|
Post by chessparent on Mar 27, 2014 22:04:30 GMT -5
Try a garter style holster. Drape your leg just so . . . and there you have it. And that clinches it. Diabolic is not the Sith. The Dark Lord would never have known this little secret. You are welcome.
|
|
|
Post by futuressaalj on Mar 27, 2014 22:09:28 GMT -5
The dark lord's account is still active, he is an Agency insider. I would have thought that despite the dark side of the force, he would have at least commented to defend this "Ladie's" honor when she was accused of being the DLOTS in drag.
|
|
|
Post by advocatusdiaboli on Mar 27, 2014 22:43:18 GMT -5
I absolutely think OPM can change its, for lack of a better term, mind. But the requirement for active licensure had been effect since the passage of the APA in '46, OPM vigorously defended the requirement in March, 2007, and sixteen months later suspended it. I think their action in this instance was precipitous and ill considered.
Remember it is not the change in the regulation that must be rational, but rather the relationship between the application requirement and the performance of job duties in the position to be filled. Think of it like this:
Is it rational to require a job applicant to possess a _______ license where performance of the job duties does not require a ______ license?
Insert whatever job you like in the blanks: teaching, nursing, plumber. What do you think? Is it rational? The only reason OPM offered for retaining the requirement for applicants was the ethical oversight. But other professions require ethical oversight, so why require a law license particularly? History. But the same history applied to Judges and was disregarded with the rule change. Hell, you need a license in most states to cut hair. Although I am not certain of the ethical requirements because I have had some bad haircuts.
In any event, thank you for helping me thin through this. It has been very helpful.
|
|
|
Post by advocatusdiaboli on Mar 27, 2014 22:44:39 GMT -5
Who is this Dark Lord of the Sith and why is he seemingly so universally reviled?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 27, 2014 22:54:33 GMT -5
Who is this Dark Lord of the Sith and why is he seemingly so universally reviled? If you've been posting here since 2009, you must know how to look up members and read their posts and responses to them.
|
|
|
Post by advocatusdiaboli on Mar 27, 2014 22:57:54 GMT -5
Who is this Dark Lord of the Sith and why is he seemingly so universally reviled? If you've been posting here since 2009, you must know how to look up members and read their posts and responses to them. DLOTS doesn't appear in a search of members. There is a darkhorse.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 27, 2014 23:05:58 GMT -5
If you've been posting here since 2009, you must know how to look up members and read their posts and responses to them. DLOTS doesn't appear in a search of members. There is a darkhorse. He's there, but I do recall he's a bit tricky to find. www.aljdiscussion.proboards.com/user/2299 In a nutshell, he made some very bold statements he had reportedly obtained from a very well placed inside source at OPM about why the NORs were delayed, that a part of the test was virtually sure to be thrown out, etc. etc. - when none of it turned out to be true, he vanished. He's still a member, his posts are still here, but he has not been seen since then.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Mar 27, 2014 23:07:02 GMT -5
I think some of you are being a little harsh on our Diablo. She raises some interesting points-albeit somewhat moot at this stage. Sure beats that crap in the "why should I leave my $350k biglaw job?" thread.
|
|
|
Post by advocatusdiaboli on Mar 27, 2014 23:50:25 GMT -5
Try a garter style holster. Drape your leg just so . . . and there you have it. And that clinches it. Diabolic is not the Sith. The Dark Lord would never have known this little secret. You are welcome. Just a point of clarification: Are you suggesting DLOTS doesn't fancy guns . . . or women? Not that there is anything wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Mar 28, 2014 5:31:33 GMT -5
I think some of you are being a little harsh on our Diablo. She raises some interesting points-albeit somewhat moot at this stage. Sure beats that crap in the "why should I leave my $350k biglaw job?" thread. Agreed. I don't think that it will be something that wins an appeal on the administrative side of things, but I think for an otherwise qualified applicant, it could be an interesting issue for litigation. I have no doubts someone will raise it once all the administrative remedies are exhausted. Like others have said these appeals are going to be a little of the shotgun approach.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 28, 2014 5:46:55 GMT -5
Dear Sratty:
My point is not the brutality of the process, but its inanity. How does OPM maintain that an applicant's possession of a law license, ANY law license is rationally related to performance in a job that does not require a law license? If such a rational relationship exists, I confess it eludes me.
As for the vacancy announcement, it says what it says. But ststutes are published in the U.S. Code and regulations are published in the Federal Register and then the Code of Federal Regulations. I have not come across a vacancy announcement in any of these sources.
AD First of all, since you deny you are not DLOS, I owe you an apology for inferring that you were. But the intro to your thread here threw me for a loop--and I'm not the only one. Secondly, of course having a law liscense is related to the job. Have you ever heard of a trial judge not being a lawyer and well versed in evidence, civil procedure and con law? I run trials and lawyers and while few of you would be surprised at how ignorant of the law some lawyers are in my administrative law area, I still regularly remind them of the difference between evidence and argument. Not to mention hearing objections on leading questions as some appear unable to do a direct exam. So I have no idea what you are getting at other than OPM will allow us Judges to have an inactive liscense as we do not practice law. I would rather give up one of my progenators than my license, though...
