tinkerbell
Full Member
All you need is faith, trust and a little bit of pixie dust. - Tinker Bell
Posts: 60
|
Post by tinkerbell on Mar 18, 2014 13:04:13 GMT -5
How I read the language is that "good standing" is a replacement for "active." While reasonable minds may disagree, the jurisdiction I am licensed in does not have an "active" status. Those who are able to practice law in the jurisdiction have a "good standing" designation. It does say that it depends on what your licensing authority says, or calls "active" practice. If your licensing authority confirms in writing to OPM that "good standing" is their equivalent for active, (which status they don't have) you should be in good shape on this issue. Thanks, Observer53. I was just pointing out this language on the thread. I stated in my app that we did not have "active" status and that my jurisdiction used "good standing." I did not have any issues re: my bar membership. I saw earlier in the thread that people had different statuses, other than "active," in their various jurisdictions at the time they applied and just wanted to point out that some jurisdictions only use "good standing."
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 18, 2014 13:08:07 GMT -5
It does say that it depends on what your licensing authority says, or calls "active" practice. If your licensing authority confirms in writing to OPM that "good standing" is their equivalent for active, (which status they don't have) you should be in good shape on this issue. Thanks, Observer53. I was just pointing out this language on the thread. I stated in my app that we did not have "active" status and that my jurisdiction used "good standing." I did not have any issues re: my bar membership. I saw earlier in the thread that people had different statuses, other than "active," in their various jurisdictions at the time they applied and just wanted to point out that some jurisdictions only use "good standing." Thanks tinkerbell, I wasn't keeping track of who had been DQed on this issue, but the example of your state is important, and fits right in to the language on the application. They (OPM) really do seem to have a bit of trouble handling this issue, and there may well be some inconsistencies in how people's answers to this question are evaluated. I do continue to believe that it is REALLY unfortunate that they waited so long to point out a problem with information they have had for A YEAR. These issues, for those for whom they can be sorted out successfully, could have been sorted out months ago.
|
|
tinkerbell
Full Member
All you need is faith, trust and a little bit of pixie dust. - Tinker Bell
Posts: 60
|
Post by tinkerbell on Mar 18, 2014 13:14:39 GMT -5
Thanks, Observer53. I was just pointing out this language on the thread. I stated in my app that we did not have "active" status and that my jurisdiction used "good standing." I did not have any issues re: my bar membership. I saw earlier in the thread that people had different statuses, other than "active," in their various jurisdictions at the time they applied and just wanted to point out that some jurisdictions only use "good standing." They (OPM) really do seem to have a bit of trouble handling this issue, and there may well be some inconsistencies in how people's answers to this question are evaluated. I do continue to believe that it is REALLY unfortunate that they waited so long to point out a problem with information they have had for A YEAR. These issues, if they can be sorted out, could have been sorted out months ago. That is so true! It is very unfortunate for all who have to go through this. I either read somewhere or heard that OPM has "quality control" (maybe sheer speculation). I wonder if that was part of the hold up for the NORs and maybe why issues that should have been sorted out by OPM before came out with the issuance of NORs. However, I still don't think it is an excuse for the time and money that individuals are otherwise out.
|
|
leo68
Full Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by leo68 on Mar 18, 2014 13:31:47 GMT -5
I see why you are a forum legend funky, but on this one detail you may have missed the mark. I just received my appeal instructions. The help desk is precisely where we are to send our appeals.
|
|
leo68
Full Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by leo68 on Mar 18, 2014 13:32:31 GMT -5
I just sent you a message Observer53. Please check your inbox.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 18, 2014 13:41:57 GMT -5
I see why you are a forum legend funky, but on this one detail you may have missed the mark. I just received my appeal instructions. The help desk is precisely where we are to send our appeals. Would be far from the first time Leo. Best of luck to you and your similarly situated.
|
|
|
Post by downbutnotout on Mar 18, 2014 13:51:12 GMT -5
Just received mine as well.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 18, 2014 13:52:18 GMT -5
Have not received anything yet. I suspect they are sending appeal instructions first to those who do not have scores.
|
|
leo68
Full Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by leo68 on Mar 18, 2014 13:57:01 GMT -5
You have a score Observer?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 18, 2014 14:01:09 GMT -5
You have a score Observer? Yes. But we will all get appeal instructions, as everyone has the option to appeal their score as well.
