Archive for March, 2006

Judge Summe Rights Wrong. Com. Attn. has not decided if he should retry father convicted on repressed memory of crazy daughter

Friday, March 31st, 2006

    Lets get this straight.  Katie Smith while performing oral sex on her boyfriend, began to recall for first time that her father had abused her.  These repressed memory allegations have since been discredited by the medical profession.  The accuser attempted to cut a baby from the womb of a pregnant woman she had lured to her home. The pregnant woman took the knife away from Smith and killed her.  The accuser is now dead….and the Commonwealth is considering a retrial?   The father, Tim Smith, whose innocence is supported by his other daughters, has been in prison since 2001.  His conviction was based solely on the testimony of his daughter.  His defense attorney did not call any rebuttal experts to contest the “repressed memory? claims.
This case, and the Commonwealth’s hesitancy to let this weak case go away, demonstrate that the word of a female, even if she is crazy as a loon, can convict a man of sexual charges.  The Commonwealth should apologize to Tim Smith, and compensate him for his imprisonment.
Judge Summe is no weeping violet, she is a tough judge, if she sees that the conviction was improper, the Commonwealth should remember that they are supposed to be “Ministers of Justice? and not just advocates for any crazy allegation that comes along.  See: PROSECUTOR’S DUTY RE: CONDUCT AND FAIRNESS  “A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate.” -Ky. Supreme Ct.-    Let’s get this straight.  Katie Smith while performing oral sex on her boyfriend, began to recall for first time that her father had abused her.  These repressed memory allegations have since been discredited by the medical profession.  The accuser attempted to cut a baby from the womb of a pregnant woman she had lured to her home. The pregnant woman took the knife away from Smith and killed her.  The accuser is now dead….and the Commonwealth is considering a retrial?   The father, Tim Smith, whose innocence is supported by his other daughters, has been in prison since 2001.  His conviction was based solely on the testimony of his daughter.  His defense attorney did not call any rebuttal experts to contest the “repressed memory? claims.This case, and the Commonwealth’s hesitancy to let this weak case go away, demonstrate that the word of a female, even if she is crazy as a loon, can convict a man of sexual charges.  The Commonwealth should apologize to Tim Smith, and compensate him for his imprisonment. Judge Summe is no weeping violet, she is a tough judge, if she sees that the conviction was improper, the Commonwealth should remember that they are supposed to be “Ministers of Justice? and not just advocates for any crazy allegation that comes along.  See: Ky. Supreme Ct.-
Man’s sodomy conviction thrown out
Accuser later attacked pregnant woman
By Andrew Wolfson   Reprinted from The Courier-Journal                March 31, 2006
Sentenced in 2001 to 20 years in prison for sodomizing his daughter Katie, Timothy Smith always insisted he was innocent, that his daughter had trouble telling fact from fiction.
But nobody seemed to believe him, until Feb. 10, 2005, when police say Katie, then 22 and faking pregnancy — with padding stuffed under her clothes and a nursery outfitted with diapers and baby clothes — lured a pregnant woman to her Fort Mitchell apartment and attacked her with a knife, intending to cut the unborn baby from her womb. The woman defended herself by grabbing the knife and killing Katie.
Convinced then that Timothy Smith, 51, had been wrongfully convicted through the testimony of a delusional witness, a Chicago lawyer and the Kentucky Innocence Project began investigating.
This week, their work paid off: Kenton Circuit Judge Patricia Summe, who had tried Smith, set aside his conviction, ruling Wednesday that he was incompetently represented at trial.
Smith, who has served five years at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex in West Liberty, Ky., told Cincinnati television reporter David Wagner yesterday that “there’s a light at the end of the tunnel and I will be able to spend time with my kids — and that’s the thing I miss the most. … I still love Katie even with what she did. I realize she was disturbed.”
