Social Security Disability Advice CONNECT

ALJ Issues :: RE: "Wave of threats" target ALJs

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 02:44:15 GMT

Author:
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 02:44 am (GMT 0)

I certainly do not condone any threatening or inappropriate behavior. However, rather than just condemn it, its better to try to understand it. People will accept a reasonable explanation but the fact of the matter is many people are ignored, treated poorly, talked down to, called liars, belittled and treated with distain. (And I'm just talking about the lawyers! ). Seriously though, some judges should not be judges. They take on this mantel of invinceability because they know they have the entire power of the government behind them. They love teleconferences because they don't have to be in the same room as the claimants. That should tell you something. I can understand their anger because the claimants are ill-equiped to defend themselves from what they consider poor treatment and there is no accountability. There's been an exponential increase in meanness and the ones on the edge can't handle it.

Disability Law :: RE: overpayment- stay?

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 23:04:15 GMT

Author:
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:04 pm (GMT 0)

Unfortunately, a request for hearing filed on a overpayment issue does not suspend collection of the overpayment. Collection is only stayed through the date of the personal conference decision.

She could try calling the 800 number and requesting a lower rate of collection - they usually don't bat an eye at changing the withholding amount if it will get the claimant off the telephone. If that doesn't work, I'd complete a new financial statement with the client, making sure to list all of her income and expenses, to determine exactly what she can afford to repay (making it clear in her request for reduced withholding that she is not admitting fault). Then, I'd visit the FO and insist on speaking to a supervisor to get something done.

The whole purpose of the financial statement is to determine what the claimant can pay. If the claimant was at fault, they'll have to pay something. However, you aren't allowed to penalize the claimant in an arbitrary manner just because you want to. It might even be a good idea to enlist the assistance of her congressional representative - members of management hate having to deal with congressional inquiries, especially if the inquiry will make them look bad because it resulted from one of their employees thumbing their nose at following official policy.

Disability Law :: overpayment- stay?

mwohlsen — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:33:30 GMT

Author: mwohlsen
Subject: overpayment- stay?
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 08:33 pm (GMT 0)

In a nut shell, I have a cl who accumulated a significant overpayment over the years. (She is disabled in her own right but she collects benefits on her deceased husband's record.) She filed a Waiver, which was denied, but she was scheduled for a personal conference at the DO to discuss the overpayment. I have never been to a conference such as this but from what I gather, this is when you should negotiate a reasonable re-payment schedule. Cl went to the meeting on her own and it was decided she will have $250 deducted out of every check to go towards the overpayment. By taking out $250, she is left w/ $391/month to cover her living expenses. Well, this is when she comes crying to me (I am obligated to get involved b/c she is an old PI cl).

I call the Lancaster DO and say we need to re-re-negotiate her payment plan. Lancaster says "no sorry, it's too late" you have to file an appeal to an ALJ. Ok I said and the appeal was filed. Here is where I am at a loss: I assumed (this is a bad thing to do), the filing of the appeal would put an automatic stay on SSA taking the $250 out per month until the case was heard by an ALJ. The month after the filing of the appeal, $250 came out again so I called the DO and they explained to me that the $250 came out one last time b/c the appeal took a few weeks to process. That made sense so I explained it to my client and left it at that.

Well, unlike what the DO originally told us, there has been no stopping the $250 from coming out each and every month since we filed the appeal. I called today and was told (by a different rep of course) that there is no way to stop the $250 from coming out, even though the matter is on appeal.

Can anyone shed some light on this situation? Is the DO correct... filing an appeal does not stop the deduction? Can I not ask for a 'stay of proceedings' or something like that so there is a "freeze" on the $250? Thank you.
_________________
Melissa M. Wohlsen, Esquire
Pyfer Partners
128 N. Lime Street
P.O. Box 1597
Lancaster, PA 17608

Off-topic :: Sen. Bernie Sanders: Hands off Social Security!

David Traver — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:03:06 GMT

Author: David Traver
Subject: Sen. Bernie Sanders: Hands off Social Security!
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 06:03 pm (GMT 0)

Quote:

The White House deficit commission is reportedly considering deep benefit cuts for Social Security, including a steep rise in the retirement age. We cannot let that happen.

The deficit and our $13 trillion national debt are serious problems that must be addressed. But we can — and must — address them without punishing America’s workers, senior citizens, the disabled, widows and orphans.

First, let’s be clear: Despite all the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt. That’s a lie!

The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has run surpluses for the last quarter century. Today’s $2.5 trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, experts in this area, say Social Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until 2039.

Got that? In case you don’t, let me repeat it. The people who have studied this issue most thoroughly and have no political bias report that Social Security will be able to pay out all benefits to every eligible beneficiary for the next 29 years.

It is true that by 2039, if nothing is changed, Social Security will be able to pay out only about 80 percent of benefits. That is why it is important that Congress act soon to make sure Social Security is as strong in the future as it is today.

The hatred of Social Security from the right-wing, anti-government crowd is based on the fact that the government program has been enormously successful in accomplishing its mission. For 75 years, in good times and bad, Social Security has provided financial security for tens of millions of Americans.

