|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 6, 2007 9:15:09 GMT -5
Could all of the messageboard participants who have appealed please post here indicating when they appealed, the bases of their appeals, and whether they have had a response?
I appealed in July, immediately after being told that my application was discarded because I failed to indicate the date I was licensed in response to the correct question. I have had no response.
|
|
|
|
Post by zero on Dec 6, 2007 10:50:06 GMT -5
PM me if you want to know my basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazybroad on Dec 6, 2007 10:55:36 GMT -5
I was a technical denial stating I did not provide enough information to prove licensure to practice law. I had put down my jurisdictions, month and year admitted but no license number. I appealed in July also. In my appeal, I said that only one of my jurisdictions had a license number so even if one was not sufficient the other one was. I was notified September 27 that my application was reviewed and I had qualified for the WD and SI. I took both the following week. I received a pretty low rating but was reached on the SSA certificate.
|
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Dec 6, 2007 11:30:27 GMT -5
I received notice on July 11 that I was ineligible because I had not given sufficient licensure information - I had not listed my bar numbers. On July 11, I e-mailed as set forth in the appeal rights, listing every court in which I am admitted, listing my bar numbers as well, twice. Just for the belt and suspenders approach I again listed the dates of admission, including the day, which I understand from others was a problem.
I received notice on Sept 25 that OPM had reconsidered and determined that I was qualified. I also received notice, sent on Sept 26 at 3 a.m., that I was now scheduled to take the written test on Sept 27 at OPM in DC., and the interview portion on Oct 3, also at OPM in DC. I thought maybe this was part of the stress test qualification. I discovered the e-mail at about 10 am on Sept 26, made a very quick Priceline arrangement to get across the country to DC. I went to court that afternoon and left for DC immediately after going home, at lunch, to pack. I arrived in DC (actually way the hell out at Dulles) and took the test on Sept 27 with an entire hour of sleep. I then returned home on Friday. I then left for Denver on Monday where I was sceduled to do oral argument at the 10th Cir on Tues Oct 2. (They had actually given me several months to plan.) I left Denver on Oct 2 in the pm, rather than take a few days off in the mountains as I had planned, (another Priceline arrangement) arriving in Baltimore after midnight and was at OPM for a noon interview that started promptly at 2. After that I went to that National Gallery for the Edward Hopper exhibit and then to a bar in DC. The next day I returned home, again after another detour to Denver. I spoke to several people on each of those days who had also been scheduled late after appeals, because they had forgotten to put down the specific day of the month in which they were admitted. One was from MD, one from NJ, and one from NY.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseymom on Dec 6, 2007 11:35:51 GMT -5
I was notified in July that my resume had not been received with the Application. I sent a short appeal, 2 paragraphs, stating that the Resume Manager indicated that my resume had been sent before the cut-off. On August 28th, I was notified that my appeal was granted & on September 27th I received notice of t he WD & SI. I completed both the first week of October & scored 65.07. Hope this helps. Jerseymom  |
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 6, 2007 11:46:19 GMT -5
Well, this is extremely frustrating to hear that others who failed to indicate the date they were licensed have had their appeals dealt with in September.
|
|
|
|
Post by arlene25 on Dec 6, 2007 13:09:02 GMT -5
Not sure if you want those who appealed their score, but I did. Haven't heard anything. My score was shockingly low (imho) and didn't make the certificate. |
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 6, 2007 13:33:42 GMT -5
I have received this unhelpful response from the inappropriately named ALJ Application Help Desk:
"OPM will consider your appeal as described in the ALJ announcement and Appeals Rights Procedures. The Appeals Panel will convene to adjudicate applicant appeals once final ratings have been assigned to all applicants who applied during the May 2007 announcement open period. You will be notified via email of the Panel’s decision and of any subsequent instructions/ procedures, as appropriate, based on the Panel’s decision.
Administrative Law Judge Examining Office"
Note to Pixie or anyone else who has any insight on this issue: Is there anything we can do to encourage someone to look at our appeals??? I filed my appeal the day we got our Notice of Results, July 11, five months ago.
This is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by southernmiss on Jan 18, 2008 17:42:49 GMT -5
I can't believe I am just reading this! I forgot to put the date of my joining the Bar, even though they already had it as I was on the register. I haven't heard a thing.! How can they treat the same issue differently for different people! I'd appeal this, but I doubt if they are reading my appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Feb 4, 2008 19:58:14 GMT -5
I received a message today from a frequent poster who uses a nom de plume which has the initials jh:
"I do not want to post this, as I will get flamed big time, but I have to say that I am at a loss to understand how anyone who wants this job, knowing how detailed this process has been in the past, would ever have failed to list their bar licensurer dates and/or numbers or whatever. I am flummoxed to think that people who want to be an ALJ could make that kind of mistake. Yes, it's a simple mistake; yes, I am sure there was enough information elsewhere on the application that the blank could be filled in, but that's not the point - it was the applicants responsibility to fill out the application in all respects. I actually don't agree that these appeals should have delayed the process - thus making the SSA have to wait even longer to fill their slots and making those of us who did not make such a mistake wait longer."