Innocence Project director Marguerite Thomas said, “We are pleased that we are well on our way to having a wrong corrected.”
But Commonwealth’s Attorney William Crockett, who has 30 days to decide whether to appeal, said his office is leaning toward that, or may elect to retry Smith, even though the prosecuting witness is dead.
Although the facts surrounding Katie Smith’s death are troubling, Crockett said it’s possible that the sexual abuse, “if it occurred,” caused her to become delusional. “It’s a chicken and egg thing,” he said.
But Thomas said it would be “unconscionable” for Crockett to appeal or retry Smith. “The lack of evidence used to convict him is shocking and troubling,” she said.
`Repressed memory’
Katie, one of five daughters, was 17 in 2000, when she reported that while performing oral sex on her boyfriend, she remembered her father forcing her to do the same thing between five and 10 years earlier.
Her sisters denied they’d been abused, but after meeting with Katie for five hour-long sessions, a mental health nurse concluded that she was telling the truth and suffering from “repressed memory syndrome.”
That scientific theory, popularized in the 1970s and ’80s, has been discredited since. But when nurse Kim Wolfe testified about it at trial, Smith’s defense attorney, Michael Lutes, presented no rebuttal witness.
He also failed to object when Wolfe told the jury she thought Katie’s testimony was truthful, even though expert witnesses are prohibited from making such comments.
Lutes admitted later that he was unaware of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling through which he could have challenged Wolfe’s credentials and possibly kept her from testifying.
The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed Smith’s conviction in 2004, saying that while there may have been errors at trial, it could do nothing about them because Lutes failed to object at the time.
Lutes could not be reached yesterday for comment.
As four years passed in prison, Smith missed the births of his first two grandchildren and the chance to see his other daughters grow up. Then came Katie’s attack on Sarah Brady, who was nine months pregnant.
Identifying herself as “Sarah Brody,” Katie telephoned Brady, whose name she had found in an online store registry. She told Brady, 26, that she had received some of Brady’s baby gifts by accident and invited her over to retrieve them, police said.
Faking labor pains, Katie got Brady into her nursery, locked the door and attacked her, police said. Brady, who suffered minor defensive wounds to her hands, turned the knife on Katie. She gave birth a few days later to a healthy baby. Police concluded she acted in self-defense.
After the attack, Wagner, a reporter for Cincinnati television station WLWT, began investigating Timothy Smith’s sodomy conviction and interviewed an expert critic of repressed memory syndrome. The expert, in turn, described the case to Patrick Lamb, a Chicago lawyer who represented Smith for free.
Lamb’s 32-member firm began pursuing it, inviting the Innocence Project, a unit of the Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy, to participate.
The new attorneys found Wolfe exaggerated her credentials at trial, in part by referring to herself as “Dr.” when she had obtained her doctorate from an unaccredited online university.
They presented affidavits from experts rejecting the repressed memory theory on which Smith’s conviction was based, and filed an affidavit from a cousin who said Katie had admitting lying at her father’s trial to get him out of the household.
In her four-page ruling, Judge Summe did not decide whether Smith was guilty or innocent, but held that if not for Lutes’ mistakes, there was a reasonable probability that he would have been acquitted.
Among other errors, she said Lutes’ failure to hire a rebuttal expert and “allowing the commonwealth’s expert to go virtually unchallenged” was “outside the range of acceptable trial practice.”
Yesterday Wagner asked Smith to describe the toll the experience took on him. “It’s something that’s hard to measure. … It has been a terrible time. I always believed that eventually I would get out. I was concerned about how long it would take. I’m still concerned about how long it’ll take for me to get out.”
 