Opinion: Hands off Social Security - Sen. Bernie Sanders - POLITICO.com http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41628.html (last visited Thu Sep 02 2010 13:02:14 GMT-0500 (CST))
_________________
David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
403[at]traverlaw.com

http://ssaconnect.com
http://traverlaw.com
http://www.jamespublishing.com/books/ssr.htm

Disability Law :: Veteran advocates angry at Simpson

David Traver — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:39:45 GMT

Author: David Traver
Subject: Veteran advocates angry at Simpson
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 05:39 pm (GMT 0)

Quote:

I had to take a half day to collect enough balance of mind to even speak of this man Simpson.

This dude who has been slamming Vietnam Veterans for forty years! Simpson now suggests that upon the announcement of true and compassionate care for men who were sprayed with chemicals; Agent Orange/Dioxin, that they may not being doing enough for their country by accepting disability benefits. Holy crap, that is bold. The emotion and enmity that wells up in response to this troll can only be released on a mountain top, not in polite company.

To join the siren cry of veterans across the nation who are asking for his ouster is way to cliche. I would like to see this cowardly man who served only one year in the Army, a mystery to this day, be marched out in front of every victim of Agent Orange, who is living. That would be me. He could then sit in his local church auditorium while we host the families of all our warriors who died of Agent Orange exposure. Chemicals folks, chemicals made and sprayed on us by our own Dow Chemical!

I would not ask him to resign, too light for this big wide Wyoming Worm. I would mandate that his penance, which is never meted out for this smart aleck, be to wear an Orange Letter on his outer clothing for the next year. His very own Scarlett letter of shame.

Years ago, this Senator who is some odd form of GI Joe wanna-be, used to refer to the Vietnam Veteran as a “professional veterans.” He was peeved that we fought so hard for our health care rights and attention to disabling illnesses, including the diagnosis of PTSD being officially included in the DSM, (Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Psychiatry), in 1980. He must be mad that they did not include his own psychiatric illness—interminable sick sarcasm, like last weeks comment about social security being a cow with 310 million tits. Who is this man? How can he speak like this with impunity?

I wonder what he sacrificed in his generational Rosie the Riveter heart, for this last seven years of war in Iraq and ten in Afghanistan? Is his lifetime free health care helping America balance the budget? Maybe he should pay back his GI Bill benefits he used to get his JD. Possibly the only reason for serving in the Army for one year?

This man has been about Corporate conquest and tax cuts for the top 2% his entire life. Are they sacrificing to pay for this war?

Maybe we could forgo paying for the disabilities and financial malfeasance of Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater, so as to have some chump change left over for a wheel chair for a veteran dying of Agent Orange.

Alan Simpson Is One Lost Soul - Veteran Veritas http://tucsoncitizen.com/veteranveritas/2010/09/02/alan-simpson-is-one-lost-soul/ (last visited Thu Sep 02 2010 12:38:36 GMT-0500 (CST))

Who is Alan Simpson? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_K._Simpson ("And yes, I've made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know 'em too. It's the same with any system in America. We've reached a point now where it's like a milk cow with 310 million tits! Call when you get honest work!")

So, what's this all about?

Quote:

RALEIGH, N.C.—The system that automatically awards disability benefits to some veterans because of concerns about Agent Orange seems contrary to efforts to control federal spending, the Republican co-chairman of President Barack Obama's deficit commission said Tuesday.

Former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson's comments came a day after The Associated Press reported that diabetes has become the most frequently compensated ailment among Vietnam veterans, even though decades of research has failed to find more than a possible link between the defoliant Agent Orange and diabetes.

"The irony (is) that the veterans who saved this country are now, in a way, not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess," said Simpson, an Army veteran who was once chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has also allowed Vietnam veterans to get money for ailments such as lung cancer and prostate cancer, and the agency finalized a proposal Tuesday to grant payments for heart disease -- the nation's leading cause of death.

Simpson declined to say whether the issue would become part of his work on Obama's panel examining the nation's debt. He looked to Congress to make a change.

Sen. Daniel Akaka, a Hawaii Democrat who currently chairs the VA committee, said Tuesday he will address the broader issue of so-called presumptive conditions at a hearing previously set for Sept. 23. The committee will look to "see what changes Congress and VA may need to make to existing law and policy," Akaka said in an e-mail.

"It is our solemn responsibility to help veterans with disabilities suffered in their service to our country," said Akaka, who served in the Army Corps of Engineers during World War II. "That responsibility also requires us to make sure limited resources are available for those who truly need and are entitled to them."

Aging vets' costs concern Obama's deficit co-chair - Boston.com http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/08/31/aging_vets_costs_concern_obamas_deficit_co_chair/ (last visited Thu Sep 02 2010 12:45:48 GMT-0500 (CST))
_________________
David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
403[at]traverlaw.com

http://ssaconnect.com
http://traverlaw.com
http://www.jamespublishing.com/books/ssr.htm

ALJ Issues :: "Wave of threats" target ALJs

David Traver — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:36:45 GMT

Author: David Traver
Subject: "Wave of threats" target ALJs
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 05:36 pm (GMT 0)

It's insanity to threaten a judge under any circumstances, ever, in any way. Yet, such treats sadly are on the rise.

