Jadwal Pertandingan Bola 1 Maret 2012

Jadwal Bola 01 Maret 2012 ini akan di paparkan secara lengkap oleh davitblog, jadi untuk para pembaca davitblog khususnya atau para pemain taruhan yg sedang gila bola bisa mengetahui jadwal pertandingan bola 1 Maret 2012. Jadwal Bola 1 Maret 2012 memang ada pertandingan yang sangat menarik yaitu dari Inggris vs Belanda jadi so pasti kalian tidak akan melewatkan pertandingan yg ada di jadwal bola 01 Maret 2012 ini davitblog awaspinter. .Read More >>

Social Security DIB Review Standards

The scope of this Court's review is generally limited to determining whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards, McRoberts v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir. 1988), and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. See also Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971). The Commissioner's findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is defined as more than a scintilla—i.e., the evidence must do more than merely create a suspicion of the existence of a fact, and must include such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion. Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Walden v. Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835, 838 (11th Cir. 1982)).




Where the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the Court will affirm, even if the reviewer would have reached a contrary result as finder of fact, and even if the reviewer finds that the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's decision. Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 n.3 (11th Cir. 1991); Barnes v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1991). The district court must view the evidence as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the decision. Foote, 67 F.3d at 1560.



The Commissioner must apply the correct law and demonstrate that he has done so. While the Court reviews the Commissioner's decision with deference to the factual findings, no such deference is given to the legal conclusions. Keeton v. Dep't of Health & Human Serv's., 21 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 1994) (citing Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145 (11th Cir. 1991)). Therefore, in determining whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the reviewing court must not re-weigh the evidence, but must determine whether the record, as a whole, contains sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable mind to conclude that the plaintiff is not disabled. Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983).



As in all Social Security disability cases, Plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving disability, and is responsible for furnishing or identifying medical and other evidence regarding her impairments. Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146 n.5; Carnes v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1215, 1218 (11th Cir. 1991); McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617, 619 (11th Cir. 1987); 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5) ("[a]n individual shall not be considered to be under a disability unless he [or she] furnishes such medical and other evidence of the existence thereof as the Commissioner of Social Security may require."). It is a plaintiff's burden to provide the relevant medical and other evidence that he or she believes will prove they suffer from disabling physical or mental functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.704.

GENWRIGHT v. Astrue, Dist. Court, MD Florida 2012

Using Social Media can get you sued

Using Social Media for Hiring Can Get you Sued


By Guest Writer on February 27, 2012 6:02 AM
No TrackBacks

Guest post by Jennifer K. Halford, Esq.



I recently overheard two job seekers speaking about their plans to ensure that their LinkedIn and Facebook profiles are "employer appropriate."



It is not surprising that there has been an increase in the number of employers, particularly small business owners, who screen candidates' social medial profiles. Small business owners want to ensure that the individuals they hire are right for their business.



It takes time, resources, and money to hire and train someone. A profile may reveal photos of a candidate partying, abusing illegal substances, or engaging in other questionable behavior. The information is readily available and free. It could help you avoid hiring someone who is not the right fit for your business.

Yet, it is important to realize that using social media to screen applicants can also get you sued. Laws prohibiting discrimination apply to all stages of the hiring process, including applicant screenings.



In order to protect your business from lawsuits, remember these three things:



1. Know what you are entitled to know: You may learn information about a candidate from social media that you cannot ask about in a job interview. For instance, a posting on a candidate's profile may reveal his religious beliefs. But beware - the same discrimination laws apply. If you can't ask about it, you should not be looking for it. And you cannot use that information when making your hiring decisions.



2. Avoid the appearance of discrimination: Make a checklist of qualifications based upon the job description . Look for the same qualifications on the social media sites of all applicants.



3. Keep good records : Keep detailed records of why you decided to hire, or not to hire, a candidate. It may take you a few extra minutes to put in writing the non-discriminatory reasons for your decision. However, you will be thankful you did if a question ever arises about your screening process.



