IN TAX DOLLARS .IF THE COURT COVERS THE COST DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S POVERTY. THAT’S ABOUT $14,000.00 DOLLARS . ENOUGH FOR TWO YEARS RENT AT $500.00 A MONTH. OR 2 YEARS WORTH OF SSI-SSDI RETIREMENT CHECKS , AT $500.00 A MONTH. OR IF CONVERTED TO FOOD STAMPS OR CASH ASSISTANCE AT $200.00 A MONTH ; ENOUGH FOR 5 YEARS. DISMISSING A CASE WITHOUT INFORMING THE DEFENDANTS IS A WASTE OF TAX DOLLARS .BECAUSE NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO PAY THE COURT COSTS. Opinions Date Filed »Case »Opinion » 07/27/2012 Criminal No. 2004-0165 USA v. HICKMAN Doc No. 57 (order adopting report and recommendations) by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle 02/14/2011 Civil Action No. 2011-0376 HICKMAN v. INTEL et al Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly 02/14/2011 Civil Action No. 2011-0375 HICKMAN v. PACER FEDERAL COURT SERVICES Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly 06/15/2010 Civil Action No. 2010-1005 HICKMAN v. US ATTORNEY GENERAL TEXAS CHILD SUPPORT et al Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge John D. Bates 06/15/2010 Civil Action No. 2010-1006 HICKMAN v. BANK OF AMERICA et al Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge John D. Bates 06/04/2010 Civil Action No. 2010-0922 HICKMAN v. ALDERSON COURT TRANSCRIPTS SERVICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT et al Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle 05/14/2010 Civil Action No. 2010-0791 HICKMAN v. FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF GOVERNORS et al Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle 05/04/2010 Civil Action No. 2010-0687 HICKMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE et al Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Reggie B. Walton 04/21/2010 Civil Action No. 2010-0623 HICKMAN v. KENNEDY et al Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Reggie B. Walton 03/02/2010 Civil Action No. 2010-0331 HICKMAN v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Henry H. Kennedy 01/06/2010 Civil Action No. 2010-0012 HICKMAN v. ARCHIVES et al Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan 12/23/2009 Civil Action No. 2009-2410 HICKMAN v. FREEDOM LIBERTY INDEPENDENCE PARTY et al Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan 12/23/2009 Civil Action No. 2009-2409 HICKMAN v. NASA et al Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan 11/27/2009 Civil Action No. 2009-2251 HICKMAN v. UNITED STATES MINT et al Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina 08/26/2009 Civil Action No. 2009-1616 HICKMAN v. FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Reggie B. Walton 07/23/2009 Civil Action No. 2009-1362 HICKMAN v. COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Richard W. Roberts 06/10/2009 Civil Action No. 2009-1071 HICKMAN v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Richard J. Leon 05/26/2009 Civil Action No. 2009-0974 HICKMAN v. THE PENTAGON OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer 05/04/2009 Civil Action No. 2009-0816 HICKMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Doc No. 3 (memorandum and opinion) by Judge John D. Bates 02/24/2009 Civil Action No. 2009-0359 HICKMAN v. WASHINGTON DC PUBLIC LIBRARY Doc No. 3 (memorandum opinion) by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle 02/20/2009 Civil Action No. 2009-0342 HICKMAN v. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Doc No. 3 (memorandum and opinion) by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle
Don’t Be a Victim
Combating mortgage fraud is a priority for the FBI, and we have more than 90 mortgage fraud task forces and working groups around the country to investigate crimes estimated to produce annual losses of more than $10 billion.
The illegal schemes used for obtaining home mortgages vary based on market conditions, but all have the same result: they make it more costly and difficult for legitimate home buyers to get loans. The most common schemes include loan origination, builder-bailouts, seller assistance, short sale, foreclosure rescue, reverse mortgage fraud, and identity theft exploiting home equity lines of credit.
Here are some tips to avoid becoming a victim of mortgage fraud:
- Get referrals for real estate and mortgage professionals. Check their licenses with state, county, or city regulatory agencies.
- Do your own research into sale prices and recent tax assessments of other homes in the neighborhood.
- Don’t make a false statement on your loan applicati
sounds very close to the right estimate
I am in the process of moving.
Whether it’s better to file with existing attorney, then move?
Or move, then file with an attorney in that city?