Quote:

Government Executive reports on a recent event at the National Press Club featuring Judge Randall Frye from the Social Security Administration and president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges, and Judge Dana Leigh Marks, an immigration judge in San Francisco and president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. The pair described threats to judges involving guns, baseball bats, cut brake lines, and broken legs.

ILW.COM - immigration news: Bloggings On Political Asylum http://www.ilw.com/articles/2010,0901-dzubow.shtm (last visited Thu Sep 02 2010 12:49:06 GMT-0500 (CST))

Quote:

Being an administrative law judge can be nerve-racking.

According to information released Monday by the Association of Administrative Law Judges and the National Association of Immigration Judges, federal employees who handle Social Security disability claims and immigration hearings have been the target of a "wave of threats."

Citing data collected by the Social Security Administration's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, "between March and August of last year, 28 violent threats were reported on Social Security offices that handle disability hearings and in the same period nine individual judges who hear disability claims were threatened," the judges' organizations reported.

"From September of last year through February 2010, 21 threats were recorded against SSA hearing offices and 11 threats were directed at judges. Threats to the wives and children of judges also have been reported."

During a National Press Club briefing, Randall Frye, president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges, and Dana Leigh Marks, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, also released a set of recommendations to improve security.

They recommended:

. . .

Administrative law judges face more threats over disability, immigration issues http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/30/AR2010083005219.html (last visited Thu Sep 02 2010 12:36:01 GMT-0500 (CST))
_________________
David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
403[at]traverlaw.com

http://ssaconnect.com
http://traverlaw.com
http://www.jamespublishing.com/books/ssr.htm

Off-topic :: RE: 65-year-old Georgia judge shoots and kills intruder

Insider (Ret) — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:01:54 GMT

Author: Insider (Ret)
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 05:01 pm (GMT 0)

Good advice. Turns out that it's ... sort of legal to carry pepper spray in MD. It all depends on your intent in carrying it. If your intent is defensive (and you can convince the investigating official that your intent was defensive), no problem. If you have naughty thoughts about using it to disable someone upon whom you then intend to commit a crime, you are committing a misdemeanor. The moral of the story seems to be, think good/legal thoughts.

Off-topic :: RE: 65-year-old Georgia judge shoots and kills intruder

David Traver — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:19:33 GMT

Author: David Traver
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 01:19 pm (GMT 0)

It's legal to carry pepper spray in Wisconsin. Be sure to check the law in your part of the woods. http://www.pepper-spray-store.com/relatedinfo/wisconsin-laws.shtml (example page, I have not checked it for legal accuracy, no endorsement of the site suggested, etc..) After the recent Supreme Court decision in McDonald it's likely legal everywhere (in pressurized gallon cans with an extension hose if you want) but it's expensive to be a test case. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Comment about the example pepper spray page: The first time I looked at it I wondered why in the world Ronald McDonald was shooting pepper spray at The Hulk. Let's make that the stupid illustration of the day, shall we? But see http://www.pepper-spray-store.com/pepper-spray-video.html (Nat Geo).
_________________
David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
403[at]traverlaw.com

http://ssaconnect.com
http://traverlaw.com
http://www.jamespublishing.com/books/ssr.htm

Off-topic :: RE: 65-year-old Georgia judge shoots and kills intruder

Insider (Ret) — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:31:31 GMT

Author: Insider (Ret)
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:31 pm (GMT 0)

Thanks for the reminder to get some pepper spray. We live in a large city with a rather high crime rate, and we've had some criminal activity around us, none of it violent thank goodness, just vandalism, theft and B&E. I had thought that we probably should get some defensive mechanisms beyond the nice piece of concrete reinforcing steel that a local handyman gave me, saying "whack 'em on the head with this, it'll do the trick."

But a gun? Never. Handgun, rifle, blunderbuss, thanks. Just way too dangerous. And I grew up in the country and know how to handle firearms. The stats are just overwhelming in my view; having a firearm increases your danger, not your safety. Steve S. has a different view, and that's fine. Sounds to me like he's a fine proponent of firearm safety.

Off-topic :: RE: 65-year-old Georgia judge shoots and kills intruder

SteveSundeen — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:12:56 GMT

Author: SteveSundeen
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 08:12 pm (GMT 0)

Agreed. I enjoy a good debate and this is a subject that I care about. That being said, logic, reason, and politeness are very important and there is no point in being rude or snarky.

Off-topic :: RE: 65-year-old Georgia judge shoots and kills intruder

David Traver — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:28:03 GMT

Author: David Traver
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 06:28 pm (GMT 0)

I think we have reiterated our positions enough so readers can see what we were saying.

That said, I agree that this format leaves a lot to be desired. There's no body language, no facial expressions, no pauses, and very little inflection. As a result misunderstandings are common, if not the rule. Hence the need for a little formal politeness now and then to avoid the hurt feelings. All of that may seem over the top to some, but is necessary to aid in the discussion.

