floor area of less than 25,000 square feet in a CBD-3 Central Business District on Square 67, Lots A or A 1, 2, and E, in the Second Municipal District, bounded by Canal, Bourbon, Dauphine and Iberville Streets. The municipal addresses are 801-807 CANAL STREET. (PD 1A)
ZONING DOCKET 024/14 – Request by GAMMA RHO FOUNDATION, INC for a Conditional Use to permit a private club in an RD-2 Two-Family Residential District on Square 234/Pt. Square 259, Lot T-2, in the Fifth Municipal District, bounded by L.B. Landry Avenue, Lawrence Street, Leboeuf Street, and the Crescent City Connection/Westbank Expressway. The municipal address is 1601 L.B. LANDRY AVENUE. (PD 12)
PICTURED:
ZONING DOCKET 025/14 – Request by RICHARD H. SMOTHERS for a Conditional Use to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off-premises at a retail grocery store in a B-1 Neighborhood Business District, on Square 238, Lot 14, in the First Municipal District, bounded by North Prieur, St. Ann, North Roman Streets and Orleans Avenue. The municipal address is 1921 ORLEANS AVENUE. (PD 4)
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 16 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE 4264 MCS AS AMENDED, WILL HEAR ALL PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS TO THE ABOVE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING LAW OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND AND ALL RELEVANT COMMENTS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE ENCOURAGED. YOU MAY ALSO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IN ADVANCE BY MAIL (1300 PERDIDO STREET, 7TH FLOOR, NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112) OR EMAIL CPCINFO@NOLA.GOV. ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE MONDAY, EIGHT DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE.
Robert Rivers, Executive Director
From veterans’ treatment dockets to law practice technology, the 2016 Joint Bench/Bar Conference, held June 15-18 in Ocean City, Maryland, offered educational programming to suit any practice area or interest.
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!
West Virginia University College of Law students listen to a Supreme Court Argument Docket in the college's Marlyn E. Lugar Courtroom on March 1, 2016. Photo by Jennifer Bundy
MJ and Alma Moodabe's three sons, Royce Moodabe (born 1937), Joseph Patrick Moodabe (1940? – 8 December 2019) and Michael Barry Joseph Moodabe (15 December 1932 – 3 September 2009) grew up in Epsom, Auckland and were educated at St Peter's College. The three sons used to visit their father's office in the Civic Theatre, Queen Street as they grew up, all were "promised a desk in the corner of that room and their father's supervision". However, each actually began "as office boy out the back, tediously filing admission receipt dockets until they learnt to carve their own niche". They were employed in Amalgamated Theatres from when they left school in the late 1950s. On the retirement of their father and uncle, Royce became managing director and Joseph and Michael had management roles. They continued to be involved in the management of the chain from the 1960s to the 1980s. The owner of the chain, 20th Century Fox sold out in the 1980s to the Chase Corporation and then the chain came into the ownership of Hoyts which continued to employ the brothers in senior management positions. Royce Moodabe became general manager of Hoyts Australian circuit. He retired in 2006 after 57 years in the business. In 1997 Joe Moodabe joined Village Force Cinemas " ... which, as general manager, he built into the "country's biggest cinema chain". In 2006 the chain became wholly owned by SkyCity and was renamed SkyCity Cinemas. Joe Moodabe became executive chairman of an in-house board that oversaw developments in the cinema business. He died on 8 December 2019.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moodabe_family
Plot 8: Michael Barry Joseph Moodabe (76) 3/9/2009 – Executive Chairman
unmarked grave
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.
Page # 137 from an old court docket book from March 1859 indicating a ruling of promissory note fraud ($40). You can see that a "summary for appearance" was issued in the then "Village of Berea" (OH) and delivered to the constable Robert Wallace. The total court costs for this case were $1.60. The two names shown in the upper left of the page are prominent names in Berea, OH and there exists today streets in the city by those names (Root Rd & Engle Rd).
For me, this is the Golden Song of Creed, and the message is powerful and shares truth.
This song rocks. To the person wondering what life is all about - it's about a person trapped by their own mistakes (sins created my own prison), their repentance ("alone I drop and kneel"), and realization that only Christ's sacrifice can help them escape. He's in prison, about to stand trial before God himself: "a court is in session, a verdict is in - no appeal on the docket today - just my own sin"
He then sees Christ's sacrifice - I hear a thunder in the distance, see a vision of a cross
I feel the pain that was given, on that sad day of loss
Only Christ holds the key to his prison and death:
"a lion roars in the darkness only he holds the key"
The lion is Christ. Christ defeated death and only he possesses the key.
Revelation 5:5 - Jesus was the 'sacrificial Lamb' and the 'Lion of Judah'.
Watch in HD on YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/DragonflyDragonfly
Im very pleased with this portrait of the Rootsman and Da Bo. General. I think it captures the sense of fun and friendship between them.
I was sorry to miss them on Sat last, but i managed to catch up with the lads for a swift pint in the Crown.
I look forward to their return visit, possibly in May (to be confirmed)
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.