Please help me decide.
Even though you are moving there is no reason at this point to switch attorneys. I’d stick with the attorney you have because the Appeals Council Review is merely a paper review. No one has to appear before a judge or any other employee of the Social Security Administration. The odds of it being approved at the Appeals Council Review level are slim to none. The Appeals Council Review is the last decision to be made by Social Security. The next, and last, step of the appeals process is to file an appeal with the US Federal District Court. Why don’t you talk to your attorney and ask him/her if he thinks pursuing it beyond the Appeal Council Review level would result in an approval? And if you should decide to follow through on that ask him if you think you need to get a new attorney – you wouldn’t need a new attorney, for example, if you will be moving within the same federal court district jurisdiction.
However, he would probably recommend that you get a new attorney if you will be moving out of the jurisdiction. As good as he may be he wouldn’t be as good as a good attorney in the new jurisdiction who would be familiar with the local (and new) social security office you will be dealing with.
Never. Unprecedented. Maj, Hassan who shot and killed 13 plus the loss of a fetus,
at Ft. Hood Texas. The Obama administrations DOJ has influenced again a high
profile trial. The Appellate court should have not been allowed to take on the objection
issue as to if this Radical Muslim should shave his beard or not. This is what happens
when Obama and his minions jump in and try to obfuscate the position of a criminal
trial where the defendants are Radical Muslims. This trial should have been done and
concluded last year already, And this terrorist either Hung or faced a firing squad
already. Thanks Obama and Holder once again you show your true colors.
I’ am going to have to agree with you. Now to if, this is a unprecedented action or not.
I’ can’t say. However in my time behind the badge, I have been a part of 240 Homicide
cases that I have investigated or been the sign off authority on. And therefore have
been a part of the trial through either deposition or in the box testimony. And in excess
of 200 Robbery cases that I have had to sign off on. Never during a ongoing trial has
the Sitting Jurist ever had to have the areas appellate court take into review a motion
while the trial was ongoing. Hope this helps.
I’m going into 10th grade and I’m really starting to think about my future career. Since I was little, being a lawyer always appealed to me. I was wondering if anybody out there in the law field could give me some information:
Types of jobs that deal with the law
Pro’s and Cons of these jobs
It would be really appreciated
I would think twice about it — there is a large surplus of lawyers. Google "lawyer surplus" for more articles. Unless you have the grades and money for Harvard Law School, you could be struggling your whole career. Good luck.
Just say she got pretty close with her appeals lawyer, or the warden approved conjugal visits and she got knocked up. Is it okay to give her the needle while carrying the baby or do you say wait until after the delivery?
Pro-choicers refuse to acknowledge that killing an unborn baby is killing a human. They are pussies and I have no respect for them.
I was convicted in 2005 of Attempted Robbery in the 2nd degree in New York. I come from a good family, good values, and grew up in an upscale neighborhood on Long Island. I made one mistake a long time ago and I will continue to pay for it indefinitely. Since my release I have attended college and received a degree in Finance. Anything I have done post release is pretty much irrelevant to my current situation. Anyway let me get to my question…
I was 18 years old at the time of my indictment of assault and robbery. In New York State, anyone over 16 years old and less than 19 years old is eligible for Youthful Offender treatment. There are circumstances that youthful offender may not be granted. These include previous felony convictions, previous YO adjudications, class A felonies, or "an armed felony as defined in subdivision forty-one of section 1.20, except as provided in subdivision three"
I’m assuming I fall into whatever the hell that last category implies. I hit someone with a baseball bat with intentions of taking their money, but instead hit them, had an epiphany, and left the scene (only to return and provide a full confession like a real asshole). I am not getting into a moral debate; I am simply providing the facts of what happened.
While going back and forth to court, I was under the impression, as well as my lawyer and the prosecution, that my sentencing would be settled with me as a YO. This is even what the prosecution was recommending. The judge felt otherwise and chose to use his amazing discretion to sentence me as an adult. I was sentenced to 2 ½ years upstate.
After sentencing I appealed but through a different lawyer and lost. After my release I had another very good lawyer review my case as well as the appeal and he said my original lawyer did all he can do and presented the case very well, but the judge was really out to get me. However, he said my appeal was done absolutely terribly with zero effort. The appeal lawyer apparently took my money and that’s all he cared about. He showed up to the appeal court with apparently nothing to say.