    Let’s get this straight.  Katie Smith while performing oral sex on her boyfriend, began to recall for first time that her father had abused her.  These repressed memory allegations have since been discredited by the medical profession.  The accuser attempted to cut a baby from the womb of a pregnant woman she had lured to her home. The pregnant woman took the knife away from Smith and killed her.  The accuser is now dead….and the Commonwealth is considering a retrial?   The father, Tim Smith, whose innocence is supported by his other daughters, has been in prison since 2001.  His conviction was based solely on the testimony of his daughter.  His defense attorney did not call any rebuttal experts to contest the “repressed memory? claims.This case, and the Commonwealth’s hesitancy to let this weak case go away, demonstrate that the word of a female, even if she is crazy as a loon, can convict a man of sexual charges.  The Commonwealth should apologize to Tim Smith, and compensate him for his imprisonment. Judge Summe is no weeping violet, she is a tough judge, if she sees that the conviction was improper, the Commonwealth should remember that they are supposed to be “Ministers of Justice? and not just advocates for any crazy allegation that comes along.  See: Ky. Supreme Ct.-Accuser later attacked pregnant womanThe Courier-Journal                March 31, 2006Sentenced in 2001 to 20 years in prison for sodomizing his daughter Katie, Timothy Smith always insisted he was innocent, that his daughter had trouble telling fact from fiction.But nobody seemed to believe him, until Feb. 10, 2005, when police say Katie, then 22 and faking pregnancy — with padding stuffed under her clothes and a nursery outfitted with diapers and baby clothes — lured a pregnant woman to her Fort Mitchell apartment and attacked her with a knife, intending to cut the unborn baby from her womb. The woman defended herself by grabbing the knife and killing Katie.Convinced then that Timothy Smith, 51, had been wrongfully convicted through the testimony of a delusional witness, a Chicago lawyer and the Kentucky Innocence Project began investigating.This week, their work paid off: Kenton Circuit Judge Patricia Summe, who had tried Smith, set aside his conviction, ruling Wednesday that he was incompetently represented at trial.Smith, who has served five years at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex in West Liberty, Ky., told Cincinnati television reporter David Wagner yesterday that “there’s a light at the end of the tunnel and I will be able to spend time with my kids — and that’s the thing I miss the most. … I still love Katie even with what she did. I realize she was disturbed.”Innocence Project director Marguerite Thomas said, “We are pleased that we are well on our way to having a wrong corrected.”But Commonwealth’s Attorney William Crockett, who has 30 days to decide whether to appeal, said his office is leaning toward that, or may elect to retry Smith, even though the prosecuting witness is dead.Although the facts surrounding Katie Smith’s death are troubling, Crockett said it’s possible that the sexual abuse, “if it occurred,” caused her to become delusional. “It’s a chicken and egg thing,” he said.But Thomas said it would be “unconscionable” for Crockett to appeal or retry Smith. “The lack of evidence used to convict him is shocking and troubling,” she said.Katie, one of five daughters, was 17 in 2000, when she reported that while performing oral sex on her boyfriend, she remembered her father forcing her to do the same thing between five and 10 years earlier.Her sisters denied they’d been abused, but after meeting with Katie for five hour-long sessions, a mental health nurse concluded that she was telling the truth and suffering from “repressed memory syndrome.”That scientific theory, popularized in the 1970s and ’80s, has been discredited since. But when nurse Kim Wolfe testified about it at trial, Smith’s defense attorney, Michael Lutes, presented no rebuttal witness.He also failed to object when Wolfe told the jury she thought Katie’s testimony was truthful, even though expert witnesses are prohibited from making such comments.Lutes admitted later that he was unaware of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling through which he could have challenged Wolfe’s credentials and possibly kept her from testifying.The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed Smith’s conviction in 2004, saying that while there may have been errors at trial, it could do nothing about them because Lutes failed to object at the time.Lutes could not be reached yesterday for comment.As four years passed in prison, Smith missed the births of his first two grandchildren and the chance to see his other daughters grow up. Then came Katie’s attack on Sarah Brady, who was nine months pregnant.Identifying herself as “Sarah Brody,” Katie telephoned Brady, whose name she had found in an online store registry. She told Brady, 26, that she had received some of Brady’s baby gifts by accident and invited her over to retrieve them, police said.Faking labor pains, Katie got Brady into her nursery, locked the door and attacked her, police said. Brady, who suffered minor defensive wounds to her hands, turned the knife on Katie. She gave birth a few days later to a healthy baby. Police concluded she acted in self-defense.After the attack, Wagner, a reporter for Cincinnati television station WLWT, began investigating Timothy Smith’s sodomy conviction and interviewed an expert critic of repressed memory syndrome. The expert, in turn, described the case to Patrick Lamb, a Chicago lawyer who represented Smith for free.Lamb’s 32-member firm began pursuing it, inviting the Innocence Project, a unit of the Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy, to participate.The new attorneys found Wolfe exaggerated her credentials at trial, in part by referring to herself as “Dr.” when she had obtained her doctorate from an unaccredited online university.They presented affidavits from experts rejecting the repressed memory theory on which Smith’s conviction was based, and filed an affidavit from a cousin who said Katie had admitting lying at her father’s trial to get him out of the household.In her four-page ruling, Judge Summe did not decide whether Smith was guilty or innocent, but held that if not for Lutes’ mistakes, there was a reasonable probability that he would have been acquitted.Among other errors, she said Lutes’ failure to hire a rebuttal expert and “allowing the commonwealth’s expert to go virtually unchallenged” was “outside the range of acceptable trial practice.”Yesterday Wagner asked Smith to describe the toll the experience took on him. “It’s something that’s hard to measure. … It has been a terrible time. I always believed that eventually I would get out. I was concerned about how long it would take. I’m still concerned about how long it’ll take for me to get out.”
 