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 28, 2014 5:50:53 GMT -5
I absolutely think OPM can change its, for lack of a better term, mind. But the requirement for active licensure had been effect since the passage of the APA in '46, OPM vigorously defended the requirement in March, 2007, and sixteen months later suspended it. I think their action in this instance was precipitous and ill considered.
Remember it is not the change in the regulation that must be rational, but rather the relationship between the application requirement and the performance of job duties in the position to be filled. Think of it like this:
Is it rational to require a job applicant to possess a _______ license where performance of the job duties does not require a ______ license?
Insert whatever job you like in the blanks: teaching, nursing, plumber. What do you think? Is it rational? The only reason OPM offered for retaining the requirement for applicants was the ethical oversight. But other professions require ethical oversight, so why require a law license particularly? History. But the same history applied to Judges and was disregarded with the rule change. Hell, you need a license in most states to cut hair. Although I am not certain of the ethical requirements because I have had some bad haircuts.
In any event, thank you for helping me thin through this. It has been very helpful. I think you're looking at it wrong. The qualification standard they're using here is not licensure. It's that the applicant conducts himself/herself in an appropriate and professional manner in the practice of law. The way they have chosen to superficially check this with applicants is to make sure they have an active bar license and are in good standing. This qualification standard is not subsequently waived for ALJs. Rather, the judicial code and federal regulations allow an agency to continue to hold judges to the ethical and professional standard in the practice of law without the need for a license. And while they're not actually practicing law per se, law is the field to which those professional standards apply. The question for why any licensed individual in any profession cannot be a judge is specious. While other licensure boards monitor minimum standards of their profession, they do not do so in consideration of how a nurse, pilot, plumber, etc. practice law. Are you suggesting that the professional standards for all of these professions are the same?
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 28, 2014 6:38:31 GMT -5
I absolutely think OPM can change its, for lack of a better term, mind. But the requirement for active licensure had been effect since the passage of the APA in '46, OPM vigorously defended the requirement in March, 2007, and sixteen months later suspended it. I think their action in this instance was precipitous and ill considered.
Remember it is not the change in the regulation that must be rational, but rather the relationship between the application requirement and the performance of job duties in the position to be filled. Think of it like this:
Is it rational to require a job applicant to possess a _______ license where performance of the job duties does not require a ______ license?
Insert whatever job you like in the blanks: teaching, nursing, plumber. What do you think? Is it rational? The only reason OPM offered for retaining the requirement for applicants was the ethical oversight. But other professions require ethical oversight, so why require a law license particularly? History. But the same history applied to Judges and was disregarded with the rule change. Hell, you need a license in most states to cut hair. Although I am not certain of the ethical requirements because I have had some bad haircuts.
In any event, thank you for helping me thin through this. It has been very helpful. I think you're looking at it wrong. The qualification standard they're using here is not licensure. It's that the applicant conducts himself/herself in an appropriate and professional manner in the practice of law. The way they have chosen to superficially check this with applicants is to make sure they have an active bar license and are in good standing. This qualification standard is not subsequently waived for ALJs. Rather, the judicial code and federal regulations allow an agency to continue to hold judges to the ethical and professional standard in the practice of law without the need for a license. And while they're not actually practicing law per se, law is the field to which those professional standards apply. The question for why any licensed individual in any profession cannot be a judge is specious. While other licensure boards monitor minimum standards of their profession, they do not do so in consideration of how a nurse, pilot, plumber, etc. practice law. Are you suggesting that the professional standards for all of these professions are the same? Yes, thank you hopefalj. That's part 2 of the licensure requirement and one that is taken for granted by lawyers. You are held to a high ethical standard. As recent litigation against ALJs by ODAR has demonstrated--and almost uniformedly resulted in the ALJ losing his job.
|
|
|
Post by owl on Mar 28, 2014 11:23:10 GMT -5
If you are, in fact, a licensed lawyer, and you got DQ'd for a licensure issue, your simplest and best argument is "Hey, OPM, here's my license."
IMHO it would not serve anyone well to obfuscate that with anything, much less a quixotic and esoteric argument about whether it's rational to require an applicant to have a license in the first place. You will just end up annoying the real live people who have to review your appeal, making more work for them as they have to work up an answer to this borderline-frivolous side argument.
The online application literally required only two things to prove licensure, right? (1) You had to check a box that said "Yes" after a question that asked if you were licensed, and (2) you had to give them your state(s), date(s) of admission, bar number(s), and if applicable, an explanation of any status other than "active." [So I guess part 2 actually consists of 3 things and for some, 4.]
Again, IMHO, any appeal should simply focus on the fact that you did these things (as I assume pretty much everyone did, even those who have been DQ'd). Assert that you did them, prove that you did them if you can (no problem for those who applied through USAJOBS; folks who applied directly through Application Manager hopefully printed a hard copy of their application before AM went away), and explain why your answer should have been deemed adequate.
BTW, I made the register and for date of admission I only gave the month and year.
Good luck to all with their licensure issue appeals. My gut feeling is many and maybe even most of you will ultimately be successful as long as you checked the "Yes" box and gave them each item of info asked for.
|
|