I’ve had this new lawyer review my case and he found a few things. The judge was on board with my lawyer as well as the prosecution with me being treated as a minor, pending the probationary report. However, this report was done and came back with me looking squeaky clean, coming from a good background, no prior history of any kind, and that this act was simply an aberration. After the report came back the judge changed his mind and chose to sentence me as an adult! How is that fair? I have the minutes from the whole case and the judge agrees prior to the probation report to give me the YO and then it comes back with me looking like a great kid and then he changes his mind because he thinks the crime was too serious? It’s not as if he felt this was the whole time, but rather he gave everyone the impression I would be treated as a minor and even stated it, and then changed his mind. Is he allowed to do that?
I am wondering if it is worth trying to appeal again. The lawyer apparently must first get the other appeal thrown out or something like that and then file another appeal with these circumstances and these reasons. The lawyer tells me by no means is it a sure thing but he does think I have a half decent shot at getting it overturned. I was wondering if anyone can give me some insight if they think it would be worth the money (10-15K) but more so if I have a chance of winning. I don’t really care about the amount of money so much if I have a decent chance. 10K is a small price to pay for getting this off my record and being able to start my life. Every day I search for opportunities only to become frustrated and angry with this hole I can’t climb out of.
I am not appealing the conviction itself. I plead guilty. I am trying to appeal the judge’s decision to charge me as an adult in hope of regaining YO status. YO is not considered a criminal “conviction” and therefore I can answer no in response to that dreadful question when applying for jobs.
Sorry for going on a while but I figured the more facts provided the better. Thanks again
Have a heart ti heart talk with your lawyer & tell him that you feel there was a miscarriage of justice or misinterpretation of the law. Make your own personal research in a legal library to see the applicable laws in your case at the time the offense was committed..
I was watching a show documenting a case where a mother was convicted of capital murder for salt poisoning of her foster son.
The thing is, multiple psychiatrists, doctors (for both the defense and prosecution) suspected the foster child injusted the salt and contents found in his stomach on his own due to his Pica disorder. The prosecution believed she made him eat all the salt from punishment, but there were many specialists and even some in the investigation team suspected she did not.
Well, in a tv interview two jurors admitted during questioning they didn’t know what happened but had doubt the mother purposely killed or even MADE him eat the salt. The reporter then backtracked and was like"well then, you are admitting you had reasonable doubt that she killed her kid or intentionally made him eat salt." The same two jurors said "yes." Then the reporter said then why did you agree on guilty of capital murder? The two jurors sort of started stammering and didn’t know what to say. They then admitted they were not sure of evidence at all, but still convicted her. The jurors were obviously not the sharpest tools in the shed from their answers.
Not saying this woman is innocent, but can interviews with jurors affect a right to an appeal? Could a defense attorney ever use a jurors words after a trail? Just wondering.
can interviews with jurors affect a right to an appeal?
—No. First of all, everyone has the right to appeal, but appeals have to be based on decisions made by the Judge regarding procedural issues. Appeals are not retrials. Jurors are limited to using the facts presented at trial in deliberations. If they learn of new info later or rethink things later it means nothing.
Could a defense attorney ever use a jurors words after a trail?
–Again, no. Once the verdict is in, nothing the Jurors say matters anymore. The only way anything like this could play a factor is if the jurors came out and said they were coerced or bribed into their verdict.
On February 20, San Quentin Prison (just north of San Francisco) was the site of a groundbreaking Occupy San Quentin demonstration linking Occupy Wall Street with the anti-prison movement. Inside on San Quentin’s death row is a man named Kevin Cooper, whose case for innocence is widely considered to be one of the most compelling today. When the Ninth Circuit Court ruled against Cooper’s final appeal in 2009, Judge William A. Fletcher wrote in his 101-page dissenting opinion that “the State of California may be about to execute an innocent man.”
Kevin Cooper’s controversial 1985 conviction and death sentence is the subject of a new book by veteran journalist J. Patrick O’Connor, titled, Scapegoat: The Chino Hills Murders and The Framing of Kevin Cooper. O’Connor is the editor of www.crimemagazine.com and the author of The Framing of Mumia Abu-Jamal (Lawrence Hill, 2008).