Nominations for KBAs Outstanding Young Lawyer Award

Thursday, March 30th, 2006

Each year the Kentucky Bar Association Young Lawyers Section recognizes an Outstanding Young Lawyer for his/her civic activities, legal accomplishments and community involvement.  If you know of an attorney who would be a worthy recipient of the Outstanding Young Lawyer Award, please submit a brief letter (no more than one page, single-spaced) discussing why the nominee is deserving of the award.  The nominating letters should include factors such as, but not limited to, civic activities, legal accomplishments, and community involvement.

Once the nomination letters are received, the Awards Committee will forward a more detailed application to the nominee for him/her to complete.  The nominating letters and nominees’ applications will then be forwarded to a panel of judges for their consideration.

Who is considered a Young Lawyer?  Any Kentucky lawyer who is 40 years of age or under or any Kentucky lawyer who has practiced 10 years or less regardless of age.

Nominating letters should be sent to Walter Aden Hawkins at Logsdon & Hawkins, PSC, PO Box 3400, Bowling Green, Kentucky 42102-3400 or as an attachment by email to whawkins@landhlaw.com.  Nominating letters must be received by April 14, 2006 or the nominee will not be eligible for the award.  The Outstanding Young Lawyer recipient will be announced at the KBA Annual Convention being held June 14-16, 2006 in Covington.  If you have any questions, please contact Walter at (270) 843-1500.

Court Imposes Rule 11 Sanctions on Judicial Candidate

Thursday, March 30th, 2006

 
Wood told to pay opponents’ costs
By Jason Riley  Reprinted from The Courier-Journal
Jack Wood, a lawyer who’s running for Jefferson County family court judge, wanted a judge to disqualify his competition.
He sued his two opponents, claiming they didn’t file their papers correctly, in part because they wrote “10th” instead of “Tenth” to identify the court seat.
But in the end, all Wood got was a judicial scolding and an order to pay the legal fees of his opponents — incumbent Paula Sherlock and Rebecca Swope Atkins.
In a ruling released yesterday, Jefferson Circuit Judge Barry Willett called Wood’s lawsuit absurd and said it was “completely devoid of any factual or legal merit.”
In fact, Willett noted that the only filing petition that wasn’t clear was Wood’s, since it appeared Wood checked boxes saying he was running for both circuit court and family court.
Neither Sherlock nor Atkins plans to bring up that issue in court.
“This is a race that needs to be decided on qualifications, not some silly technicality,” Atkins said.
But Wood’s attorney, Gary Tabler, promised in a statement to take the issue to the state Court of Appeals and, if necessary, the Kentucky Supreme Court, “where we have always believed the issues in this case would ultimately be decided.”
The money, Willett ruled, Atkins and Sherlock will get back. Both have 10 days to file an affidavit with the court laying out their costs and attorney fees.
“No one likes being sued, especially in a situation where it is completely baseless,” said attorney Jennifer Moore, who represents Sherlock, who was appointed last year to fill a vacancy.
Wood, who has lost elections for state attorney general, family court judge and Louisville Metro Council, did not respond to a phone message seeking comment.

Undocumented Immigrants can obtain Social Security Benefits

Tuesday, March 28th, 2006

Undocumented Immigrants under current law can obtain social security benefits 
This legal memorandum shows how it is done.