In any event, thanks again for the conversation..
_________________
David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
403[at]traverlaw.com

http://ssaconnect.com
http://traverlaw.com
http://www.jamespublishing.com/books/ssr.htm

Off-topic :: RE: 65-year-old Georgia judge shoots and kills intruder

SteveSundeen — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:57:10 GMT

Author: SteveSundeen
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 05:57 pm (GMT 0)

One of the problems with forum discussions is that it easy to misinterpret things. It is quite possible that I may have been reacting to points that were not made. If so, then I apologize. I was reacting to the assertion that carrying a gun poses an unreasonable risk to the "carrier" or to an innocent person. This is just not supported by evidence. I would agree that there are some people that display unsafe practices when it comes to firearms. Your friend is an idiot. On of the basic rules of gun safety is that guns should be stored in a way that they are inaccessible to unauthorzed people. In his case, leaving it where someone else could get a hold of it is very risky. He should carry it in a manner that it is under his control and possession.

Most of the "gun" people I know are very safe. Any gun they have that is not being carried is locked in a safe or some kind of metal cabinet. I certainly stress safety in the classes I teach and spend a great deal of time making sure my students develop a healthy respect for the lethality of any firearm.

Off-topic :: RE: 65-year-old Georgia judge shoots and kills intruder

David Traver — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:31:10 GMT

Author: David Traver
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 04:31 pm (GMT 0)

I see nothing in your posting that factually refutes my original comment. This is especially true given the effectiveness of pepper spray and its non-lethal properties in comparison to having a handgun in the home, on the person, or in a purse

Here's another anecdote. I vised a friend a few months ago at his retail store. He had Walther 9mm pistol sitting on the top of his file cabinet next to his desk in the back room. The only barrier to the back room from the store was a curtain. The back room is unattended when the store is busy. The gun was sitting in the open, loaded, unlocked, and with a round in the chamber. My friend said it was to defend his store in case anybody wanted to get into his safe. My friend is complete idiot. Do you know similar complete idiots with loaded unlocked guns in bedside stands, under the bed, under pillows, in a dresser drawers, on a closet shelves, leaning in the corners of the living room, and in jean pockets thrown in the corner?

But, in any event, thank you for for the nice discussion. We disagree, for sure, but that's okay.
_________________
David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
403[at]traverlaw.com

http://ssaconnect.com
http://traverlaw.com
http://www.jamespublishing.com/books/ssr.htm

Off-topic :: RE: 65-year-old Georgia judge shoots and kills intruder

SteveSundeen — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:42:33 GMT

Author: SteveSundeen
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 03:42 pm (GMT 0)

Relation does not imply causation.

The fact that guns are the preferred method of suicide for some does not mean that those people would be alive if they did not have guns. People that truly want to die will find a way to do it. I really shouldn't have been sucked into that argument, as the burden of showing some kind of causal relationship should have been yours. The reality is that there is no relationship between gun ownership and suicide rates. If you look at the data from the FBI and BATFE, you will find that since 1970, the rate of gun ownership has gone up from about 150 guns per 1000 people to nearly 350 guns per 1000 people. During that same time period, overall suicide rates and homicide rates have actually declined.

As for Kellerman, I brought that up because it is the only study cited by people that claim the carrying guns for self-defense is likely to result in their own death or the death of a loved one. Strangely enough, you brought up nothing but anecdotal evidence to support your claim. I had provided statistics about defensive gun uses:

--2.5 million per year
--These outnumber criminal gun uses by 6 to 1
--Most of the time the gun is only brandished.
--Less than 8% of the time is the attacker wounded. Around 1 in 1000 is actually killed.

The reality is that you are violently attacked, you are far less likely to be injured if you defend yourself with a gun. According to one study done in the UK:
In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%

According to a DOJ study on rape, women that had a gun were able to fend off the rapist 97% of the time, as oppsed to unarmed women only being able to do that 68% of the time.

Respectfully, I think your stats aren't doing much.

Disability Law :: RE: Reopening after unfavorable Federal court decision

JOA — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 11:02:59 GMT

Author: JOA
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:02 am (GMT 0)

DW:

You can thank an anonymous Connect visitor for this much more on-point answer to your question, from SSR 67-22.

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/oasi/09/SSR67-22-oasi-09.html

Here are two sentences from that ruling that ask and answer your question:

Quote:

The question thus raised is whether, under the rules for reopening a determination of disallowance which had become final, such determination may be reopened and revised even though the disallowance had been affirmed by a Federal court.

Quote:

The fact that a Federal court had reviewed the Secretary's "final decision" and affirmed that it was correct does not limit the Secretary's authority to reopen and revise an initial determination where there is "good cause for such action."

_________________
I've posted this in my private capacity. What I post might be wrong. Probably, it IS wrong. Any errors are my own. Please don't infer any SSA approval for what I post.

Off-topic :: RE: 65-year-old Georgia judge shoots and kills intruder

David Traver — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:58:31 GMT

Author: David Traver
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:58 am (GMT 0)

It's easy algebra. In 2006 there were 33,300 suicides in the United States. 56 percent of the men committed suicide with firearms, and 31 percent of the women killed themselves that way. "Almost four times as many males as females die by suicide." Do the math.

Source: NIMH · Suicide in the U.S.: Statistics and Prevention http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention/index.shtml (last visited Tue Aug 31 2010 19:37:25 GMT-0500 (CST))

This supports what I wrote:

Quote:

People running around with guns for "self defense" are much more likely to be killed by their own gun (or kill a loved one) or to have it stolen and used to kill some other innocent, than to ever shoot it at a bad guy. It's a sad set of facts, but it's a fact.