Jennifer K. Halford is an attorney whose practice focuses on business law and estate planning. She is also a professor at California State University, Chico, where she teaches Entrepreneurial Law.


http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2012/02/using-social-media-for-hiring-can-get-you-sued.html?DCMP=NWL-cons_humanresource

FBI NAILS TRAVELING VICE LORDS LEADER

U.S. Jury Convicts Street Gang Leader of Federal Drug Charges




U.S. Attorney’s Office

February 24, 2012 Northern District of Illinois

(312) 353-5300







— filed under: Organized Crime/Drugs, Press Release

CHICAGO—The leader of a west side drug trafficking conspiracy operated by members and associates of the Traveling Vice Lords street gang was convicted by a jury yesterday of federal narcotics charges following a trial in U.S. District Court. Jason Austin, 29, of Chicago, was found guilty of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin and five counts of distributing crack cocaine after several hours of deliberation late Wednesday and yesterday. The trial began Feb. 14.



Austin, who has been in federal custody since November 2010, faces a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison on each count. U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow set sentencing for June 29.



Austin and 30 other members and associates of the Traveling Vice Lords were arrested in November 2010 as part of Operation Blue Knight, which focused on around-the-clock retail street sales of crack cocaine and heroin in the area of Kedzie Avenue and Ohio Street, known as “KO.” Significant amounts of crack cocaine and heroin were seized during the two-year investigation, which the Chicago Police Department’s Organized Crime Division began in 2008 and the Federal Bureau of Investigation joined several months later.



Today’s verdict was announced by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois; Garry McCarthy, Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department; and Robert D. Grant, Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The investigation was conducted under the umbrella of U.S. Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), and with assistance from the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force (HIDTA).



The evidence at trial showed that Austin, also known as “J Rock,” conspired with others to distribute crack cocaine, known as “rocks,” and heroin, known as “blows,” to customers via hand-to-hand transactions in the “KO.” The heroin, named “Blue Magic,” alone accounted for as much as $8,000 a day in sales, between approximately 6 a.m. and 11 p.m., seven days a week. During the investigation, law enforcement officers repeatedly surveilled the conduct of co-conspirators at KO. Surveillance, often video recorded, observed hand-to-hand drug transactions, controlled purchases of narcotics by undercover Chicago police officers, and controlled purchases of narcotics by confidential sources.



The government is being represented by Assistant United States Attorneys Maribel Fernandez-Harvath and Matthew Madden.

Social Security Disability Standards

We continue our SS discussion by examining the Applicable Legal Standards

for a Disability Claim:
To qualify for DIB, a claimant must be disabled within the meaning of the applicable statutes. For these purposes, "disabled" means the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A) and 1382c(a)(3)(A). A "physical or mental impairment" is an impairment resulting from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3) and 1382c(a)(3)(C). "Substantial gainful activity" is work activity that involves doing significant physical or mental activities, and that is done for pay or profit. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1572.


Social Security regulations set forth a sequential five-step inquiry to determine whether a claimant is disabled. It must be determined: (1) whether the claimant is presently unemployed; (2) whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that is serious; (3) whether the impairments meet or equal one of the listed impairments acknowledged to be conclusively disabling; (4) whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing any work within the economy, given his or her age, education and work experience. Schroeter v. Sullivan, 977 F.2d 391, 393 (7th Cir. 1992); see also, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b-f).


Douglas v. Astrue, Dist. Court, SD Illinois 2012SUSAN DOUGLAS, Plaintiff,


v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

No. 11-175-CJP., United States District Court, S.D. Illinois.

SSI Disability = leading case = Polaski

This leading case sets forth the standards used by a ALJ is evaluating a claimants case on an DIB/SSI Claim:
 
relevant standard is as follows:


A claimant has the burden of proving that the disability results from a medically determinable physical or mental impairment. Symptoms such as pain, shortness of breath, weakness, or nervousness are the individual's own perceptions of the effects of a physical or mental impairment(s). Because of their subjective characteristics and the absence of 1322*1322 any reliable techniques for measurement, symptoms (especially pain) are difficult to prove, disprove, or quantify. As a result of this difficulty, some adjudicators have misinterpreted the Secretary's policies as enunciated in SSR-82-58.