I couldn't agree more jh. Clearly, the effort it would have taken to look elsewhere on the appilcations to see if the dates or license numbers were there would have taken perhaps A FEW MINUTES for each application. And to deal with all of our appeals in the last seven months, well, that could have delayed the whole process A FEW HOURS.
And obviously, no one as brilliant and conscientious, not to mention having such a healthy self-confidence, as yourself could have ever made such a stupid mistake.
I hope that you will soon hear that you have been selected to fill one of the open ALJ slots, and that if you are not selected, your fellow applicants will show you nothing but the most whole-hearted sensitivity. Take care, Tricia
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 4, 2008 20:32:51 GMT -5
I received a message today from a frequent poster who uses a nom de plume which has the initials jh: "I do not want to post this, as I will get flamed big time, but I have to say that I am at a loss to understand how anyone who wants this job, knowing how detailed this process has been in the past, would ever have failed to list their bar licensurer dates and/or numbers or whatever. I am flummoxed to think that people who want to be an ALJ could make that kind of mistake. Yes, it's a simple mistake; yes, I am sure there was enough information elsewhere on the application that the blank could be filled in, but that's not the point - it was the applicants responsibility to fill out the application in all respects. I actually don't agree that these appeals should have delayed the process - thus making the SSA have to wait even longer to fill their slots and making those of us who did not make such a mistake wait longer." I couldn't agree more jh. Clearly, the effort it would have taken to look elsewhere on the appilcations to see if the dates or license numbers were there would have taken perhaps A FEW MINUTES for each application. And to deal with all of our appeals in the last seven months, well, that could have delayed the whole process A FEW HOURS. And obviously, no one as brilliant and conscientious, not to mention having such a healthy self-confidence, as yourself could have ever made such a stupid mistake. I hope that you will soon hear that you have been selected to fill one of the open ALJ slots, and that if you are not selected, your fellow applicants will show you nothing but the most whole-hearted sensitivity. Take care, Tricia Airing something somebody sent to you as a private message for no other purpose than to embarrass -- really classy. Keep up the good work. I hope people show you nothing but the most whole-hearted sensitivity you show others. |
|
|
|
Post by gromit on Feb 4, 2008 20:40:59 GMT -5
Tricia:
I concur with the good doctor. Common internet etiquette - "netiquette" - dictates that the content of PMs should not be revealed on the public board.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjones on Feb 4, 2008 21:57:56 GMT -5
netiquette is a fickle friend then if it allows individuals to slam others via pm?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 4, 2008 22:51:45 GMT -5
netiquette is a fickle friend then if it allows individuals to slam others via pm? Slam? Please, hardly a slam. An opinion? Of course. An unpopular opinion, obviously. But a slam? In any event, if Tricia disagreed (again, pretty obvious), it seems pretty clear she could have simply responded. Public floggings went out of style a long long time ago -- nope, this was just a simple case of "I don't like what you said, so I'm going to tell." |
|
|
|
Post by ALJD on Feb 5, 2008 1:13:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Feb 5, 2008 4:12:35 GMT -5
And obviously, no one as brilliant and conscientious, not to mention having such a healthy self-confidence, as yourself could have ever made such a stupid mistake.... Take care, Tricia Sure, Trish - I've made a huge share of "stupid mistakes." I just don't expect anybody else to pay for them. |
|
|
|
Post by Waffle on Feb 5, 2008 5:40:37 GMT -5
MY RECOMMENDATION:
Everyone immediately retreat to the moral high ground -- and never stray off it again.
We have come too far along this path of collegiality and professionalism amongst ourselves to now start stepping from it into the briars and brambles of "that other board."
Forgive, forget, move forward with your heads high!
|
|
|
|
Post by judicature on Feb 5, 2008 7:26:42 GMT -5
I agree with Rodney King, ALJ Discussion and Waffle.
Everyone needs to remember that whatever you post on the internet seems harsher and starker than in a personal conversation - there is no tone of voice or facial expression that can either soften the speaker's message or more accurately convey the poster's meaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 5, 2008 9:08:22 GMT -5
Yes we can. |
|
|
|
Post by zero on Feb 5, 2008 20:29:48 GMT -5
Oh for crying out loud! I know we want to enforce etiquette on this board but did we really need 10 posts cluttering up this thread about one sarcastic remark? Just to recap for anyone who doesn't want spend 15 minutes digging through the posts to figure out what got everyone so upset: Somebody posted a private message he/she received which included a sarcastic remark about filling out the application (on which basis I presume the pm recipient was denied). The recipient posted the PM on the board and now everyone is arguing over who committed the bigger sin.
Now back to the topic. What was it? Oh, yes, Appeals. I would like to know if it is true that some appeals were acted upon in September. Also, there was a bunch of talk about FOIAs and MSPB appeals about five months ago? Did everyone just go back to their day jobs?
|
|