CONNECT http://ssaconnect.com/component/option,com_forum/Itemid,0/page,viewtopic/t,8455/#28387 last visited (Mon Aug 30 2010 17:51:23 GMT-0500 (CST))

You brought up the Kellerman study, and then proceeded to knock it down. You did the same with allegations regarding foreign suicide rates. Those are called a straw-man arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I never mentioned Kellerman, or suicides in Finland. I just said what I said, and so far, you have not provided any legitimate statistics to show that I am wrong.

You might want to look for data that shows how many times guns are actually fired in self defense in the United States per year. But then, I could easily add to my statistics by showing how many family members and other innocents are gunned down by mistake, which I have not even touched on yet. And then, there is the murder rate in which stolen firearms are used.

I think my statistics are beating the crap out of yours. What do you think?
_________________
David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
403[at]traverlaw.com

http://ssaconnect.com
http://traverlaw.com
http://www.jamespublishing.com/books/ssr.htm

Off-topic :: RE: 65-year-old Georgia judge shoots and kills intruder

SteveSundeen — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:47:49 GMT

Author: SteveSundeen
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 08:47 pm (GMT 0)

As for children and guns, this is a legitimate concern. Thankfully, these incidents have been steadily decreasing over the years as people seem to be taking safety a lot more seriously.

I won't pretend to understand Texas law, or Texas in general.

Off-topic :: RE: 65-year-old Georgia judge shoots and kills intruder

SteveSundeen — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:42:46 GMT

Author: SteveSundeen
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 08:42 pm (GMT 0)

Look at the suicide rates in the US compared to other industrialized nations and you will find that we are not even near the top. I woula also like to point out that you offered no proof that there was a causal link between gun ownership and suicide. The one study in your link is hardly conclusive and shows a relationship, but not a causal one. If there were, then we should be seeing dops in suicide rates in countries with little civilian gun ownership, but this is not the case.

As for Kellerman, here is a response that was published a few years ago:

To: ALL

From: PAUL NIXON

Subj: Kellerman analyzed

Conf: PR_NET (103) Read: No Status: Public

This from a local fellow who works in the health care field:

Last week I covered some of the more glaring and easily understood errors of the two and one-half page 1986 New England Journal of Medicine article by ER doctor Arthur Kellerman which claimed that "a gun in the home is 43 times more likely..."

Kellerman used many statistical tricks such as limiting any defensive gun use to that where the trigger was actually pulled and excluding any gun use which ocurreding any gun use which ocurred outside the home (such as the front yard). Using multiple categories and then condensingg the data from there tended to obscure the more obvious factors such as, most suicides in his study did not use a gun. And he also refused to allow criminologists such as Kates and Kleck to examine his "data." Too many to mention here.

Despite the 1986 "study" being trashed by every major criminologist, the "43 times" soundbite that emerged lives on in news stories and HCI literature. The 1986 "study" is actually kind of boring and tacky when compared to Kellerman"s 1993 NEJM submission Again, without a hint of peer-review (since the peers didn't get a chance to look at the data until May of 1997), Kellerman this time has not only one co-author, but nine!! Five MDs, three PhDs and one BA in total, not a recognizable name from the world of criminology among them.

Oh, and Kellerman was now one of the major recipients of over two million in grants from the CDC. The CDC head that gave Kellerman the money and helped him hide his data from the probing eyes of scholarly criminologists, thus violating federal law, is now President Clinton's pick for Surgeon General. Anyway, the soundbite that comes from the 1993 "study"? "A gun in the home is 2.7 times..."

On purpose. Kellerman"s first "mistake" is building his is building his paper around a "case-control model." A CCM does well when used to from a general hypothesis about, say, what is causing a particular disease outbreak. But it has a problem with being very sensitive to sample errors and it played right into Kellerman"s hands.

Kellerman took homicide data from three different counties from August 1987 to August 1992. These counties surrounded Seattle (co-author and medical examiner, Donald Reay"s jurisdiction), Memphis and Cleveland. He then investigated each homicide case to see what lifestyle factors it had (drug-use, renting/owning). The proper thing to do would have been to use a random sample of people who may, or may not have been involved in a homicide. Having found the "case", Kellerman now finds a "control" nearby who supposedly shared the demographics but did not have a homicide in the household.

Here is where everything goes to hell in a handbasket. First, Kellerman was only able to get 388 valid cases out of 1860 official reports but only 316 matched controls. Such a small sample is prone to wide statistical variations absent an agenda such as Kellerman et al. It would be interesting to see why, exactly, Kellerman decided to drop so many cases from the study--but none of the analyses that I have read were writtenread were written after 1996. Again, homicides whether lawful or not are included along with suicides. And even "police" was listed as a category in the "Offender" column.

What Kellerman found was that in the homicide homes, 71% of the victims had high rates of criminal activity which agrees with other studies which find that 75% of murderers and 75% of cop killers are adults with long felony histories.. Hardly something that would compare to the rest of America. No, the gun didn't do it. The nature of the criminal did. Criminals killing criminals.