In particular, some adjudicators may have misinterpreted Example No. 2 in SSR-82-58 to allow allegations of pain to be disregarded solely because the allegations are not fully corroborated by objective medical findings typically associated with pain. The example should not be construed to be inconsistent with the text of SSR-82-58 which states in part:

The effects of symptoms must be considered in terms of any additional physical or mental restrictions they may impose beyond those clearly demonstrated by the objective physical manifestations of disorders. Symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater severity of impairment than is demonstrated by objective and medical findings alone.

While the claimant has the burden of proving that the disability results from a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, direct medical evidence of the cause and effect relationship between the impairment and the degree of claimant's subjective complaints need not be produced. The adjudicator may not disregard a claimant's subjective complaints solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them.

The absence of an objective medical basis which supports the degree of severity of subjective complaints alleged is just one factor to be considered in evaluating the credibility of the testimony and complaints. The adjudicator must give full consideration to all of the evidence presented relating to subjective complaints, including the claimant's prior work record, and observations by third parties and treating and examining physicians relating to such matters as:

1. the claimant's daily activities;

2. the duration, frequency and intensity of the pain;

3. precipitating and aggravating factors;

4. dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication;

5. functional restrictions.

The adjudicator is not free to accept or reject the claimant's subjective complaints solely on the basis of personal observations. Subjective complaints may be discounted if there are inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole. [Emphasis in original.]
Lorraine POLASKI, et al., Appellees, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellant, 739 F.2d 1320 (1984)

Discussing the Polaski Factors

When discounting a claimant's complaint of pain, the ALJ must make a specific credibility determination, articulating the reasons for discrediting the testimony, addressing any inconsistencies, and discussing the Polaski factors. See Baker v. Apfel, 159 F.3d 1140, 1144 (8th Cir. 1998)


JAMES K. EASON, Plaintiff,


v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.

Civil No. 4:10-cv-04173.

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division.



February 13, 20

The Polaski Factors

When evaluating, an ALJ will use the following case law:

A claimant has the burden of proving that the disability results from a medically determinable physical or mental impairment. Symptoms such as pain, shortness of breath, weakness, or nervousness are the individual's own perceptions of the effects of a physical or mental impairment(s). Because of their subjective characteristics and the absence of 1322*1322 any reliable techniques for measurement, symptoms (especially pain) are difficult to prove, disprove, or quantify. As a result of this difficulty, some adjudicators have misinterpreted the Secretary's policies as enunciated in SSR-82-58.



The absence of an objective medical basis which supports the degree of severity of subjective complaints alleged is just one factor to be considered in evaluating the credibility of the testimony and complaints. The adjudicator must give full consideration to all of the evidence presented relating to subjective complaints, including the claimant's prior work record, and observations by third parties and treating and examining physicians relating to such matters as:


1. the claimant's daily activities;

2. the duration, frequency and intensity of the pain;

3. precipitating and aggravating factors;

4. dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication;

5. functional restrictions.

The adjudicator is not free to accept or reject the claimant's subjective complaints solely on the basis of personal observations. Subjective complaints may be discounted if there are inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole. [Emphasis in original.

739 F.2d 1320 (1984)


Lorraine POLASKI, et al., Appellees,

v.

Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellant.


 

Assessing the credibility of a claimant for DIB, SSI

We continue in our examination of the Five Step Process used in SSI Disability Hearings:

In assessing the credibility of a claimant, the ALJ is required to examine and to apply the five factors from Polaski v. Heckler or from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929.[2] See Shultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (2007). The factors to consider are as follows: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) the precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) the functional restrictions. See Polaski, 739 at 1322. The factors must be analyzed and considered in light of the claimant's subjective complaints of pain. See id. The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant's subjective complaints. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2000). As long as the ALJ properly applies these five factors and gives several valid reasons for finding that the Plaintiff's subjective complaints are not entirely credible, the ALJ's credibility determination is entitled to deference. See id.; Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902, 907 (8th Cir. 2006). The ALJ, however, cannot discount Plaintiff's subjective complaints "solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective complaints]." Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322.