ME M O R A N D U M *
*TO:* Advocates, Attorneys, Benefit Providers, Justice System Personnel,
and other interested persons

***FROM: *Leslye Orloff and Edna Yang, Immigrant Women Program, NOW
Legal Defense and Education Fund

***DATE: *November 17, 2000

***RE*:* *Obtaining Non-Work Social Security Numbers

***Steps to Obtain a Social Security Number for an Undocumented
Immigrant and/or Child*

In order to better serve undocumented battered immigrant women and their
children who are applying for public benefits that they are entitled to
receive, advocates need to understand the process by which an
undocumented immigrant can obtain a non-work social security number
(“SSN”). Advocates are strongly encouraged to accompany their clients to
the Social Security Administration to ensure that their clients are not
denied non-work SSNs by caseworkers who do not fully understand the
process and eligibility requirements involved in issuing non-working SSNs.

A Social Security number may be assigned for a non-work purpose to an
immigrant who cannot provide evidence of immigrant status that allows
them to work under 20 C.F.R. § 422.107(e), if the evidence described in
that paragraph does not exist and if the immigrant resides either in or
outside the US, or a territory of the US/, and a social security number
is required by law as a condition of the alien’s receiving a federally
funded benefit to which the alien has established entitlement./^ (1)
*I. Who Is Eligible for A Non Work Social Security Number (SSN) *

_/*A Non-Work SSN Will Be Processed For Undocumented Immigrants Who Are
Entitled to the Following Public Benefits*/_^_/* */_(2)
:

Ø Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (“TANF”);

Ø Medicaid;

Ø Food Stamps;

Ø Title XVI (SSI) Payments;

Ø Disability insurance (SSDI) and old age survivors insurance (OASDI)
under Title II Benefits;

Ø Benefits for end stage renal disease patients under Title XVIII;

SSN Will /Not/ Be Processed For Undocumented Immigrants Who^ (3)
:

Ø Are ineligible for benefits/payments under Title II (SSDI and OASDI),
Title XVI (SSI), Title XVIII, TANF, Medicaid, and Food Stamps;

Ø Is an SSI ineligible spouse, parent, or child;

Ø Is appointed representative payee for SSDI, OASDI, or SSI beneficiary;

Ø Is eligible only for emergency services under Medicaid, since
emergency Medicaid is open to all immigrants and having a SSN is not a
condition of eligibility for emergency Medicaid;

Ø Alleges a need for a SSN for tax or similar purposes.

*II. Evidence Required for a Working and Non-Working Social Security Number*

Often times, clients feel overwhelmed and unable to gather the required
evidence to obtain their non-work SSN by themselves. It is essential for
advocates to stress to their clients the importance of the evidence as
well as to work with their clients in locating the necessary information
and evidence required to obtain a non-work SSN.

Working Social Security Number

In order to obtain a work authorized social security number, the
Applicant must be 1) A US citizen (US born or foreign-born), or 2) An
immigrant (either US born or foreign-born) authorized to work in the
United States. The applicant must also be able to prove the following:^
(4)

Ø Age, through documents including, but not limited to, a birth
certificate, a religious record showing age or date of birth, a hospital
records or birth, or a passport;^ (5)
Ø Identity, through documents including, but not limited to, driver’s
license, identity card, school record, medical record, marriage records,
passport, or Immigration and Naturalization Service document;^ (6)
Ø US Citizenship */or/*// Work Authorized Lawful Immigrant Status.^ (7)
In order to be authorized to work in the United States, an immigrant
must be one of the following classes of immigrants:^ (8)
Ø An immigrant who is a lawful permanent resident;^ (9)
Ø An immigrant admitted to the United States as a lawful temporary
resident;^ (10)

Ø An immigrant admitted to the United States as a refugee;^ (11)
Ø An immigrant paroled into the United States as a refugee for the
period of time in that status;^ (12)
Ø An immigrant granted asylum under section 208 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“the Act”);^ (13)
Ø An immigrant admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant fiancé or
fiancée, or an immigrant admitted as the child of such immigrant;^ (14)
Ø An immigrant admitted as a parent (N-8) or dependent child (N-9) of an
immigrant granted permanent residence under section 101(a)(27)(I) of the
Act;^ (15)

Ø An immigrant admitted to the United States as a citizen of the
Federated States of Micronesia (CFA/FSM) or of the Marshall Islands
(CFA/MIS);^ (16)