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Mar 18, 2014 14:47:25 GMT -5
I haven't received anything either.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 18, 2014 15:35:31 GMT -5
There may be some helpful info in the older posts about appealing this "active" status issue. Those appeals would have come bfrom folks that were cut at the old "accomplishment record" level. You might also check that dank, dark other board. Just wash your hands thoroughly before returning here
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 18, 2014 15:50:18 GMT -5
Just wash your hands thoroughly before returning hereĀ I never wash my hands as the frequent exposure to pathogens strengthens my immune system. Well hello there antifunky. Thought maybe you had given up since I hadn't seen you post on my heels lately. I assume you made the cut with that perfect score posted on the polls? Or will you just have to make due with your $350k a year biglaw job in your Shangri La where there are no obese or downtrodden?
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 18, 2014 19:10:41 GMT -5
Well hello there antifunky. Thought maybe you had given up since I hadn't seen you post on my heels lately. Just trying to avoid annihilation -- in particle physics class I learned that's what happens when a funky and an antifunky collide . . . and while we're in physics metaphors, let's just say I scored the correct altitude and aptitude to test the theory about escaping the gravitational pull of SSA for other worlds Truly? That is indeed great news. Then there is no chance of our causing any space-time rifts by ever meeting. I will happily remain ensconced at odar while you use your expertise in horseassery to judge dressage or some similar high society affair. Afterall, I'd hate to reenact our last encounter. Neither the city of Detroit nor the american auto industry has yet recovered from the "Pistons Event of 1984".
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 18, 2014 19:23:01 GMT -5
Well hello there antifunky. Thought maybe you had given up since I hadn't seen you post on my heels lately. Just trying to avoid annihilation -- in particle physics class I learned that's what happens when a funky and an antifunky collide . . . and while we're in physics metaphors, let's just say I scored the correct altitude and aptitude to test the theory about escaping the gravitational pull of SSA for other worlds This is something we all want to hear about. When an Agency other than SSA hires you off the Register, please let us know. I have little doubt that you will get a round of applause. On the other hand, if mislead, I will say from first hand experience that Karma is a B&^ch.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 19, 2014 10:36:38 GMT -5
I will say from first hand experience that Karma is a B&^ch. I dated a girl named Karma once -- apparently you did too Seems we are much alike afterall. Pretty sure I married her daughter.
|
|
|
Post by guardian on Mar 19, 2014 21:06:53 GMT -5
I'm sorry to say I fit in this thread too. Not sure why I though since I need to look at my application. Would someone be so kind as to direct me to the online version of our applications (application manager?)?
I do remember not putting the exact date of my admission to the Wash. State Bar but the month and the year. Is this the only issue.
Or is it that I have not been in active status for 7 consecutive recent years (only 2 with 8 years judicial before that, then many years active)
Starting to wonder if I want this job.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 19, 2014 21:11:48 GMT -5
I'm sorry to say I fit in this thread too. Not sure why I though since I need to look at my application. Would someone be so kind as to direct me to the online version of our applications (application manager?)?
I do remember not putting the exact date of my admission to the Wash. State Bar but the month and the year. Is this the only issue.
Or is it that I have not been in active status for 7 consecutive recent years (only 2 with 8 years judicial before that, then many years active)
Starting to wonder if I want this job. The only way to access it online is through USAJobs since application manager is no longer accessible without going through USAjobs. So it depends on how you applied. If directly through application manager as some have done, I hope you have a paper copy saved somewhere!
|
|
|
Post by downbutnotout on Mar 19, 2014 21:39:23 GMT -5
I'm sorry to say I fit in this thread too. Not sure why I though since I need to look at my application. Would someone be so kind as to direct me to the online version of our applications (application manager?)?
I do remember not putting the exact date of my admission to the Wash. State Bar but the month and the year. Is this the only issue.
Or is it that I have not been in active status for 7 consecutive recent years (only 2 with 8 years judicial before that, then many years active)
Starting to wonder if I want this job. The only way to access it online is through USAJobs since application manager is no longer accessible without going through USAjobs. So it depends on how you applied. If directly through application manager as some have done, I hope you have a paper copy saved somewhere! I get there through USAJOBS.
|
|
|
Post by guardian on Mar 20, 2014 0:53:16 GMT -5
Thanks folks for your help. I found my application thru USA jobs. It says that AlJ applicants are required to certify that they are duly licensed as an attorney at the time of filing and were so licensed for at least seven years prior to this application under the laws of a State... I am not sure what language followed the ...Are they interpreting this to be 7 consecutive years? (it doesn't say consecutive). Also, has anyone from Washington State with judicial status in the prior 7 years tested the waters regarding the in good standing argument?
|
|