JAMES K. EASON, Plaintiff,


v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.

Civil No. 4:10-cv-04173.

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division.



February 13, 2012.

Liberal Judicai Insanity strkes again

GigaLaw.com Daily News




Internet and technology law news clips, compiled by attorney Doug Isenberg



Judge Overturns Law Banning Sex Offenders on Facebook

February 19, 2012



A federal judge threw out a Louisiana law banning certain sex offenders from Facebook and other social networking sites, saying it was an unreasonable restriction on constitutionally protected speech that could keep them off the Internet entirely. The law, which took effect in August, made it a crime for anyone convicted of a sex offense against a minor or of video voyeurism to use networking websites, chat rooms and peer-to-peer networks.

SSI FIve Step Determiniaton Continued

Our examination of the five step process used by ALJ's in SSI Hearings continues:

B. Framework for Social Security Disability Determinations




Plaintiff's Social Security disability determination was made in accordance with a five step sequential analysis. In the first four steps, Plaintiff was required to show that:



1. she was not engaged in substantial gainful employment; and

2. she suffered from a severe impairment; and

3. the impairment met or was medically equal to a "listed impairment;" or

4. she did not have the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work.

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)-(f). If Plaintiff's impairments prevented her from doing her past relevant work, the Commissioner, at step five, would consider Plaintiff's RFC, age, education and past work experience to determine if she could perform other work. If she could not, she would be deemed disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). The Commissioner has the burden of proof only on "the fifth step, proving that there is work available in the economy that the claimant can perform." Her, 203 F.3d at 391. To meet this burden, the Commissioner must make a finding "supported by substantial evidence that [plaintiff] has the vocational qualifications to perform specific jobs." Varley v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 820 F.2d 777, 779 (6th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). This "substantial evidence" may be in the form of vocational expert testimony in response to a hypothetical question if the question accurately portrays the plaintiff's physical and mental impairments. Id. (citations omitted).

SHIRLEY GAYLE CICHOWSKI, Plaintiff,


v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 11-10284.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.



January 23, 2012.

SSI Five Step Disabilty Test

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(a), the SSA has promulgated a five-step inquiry that must be followed in determining whether a claimant is entitled to benefits. In sum, an ALJ must apply the following criteria, in sequence:




(1) Is the claimant presently unemployed?

(2) Is the claimant's impairment severe?

(3) Does the claimant's impairment meet or equal one of the specific impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1?

(4) Is the claimant unable to perform his or her former occupation?

(5) Is the claimant unable to perform any other work within the economy?

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). An affirmative answer to any of the above questions leads to either the next question, or, on steps three and five, to a finding of disability. A negative answer leads to a finding of "not disabled." See, e.g., McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1030 (11th Cir. 1986).

DARLENE BRAND, Plaintiff,


v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Case No. 6:10-cv-1777-Orl-19KRS.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division.



January 19, 2012.

Desktop Support Company in UK

Repairing the Computer Online is not a new concept , It has been popular for years. Users take Remote Computer Support and Remote Laptop Repairing Services from various Online Technical Support Companies.

Smartsupportguys is also a Online Computer Support and Online Laptop Support Company based in UAE , Dubai. Smartsupportguys has dedicated team of Tech Support guys who are Microsoft Certified and are expert Computer Technicians , and they fix all Computer and Laptop related problems like Virus, Software problems, Internet Problems, Malwares, System Issues, MS Office Issues and Email Issues etc.

Smartsupportguys has various Technical Support plans which you can find at the below link :-

http://www.smartsupportguys.com/content3.asp?Country=

For Technical Support or any further inquiry  You can call us at 0207 193 9836 . 