The study never made an effort to decide whether the person being killed was an intruder --OR--whether the gun which may or may not have been present was actually used. And since Kellerman's study shows that 71% of the homicide victims were killed by people whose relationship to the victim indicates that the killer did not live in the victim's house--and presumably brought his own weapon, if any, with him. All Kellerman asked was, "In this household where a homicide was committed, was there a gun, any gun, in the house?" Nothing more.

It turns out that the cases did not quite match up with the controls. While the cases had an overwhelming violent history of crime, assault, drug abuse and, drug abuse and domestic violence (real stuff, notthe pushy- shovey type) the controls background check consisted of, "Were you ever arrested?" Well, I have been arrested--failure to appear in court for not licensing my dog. Not the same stuff. Also, nothing was asked of convictions or seriousness of the crime.

Kellerman, goes to the control house which must be at least "one block" away from the case house, but no maximum is listed. They could have been way far away from the nasty murder neighborhood. Anyone who has traveled through Phoenix can pass by $200,000 homes and stumble right into run-down apartments and nasty trailer parks in a heartbeat.

So Kellerman comes up with what he calls a "risk ratio" or "relative risk" which is actually just a statistical "odds ratio". Kellerman uses the term "risk" to make his pronouncement more terrifying. In logic, this is called an "equivocation." But was does a 2.7 odds ratio mean? An odds ratio of 1.0 denotes a positive risk. Negative 1.0 denotes an opposite association. An odds ratio from 1.1 to 3.0 is shown to mean a "weak or nonexistent" association. 3.1 to 8.0 is considered moderate. 8.0-16 is considered strong. And over 16.0 is extremely strong. Kellerman's odds ratiorman's odds ratio of 2.7 then, is meaningless. And his 95% confidence interval measurement of 1.7 to 2.7 shows that his measurement is actually quite good. Tight CI spreads are better. If a CI shifts in one direction, it suggests that the correct number is actually toward that shift. Recall that Kellerman's odds ratio of 43 in his 1986 study was not matched with any CI. Now you know why. :)

So, Kellerman measured odds ratios for other behavioral and environmental factors. I wonder how they aligned with the chance of our criminal buddies getting themselves killed? Let's have a look. The tables might take some adjusting to view properly.

Behavior Odds Ratio Confidence Interval

1) Victim Drank Alcohol 2.6 1.9-3.5

2) Drinking Problems (house) 7.0 4.2-11.8

3) Drinking Problems (work) 10.7 4.1-27.5

4) Victim Drink Prob (work) 20.0 4.9-82.4

5) Housemember drugs 9.0 5.4-15.0

6) Victim uses drugs 6.8 3.8-12.0

7) Physical fights (drinking) 8.9 5.2-15.3

8) Medical attention (fight) 10.2 5.2-20.0

9) Any household arrested 4.2 3.0-6.0

10 Victim arrested 3.5 2.4-5.2

ed 3.5 2.4-5.2

Environmental Factors

1) Home Rented 5.9 3.8-9.2

2) Victim lived along 3.4 2.2-5.1

3) Security access 2.3 1.2-4.4

And now, finally, we get to guns...

4) Gun(s) in home 1.6 1.2-2.2

Handgun 1.9 1.4-2.7

Shotgun 0.7 0.5-1.1

Rifle 0.8 0.5-1.3

Did you guys catch the significance of that? Handguns are insignificant and shotguns and rifles are positively good!!!

Oh, joy.

5) Any gun unlocked 2.1 1.4-3.0

6) Any gun loaded 2.7 1.8-4.0

Ahhh! there's that 2.7 number buried in there. I knew we'd find it.

7) Guns kept mainly for self-defense 1.7 1.2-2.4

So as we can see, with the odds ratios alone, we can see that the entire soundbite that came from this study is bogus. But wait, there's more. Presumably, the cops knew if there was a gun in the homicide house since they searched it (even if it was not used in the homicide.) How was the presence of a gun deduced for the control households? Why, Kellerman just asked them. "Hi, I'm doing a study on homicides with guns (yes,cides with guns (yes, they did tell them the intent of the study) you haven't had anyone killed in your family, do you have any guns there?"

Well, if you were a felon, how would you answer that question? "Hell no I ain't got no guns!!" What if you were unsure whether it was legal to keep a gun? What if the homicide victims were involved in crime and felt (rightly) that they had a good chance of getting killed? Perhaps they have more guns than usual.

Well, Kellerman thought of that. In a separate validation study, he proceeded to get a list of gun permit holders and called them up and asked them if they had a gun. If they said "yes" they were telling the truth. "No" meant the opposite. Well, if one had a permit, that would mean that they not only went through the trouble of government hoop jumping, but they were likely not felons. So not only were they more likely to be more truthful than the control households, they were also more likely to be cooperative with "authorities."

So, what were the gun ownership differences between the case households and the control households that lead to this magic 2.7 "relative risk" figure? It turns out that of the case homicide households, 45.4% of them had a gun somewhere ingun somewhere in the house. Loaded, unloaded, locked, unlocked. And the non homicide control households? 35.8% of them did likewise. A spread of just 9.6 points difference and this guy justifies a two-million dollar CDC grant??!!