For several years, O’Connor researched the brutal 1985 murders of Doug and Peggy Ryen, their daughter Jessica, 10, and her friend, Christopher Hughes, 11, which took place inside the Ryens’ Chino Hills home in San Bernardino County, CA. Scapegoat chronicles how despite abundant evidence that the murders were actually committed by three white men, the district attorney instead targeted a prison escapee named Kevin Cooper, who had been hiding out inside a nearby house at the time of the murders. O’Connor concludes that Kevin Cooper is innocent, and he argues that the police and prosecution orchestrated a rather sloppy frame-up that has nonetheless been upheld by the federal appeals courts.
Read the accompanying text interview here:
Duration : 0:8:11
I wouldn’t have believed it was possible, but check this out!
Link to NRC document here to read in full:
U.S. Freezes All Nuclear Reactor Construction & Operating Licenses
Title: U.S. Freezes All Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Decisions
Date: August 7, 2012
Federal nuclear regulators today froze at least 19 final reactor licensing decisions in response to a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit that spent nuclear fuel stored on-site at nuclear power plants “poses a dangerous, long-term health and environmental risk.”
In its ruling, the appeals court invalidated the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 2010 updates to the Waste Confidence Rule and also the Temporary Storage Rule and directed the commission to fully comply with federal law.
In response, the NRC today put a hold on nine construction and operating licenses, eight license renewals, one operating license, and one early site permit.
The court noted that, after decades of failure to site a permanent geologic repository, including 20 years of working on the now-abandoned Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada, the NRC “has no long-term plan other than hoping for a geologic repository.”
Therefore, it is possible that spent fuel will be stored at reactor sites “on a permanent basis,” the court said.
“In recognition of our duties under the law, we will not issue licenses dependent upon the Waste Confidence Decision or the Temporary Storage Rule until the court’s remand is appropriately addressed,” the NRC said.
The NRC’s order extends only to final license issuance. “All licensing reviews and proceedings should continue to move forward,” the agency said.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman
The storage of nuclear waste at nuclear power facilities poses long-term health and environmental risks, including the risk of leaks from spent fuel pools and fires. Despite this, the NRC has refused my repeated requests to address the serious risks of long-term, on-site storage of nuclear waste in Indian Point’s relicensing proceeding.
In light of my recent federal appeals court victory and a related contention I filed last month in the relicensing proceeding, however, it appears that the NRC has finally changed course. Today, in a victory for the 17 million people living and working close to Indian Point, the NRC has committed to addressing the risks posed by long-term nuclear waste storage at the facility before making any relicensing decisions.
Title: NRC Freezes All Nuclear Reactor Construction & Operating Licenses In U.S.
Author: Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Date: August 7, 2012
Decision Follows 24 Groups’ June Petition in Wake of Major Waste Confidence Rule Decision; Most Reactor Projects Already Stymied by Bad Economics and Cheaper Fuel Alternatives
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) acted today to put a hold on at least 19 final reactor licensing decisions — nine construction & operating licenses (COLS), eight license renewals, one operating license, and one early site permit — in response to the landmark Waste Confidence Rule decision of June 8th by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The NRC action was sought in a June 18, 2012 petition filed by 24 groups urging the NRC to respond to the court ruling by freezing final licensing decisions until it has completed a rulemaking action on the environmental impacts of highly radioactive nuclear waste in the form of spent, or ‘used’, reactor fuel storage and disposal.
In hailing the NRC action, the groups also noted that most of the U.S. reactor projects were already essentially sidetracked by the huge problems facing the nuclear industry, including an inability to control runaway costs, and the availability of far less expensive energy alternatives.
Diane Curran, an attorney representing some of the groups in the Court of Appeals case, said: “This Commission decision halts all final licensing decisions — but not the licensing proceedings themselves — until NRC completes a thorough study of the environmental impacts of storing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel. That study should have been done years ago, but NRC just kept kicking the can down the road. When the Federal Appeals Court ordered NRC to stop and consider the impacts of generating spent nuclear fuel for which it has found no safe means of disposal, the agency could choose to appeal the decision by August 22nd or choose to do the serious work of analyzing the environmental impacts over the next few years. With today’s Commission decision, we are hopeful that the agency will undertake the serious work.”
you can read the rest Here:
Duration : 0:6:22