More on the SSDI Standard

IV. Social Security Disability Standard


In order to qualify for disability insurance benefits and/or supplemental social security income, an individual must meet certain requirements, including that he or she is "disabled" as defined by the Social Security Act. Disability is defined as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) (1), 423(d) (1) (A). In addition, an individual is deemed disabled "only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d) (2) (A).



To determine whether an applicant is disabled, the Social Security Administration has established a five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a). First, the Commissioner must determine whether an applicant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a) (4) (i). Second, the Commissioner must consider the medical severity of the impairment(s). Unless the applicant is found to have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment, he or she will not be found disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a) (4) (ii). Third, the Commissioner determines whether the applicant has an impairment that meets or equals one of the listings in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404 of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a) (4) (iii). Fourth, the Commissioner considers whether the applicant has the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work. If the applicant can still perform past relevant work, he or she is not considered disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a) (4) (iv). At the fifth and last step, the Commissioner considers the applicant's residual functional capacity and his or her age, education and work experience to determine whether the claimant "can make an adjustment to other work." If it is determined that the applicant can make an adjustment to other work, he or she is not considered disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a) (4) (v). At the first four steps of this sequential inquiry, the applicant "has the burden of production and proof." Freeman v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 606, 608 (1st Cir. 2001). Once the applicant has met his or her burden at the first four steps, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to "com[e] forward with evidence of specific jobs in the national economy that the applicant can still perform." Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001).

YAHAIRA CABREJA, Plaintiff,


v.

MICHAEL ASTRUE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

C.A. No. 11-130-ML.

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.



January 27, 2012.

FL Tycoon, 48, Adopts His Girlfriend, 42, as His Daughter

By Cynthia Hsu, Esq. on February 3, 2012 4:57 AM
No TrackBacks

A Florida man has adopted his girlfriend. Yes, you read that right. Businessman John Goodman adopted his girlfriend Heather Laruso Hutchins as his daughter October 13.



In case you're wondering, Goodman is 48. Hutchins is 42. Hutchins and Goodman have been dating since 2009.



Now, you might wonder why Goodman would do such a thing. No normal person would want to have their girlfriend legally considered their daughter, right? Well, not so fast. Apparently Goodman's move might be a carefully calculated ploy.

Goodman is currently being sued for wrongful death. In 2010, Goodman allegedly went through a stop sign. His car hit another vehicle driven by 23-year-old Scott Patrick. Patrick died, according to the Palm Beach Post.



Reports indicate Goodman had a blood-alcohol level in excess of twice the legal limit hours after the fatal accident.



Goodman has a trust set up for two of his children. A judge ruled that this trust could not be tapped as part of his financial worth. This means that the amount in the trust could be shielded from liability if Patrick's parents prevail in court. By adopting Hutchins, she could be entitled to a third of the trust.



This sounds a bit icky, no matter how you look at it. Most states permit legal adoption of adults. But at least one attorney thinks that Goodman may be violating the statute. "Unless you intend to create the parent-child relationship, you are violating the letter of the law," said adoption attorney Charlotte Danciu to CBS 12.



Is Goodman really going to start treating his girlfriend like a daughter?



That remains to be seen. But John Goodman's adoption won't solve his legal problems. He's also facing criminal charges of DUI manslaughter and vehicular homicide over the accident. He could end up serving 30 years in jail if convicted, reports the Post.



http://blogs.findlaw.com/legally_weird/2012/02/fl-tycoon-48-adopts-his-girlfriend-42-as-his-daughter.html?DCMP=NWL-cons_legalgrounds

Should Judges Consider Facebook Posts at Sentencing?


By Stephanie Rabiner, Esq. on January 30, 2012 5:03 AM
No TrackBacks

About a month ago, Tomasz Maciaszek stood before Illinois Judge Amy Bertani-Tomczak and apologized for a 2008 reckless driving incident that left a teenager dead. He told the judge he's been "haunted" by the girl's death, secluding himself in sorrow.



But prosecutors refuted those statements, presenting the judge with print-outs from Maciaszek's Facebook page.