I can't take it anymore. For a more thorough discussion on the 1986 study, contact Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and ask them for their Winter 1997 issue. The 1993 study is handled nicely in the Spring 1995 Tennessee Law Review in an article co-written by Don Kates and others.

I have a copy of the Tenn Law Review article, but it is a paper copy.

Off-topic :: RE: 65-year-old Georgia judge shoots and kills intruder

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:19:45 GMT

Author: hellerfan
Subject: kids, guns, and self-defense
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 06:19 pm (GMT 0)

The biggest problem with guns and kids is that kids will find the guns, "play" with them, and shoot themselves or their playmates. This is a much more legitimate fear than an adult accidentally shooting a kid. As for the Georgia judge, that shooting wouldn't have even made headlines in Harris County (Houston), Texas. Not long ago, a Harris County man called 911 to report someone breaking into his neighbor's house. He ignored 911 instructions, got his gun, and shot the burglar outside his neighbor's house. Even that didn't get him into trouble. To the best of my recollection, the GJ no-billed him.

Disability Law :: Disabled Social Security employees' lawsuit advances...

DScarborough — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:12:39 GMT

Author: DScarborough
Subject: Disabled Social Security employees' lawsuit advances...
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 06:12 pm (GMT 0)

A group of disabled workers is moving forward with a class-action lawsuit against the Social Security Administration alleging the federal agency discriminates against employees with disabilities by denying or limiting promotions.

An office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Aug. 25 affirmed a 2008 decision by an EEOC administrative judge that certified the case as a class action, attorneys for the plaintiffs said Monday. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and other damages as well as changes in policies and procedures that will improve career opportunities for disabled employees, according attorneys for the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs allege the Social Security Administration thwarted promotions of disabled workers.

http://bit.ly/9hA6m8
_________________
Daniel Scarborough
National PASS Network
PO Box 1176
Austin, TX 78767
512.444.3603
http://benefitsblog.typepad.com/

Off-topic :: Keep looking up.

David Traver — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 02:55:46 GMT

Author: David Traver
Subject: Keep looking up.
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 02:55 am (GMT 0)

Quote:

Foley Arthur "Jack" Horkheimer, the award-winning astronomer who entertained millions as the host of the PBS show "Jack Horkheimer: Star Gazer," died on Aug. 20 of a respiratory ailment. He was 72.

Born in Randolph, Wis., Horkheimer was always in poor health. As a child, he suffered from severe allergies, depression and numerous phobias, including acrophobia (fear of heights) and agoraphobia (fear of crowds). Throughout his life, he also battled bronchiectasis, a degenerative lung disease.

Horkheimer's father, the longtime mayor of Randolph, reportedly urged him to be an athlete, and his mother wanted him to become a priest. He preferred to please people, working as a disc jockey, a jazz organist, a playwright and a nightclub entertainer. After dropping out of Marquette University and the Honolulu School of Fine Arts in Hawaii, Horkheimer attended Purdue for six years, where he studied drama and worked as a writer/producer in Purdue's Repertory Theatre. Once Horkheimer finally earned a bachelor's degree, he moved to South Florida because the warm, humid air helped his inflamed lungs.

While Horkheimer never took an accredited astronomy course, his future would soon be written in the stars. A meeting with Art Smith, chief of the Southern Cross Astronomical Society, led to a job running the brand new Space Transit Planetarium (also known as The Miami Planetarium). With a $150,000 Spitz projector at his disposal, Horkheimer created multimedia stargazing shows that were a memorable mix of fact and fantasy. He called it "cosmic theater."

"A planetarium is not for scientists. It's not for the Ph.D.'s. It's for the people," Horkheimer said in a 1982 profile in The Miami Herald. "A planetarium is supposed to mediate between the scientists and the public. It's to teach, to tantalize. Real astronomers aren't supposed to be running planetariums. It's living death for them. They're supposed to be researching."

The Blog of Death http://www.blogofdeath.com/ last visited (Mon Aug 30 2010 21:54:59 GMT-0500 (CST))
_________________
David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
403[at]traverlaw.com

http://ssaconnect.com
http://traverlaw.com
http://www.jamespublishing.com/books/ssr.htm

Disability Law :: RE: Unsual Overpayment Case

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:47:53 GMT

Author:
Subject: Re: Unsual Overpayment Case
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:47 pm (GMT 0)

DrDemose wrote:

I have an odd overpayment case I am handling gratis for a former client. In a nutshell, SSA maintains that the client was paid disability checks for time period x through y, (over 10 years ago), and she maintains that she never got checks for that time period. (Time period is pre-direct deposit days). Through the appeal process, the district office tried to get copies of the cancelled checks but Treasury said that they were not available. I am suspicious that are not available because they simply do not exist.

1099s for the time period, however, reflect that she was indeed paid, and this is the basis for the DO sticking with the overpayment allegation. Her tax returns do not, however, reflect the income reflected on the 1099s. And the IRS has never come back to her with questions about the fact that 1099 amounts were not included on income tax returns. The client is going to be providing me with back bank statements, but I sure would appreciate any ideas on how I prove this negative.