Was this appropriate? Should judges consider Facebook when sentencing?

Judge Bertani-Tomczak doesn't think so. She returned those print-outs earlier this week, reports the Herald-News, subsequently telling the parties that she had "not seen anything or looked at anything."



She chose to take Maciaszek's apology at face value, pointing to a convicted defendant's right to give a final statement. She called it "the law of the land."



This very well may be true, but is that right absolute? Doesn't the prosecution have a right to refute mitigating evidence? Shouldn't a judge want to know when a convicted defendant is falsely showing remorse?



Notwithstanding potential foundation and hearsay issues, Facebook provides the opportunity to do both of these things.



Prosecutors have not spoken about the content of those print-outs, but it's not hard to speculate. Maciaszek could be pictured partying, or he could have checked-in at other locations. He could have made statements about the case and his guilt.



All of this is arguably relevant.



Ultimately, Facebook has changed the way we practice law. We use it to vet jurors and track down witnesses. It factors into divorce cases and mistrials. Why shouldn't judges use Facebook when sentencing?

Kudos to Findlaw:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2012/01/shoud-judges-consider-facebook-posts-at-sentencing.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_downloadthis

Preparing for your SSDI Hearing

Preparing for your SSI Hearing.

Administrative Law Judges are very busy, so it's best to have your presentation prepared well beforehand.

1. understand the main issue in your case – reduce it to one or two sentences.


2. learn about the judge and how he conducts hearings. Most want to do the right thing but they have very different styles.

3. Think about capacity for specific activities.

4. Think about pain – use a 1 to 10 scale (if your lawyer believes judge will be responsive).

5. Recognize that in most cases, the issue will boil down to whether you are reliable.

Your Attorney can help you prepare for these vital steps - a small bit of homework can act to your advanatage.

SSI Disability Radio

A superb, and FREE source of SSI Information is found at http://www.ssdradio.com/.

Attorney Jonathan Ginsberg covers the full range of SSI and SSDI issues, and answers many questions from an insiders perspective.  Available via RSS Feed. 

How to Win Your Disability Claim Early

0

One of the biggest complaints I hear from my clients has to do with the delays that plague the Social Security disability system. Why should a claimant have to wait 2 to 3 years to get a decision on his application?
When you file your claim, there are 5 different points in time where you can be approved:

http://www.ssdradio.com/

SWAT teams dispatched as gun battle unfolds near Escobares | escobares, swat, teams - TheMonitor.com

SWAT teams dispatched as gun battle unfolds near Escobares | escobares, swat, teams - TheMonitor.com: "

SWAT teams dispatched as gun battle unfolds near Escobares
November 09, 2011 5:58 AM
Ildefonso Ortiz and Jared Taylor
The Monitor

ESCOBARES — Gunmen crossed the Rio Grande into the United States near a shootout between where the Mexican military and a group of gunmen was taking place.

Several area SWAT teams responded about 1:30 p.m. Tuesday to a ranch near Escobares, just across the U.S.-Mexico border, where a shootout broke out south of the Rio Grande."

'via Blog this'

Sounds Good: Inside Carnegie Hall’s LEED Silver Overhaul | gbNYC Real Estate Group | Green Building in New York City

Sounds Good: Inside Carnegie Hall’s LEED Silver Overhaul | gbNYC Real Estate Group | Green Building in New York City:

'via Blog this'

Empire State Building | gbNYC Real Estate Group | Green Building in New York City

Empire State Building | gbNYC Real Estate Group | Green Building in New York City: "Empire State Building to Lease Full Floor of LEED-Eligible Pre-Built Offices

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2011 | BY Stephen Del Percio | COMMENTS { 0 }
Spurred by the success of its other green prebuilt office suites, Malkin Properties has completed construction on an entire floor of new LEED-eligible offices on the Empire State Building’s 65th floor."

'via Blog this'

The Top 5 Legal Issues to Consider on Green Construction Projects | gbNYC Real Estate Group | Green Building in New York City

The Top 5 Legal Issues to Consider on Green Construction Projects | gbNYC Real Estate Group | Green Building in New York City: "The Top 5 Legal Issues to Consider on Green Construction Projects

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2007 | BY Stephen Del Percio | COMMENTS { 8 }



I had the opportunity last week to attend an excellent CLE that was offered by American Land. The program focused on the legal issues that attorneys must remain particularly mindful of when advising clients on green real estate projects. Accordingly, here are gbNYC’s top five legal issues that green construction projects may present to participants. While parts of the following list were offered by one of the lecturers, I’ve augmented it and included links to pertinent posts here at gbNYC that expound on each where appropriate."

'via Blog this'

O Brave New World - Citing Orwell, justices appear wary of GPS surveillance by police - Law.com

Citing Orwell, justices appear wary of GPS surveillance by police - Law.com:

Citing Orwell, justices appear wary of GPS surveillance by police
Marcia CoyleContactAll Articles
The National Law JournalNovember 8, 2011
Police use of GPS surveillance and society's expectations of privacy clashed in the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday as justices weighed new technology and its impact on Fourth Amendment rights."

'via Blog this'

Obama Administration Announces 14 Initial Partners in the Better Buildings Challenge | The White House

Obama Administration Announces 14 Initial Partners in the Better Buildings Challenge | The White House: "The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release June 30, 2011
Obama Administration Announces 14 Initial Partners in the Better Buildings Challenge

Private sector partners, local governments commit more than $500 million and 300 million square feet to improving energy efficiency

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced today at the Clinton Global Initiative America meeting in Chicago the 14 initial partners committing to the Better Buildings Challenge. "

'via Blog this'

SSI and SSDI Cases per year - Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 US 137 - Supreme Court 1987 - Google Scholar

Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 US 137 - Supreme Court 1987 - Google Scholar: "The Secretary decides more than 2 million claims for disability benefits each year, of which more than 200,000 are reviewed by administrative law judges. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration 1986 Annual Report to Congress, pp. 40, 42, 46."

'via Blog this'

SSI DIsability Contintued - Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 US 137 - Supreme Court 1987 - Google Scholar

Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 US 137 - Supreme Court 1987 - Google Scholar: "The initial disability determination is made by a state agency acting under the authority and supervision of the Secretary. 42 U. S. C. §§ 421(a), 1383b(a); 20 CFR §§ 404.1503, 416.903 (1986). If the state agency denies the disability claim, the claimant may pursue a three-stage administrative review process. First, the determination is reconsidered de novo by the state agency. §§ 404.909(a), 416.1409(a). Second, the claimant is entitled to a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) within the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals of the Social Security Administration. 42 U. S. C. §§ 405(b)(1), 1383(c)(1) (1982 ed. and Supp. III); 20 CFR §§ 404.929, 416.1429, 422.201 et seq. (1986). Third, the claimant may seek review by the Appeals Council. 20 CFR §§ 404.967 et seq., 416.1467 et seq. (1986). Once the claimant has exhausted these administrative remedies, he may seek review in federal district court. 42 U. S. C. § 405(g). See generally Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U. S. 467, 472 (1986)."

'via Blog this'

Giveaway: USGBC's Green Office Guide for Integrating LEED Into Your Leasing Process* | Green Real Estate Law Journal

Giveaway: USGBC's Green Office Guide for Integrating LEED Into Your Leasing Process* | Green Real Estate Law Journal:

'via Blog this'

Green Leasing Series: The Legal Risks of a Green Lease | Green Real Estate Law Journal

Green Leasing Series: The Legal Risks of a Green Lease | Green Real Estate Law Journal:

'via Blog this'

Green Leasing Series: Introduction to Green Leasing | Green Real Estate Law Journal

Green Leasing Series: Introduction to Green Leasing | Green Real Estate Law Journal:

'via Blog this'

The Legal Issues of Green Real Estate Finance | Green Real Estate Law Journal

The Legal Issues of Green Real Estate Finance | Green Real Estate Law Journal:

'via Blog this'