If the PHUS records show the payments were issued, I have no doubt that this was the case. The fact that the paper copies of the check can't be located is not in any way an SSA issue - it is strictly a Treasury Department issue. They don't PRESENTLY exist because it has always been the policy of the Treasury Department to destroy all paper canceled checks over 6 years old with absolutely no exceptions.

Have you requested that SSA try to locate the prior disability folder? If it can be located, you will have applications with the recipient's signature as proof that she filed, and tons of various types of paper forms showing the various addresses where SSA sent letters (and presumably benefit checks). Your client should be able to verify to you whether she lived at any of those addresses. You may also find copies of the overpayment notices and subsequent collection notices. And, if she ever had a duplicate check negotiation overpayment, the check photocopies for those checks might even be in the folder. At least this would give you a good idea as to whether your client is being truthful with you and not just yanking your chain. It might also answer the question as to whether a representative payee was involved.

If SSA can't produce the folder (and this very likely could be the case given the agency's idiotic policy of eventually destroying all inactive folders, including those with outstanding overpayments) and SSA can't produce the checks, I'd say they have no grounds to establish fault on the part of your client in causing the overpayment - they can't even prove your client filed a claim. File a waiver request, let them deny it, then proceed on to hearing. The ALJ will almost certainly have to waive the overpayment based upon lack of evidence. You could also try to appeal the fact of the overpayment by filing a request for reconsideration along with a good cause for late filing statement. However, I suspect that the request will be dismissed administratively as not being timely and you don't have any avenues to appeal such a dismissal.

Off-topic :: RE: 65-year-old Georgia judge shoots and kills intruder

David Traver — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:53:48 GMT

Author: David Traver
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:53 pm (GMT 0)

SteveSundeen wrote:

The "43 times more likely" study was done by Kellerman back in the 1980's. It looked at a whopping total of 43 deaths, which is hardly a representative sample. It was debunked by a number of non-NRA sources, including FSU criminologist, Gary Kleck in his book, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America". There are other sources, but I will have to dig around if you are interested.

Prior to going to law school, I worked in the mental health field, including on-call work with people that were threatening suicide. I also had several clients kill themselves. In my opinion, a person that really wants to kill themslves is no more likely to do so because they own a firearm. They will just choose another method if one is not available. The suicide rate in Finland is almost twice that of the US (according to the World Health Organization) and their firearms ownership rate is much less than ours.

As for data on the defensive use of handguns, there is none that I am aware of. The DOJ doesn't keep track of it, though I do believe they compile how many times someone is found not guilty because of a justifiable homicide. Of course, this doesn't include cases where the prosecutor declined to press charges. The aforementioned Gary Kleck estimated that there are around 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year (published in his book Targeting Guns). The 2000 National Crime Victims Survey (published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics) indicated that every day, 550 rapes, 1100 murders, and 5200 other violent crimes are prevented.

You have provided more anecdotal "evidence" and guestimates, and some insubstantial logic, but no solid data to counter the gun suicide rates that I linked to. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention/index.shtml Given that, I'm going to stick with my initial comment, which was:

Quote:

CONNECT http://ssaconnect.com/component/option,com_forum/Itemid,0/page,viewtopic/t,8455/#28387 last visited (Mon Aug 30 2010 17:51:23 GMT-0500 (CST))

Let's see some real statistics to show that I'm wrong, and I'll change my position.

That said, It's a pleasure to have this reasoned discussion, and thanks to you and the other fine responders to this string.
_________________
David Traver
Attorney
Traver & Traver, S.C.
P.O. Box 459
Eagle, WI 53119
262-594-2096 (work)
403[at]traverlaw.com

http://ssaconnect.com
http://traverlaw.com
http://www.jamespublishing.com/books/ssr.htm

Disability Law :: RE: Unsual Overpayment Case

MikeWalters — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:17:42 GMT

Author: MikeWalters
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 08:17 pm (GMT 0)

I don't have enough information to respond directly to the inquiry, but see the linked thread for some information about overpayments and administrative finaility (there are sub-links to POMS in the thread):
http://ssaconnect.com/component/option,com_forum/Itemid,0/page,viewtopic/p,28243/highlight,/#28243

I will add however that if SSA claims that they identified the overpayment and notified the beneficiary within the 4 year time-frame (but they were unable to collect because the checks were stopped) there is virtually no statute of limitations on collection.

Disability Law :: Unsual Overpayment Case

DrDemose — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:53:40 GMT

Author: DrDemose
Subject: Unsual Overpayment Case
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 07:53 pm (GMT 0)

I have an odd overpayment case I am handling gratis for a former client. In a nutshell, SSA maintains that the client was paid disability checks for time period x through y, (over 10 years ago), and she maintains that she never got checks for that time period. (Time period is pre-direct deposit days). Through the appeal process, the district office tried to get copies of the cancelled checks but Treasury said that they were not available. I am suspicious that are not available because they simply do not exist.

1099s for the time period, however, reflect that she was indeed paid, and this is the basis for the DO sticking with the overpayment allegation. Her tax returns do not, however, reflect the income reflected on the 1099s. And the IRS has never come back to her with questions about the fact that 1099 amounts were not included on income tax returns. The client is going to be providing me with back bank statements, but I sure would appreciate any ideas on how I prove this negative.