Ø An immigrant granted withholding of deportation;^ (17)
Ø An immigrant who has been granted extended voluntary departure by the
Attorney General as a member of a nationality group pursuant to a
request by the Secretary of State;^ (18)
Ø An immigrant granted Temporary Protected Status;^ (19)
Ø An immigrant granted voluntary departure by the Attorney General under
the Family Unity Program established by section 301 of the Immigration
Act of 1990;^ (20)

Ø Foreign government officials and their employees;^ (21)
Ø A non immigrant student seeking on campus employment, part time off
campus employment or curricular practical training;^ (22)
Ø A representative of an international organization and their personal
employees;^ (23)

Ø An international cultural exchange visitor or an immigrant having a
religions occupation;^ (24)

Ø NATO armed services officers and personnel and their attendants,
servants, and personal employees;^ (25)
It is important for advocates to determine whether their clients fit
into any of the above categories of work authorized immigrant status. If
the client does not fit one of these categories, then she may be
eligible to apply for a non-work SSN.

Non-Working Social Security Number^ (26)
In order to obtain a non-work social security number the applicant must
prove the following^ (27) :

Ø Age, through documents including, but not limited to, a birth
certificate, a religious record showing age or date of birth, a hospital
records or birth, or a passport;^ (28)
Ø Identity, through documents including, but not limited to, driver’s
license, identity card, school record, medical record, marriage records,
passport, or Immigration and Naturalization Service document;^ (29)
Ø A legal requirement for a social security number as a condition of the
applicant receiving a federally funded benefit or service or if the
state government requires a social security number to administer
statutes governing the issuing of driver’s licenses, the registration of
motor vehicles, and the issuance of divorce decrees, child support
orders, paternity actions.^ (30)

*III. Obtaining a SSN for a Child*

The Social Security Administration automatically assigns social security
numbers to children at birth under its Enumeration at Birth (EAB)
Project, /regardless/ of whether or not the parents have a valid social
security number.^ (31) Some
Social Security Administration Staff have been erroneously advising
parents who do not have social security numbers themselves that they
cannot apply for a social security number for their US citizen children.
If your immigrant client is going to have a child, they should be
informed that their child will be assigned a social security number
regardless of whether the your client has one.

The Social Security Administration has instructed its employees that an
identity document and a birth record /must/ be shown when an application
for a SSN is being filed for a child. A birth record alone is /not/
sufficient evidence to establish identity. However, where the applicant
is a child under 7 years of age applying for an original social security
number card and there is no documentary evidence of identity available,
the requirement for evidence of identity will be waived if there is no
reason to doubt the validity of the birth record, the social security
number application, and the existence of the individual. ^(32)
Acceptable identity documents
for children over seven years old are:^ (33)
Ø Driver’s license;

Ø Identity card;

Ø School record;

Ø Medical record;

Ø Marriage record;

Ø Passport;

Ø Immigration and Naturalization Service document, or;

Ø Other similar document serving to identify the individual. The
document should contain the applicant’s signature for comparison with
his or her signature on the application for a social security number.

***IV. Replacement Cards for Undocumented Immigrants*

**Once your client obtains a non-work SSN, you must, as an advocate,
stress that she should keep the card in a safe place and not lose it.
For battered immigrants, the original non-work SSN card must be kept at
the home of a trusted relative or friend or kept for her by her advocate
or attorney. This will ensure that the card will be in a place where the
abuser cannot take it away from her or destroy it. The Social Security
Administration will not issue replacement non-work social security cards
for undocumented immigrants. If your client’s non-work SSN number has
been lost, stolen, or destroyed and she needs evidence of her social
security number for an allowed purpose including payment of a federally
funded benefit, obtaining a driver’s license, or filing for divorce you
should contact the Social Security Administration and provide them with
the name and phone number of the benefits case worker, the court clerk,
or the third party agency who needs to know your client’s social
security number. The Social Security Administrations will then contact
the third party agency and notify them of your client’s social security
number.

^1 Non-work social security numbers are also issued to immigrants if the
state government requires a social security number to administer
statutes governing the issuing of a driver’s licenses and the
registering of motor vehicles. It can also be argued that in
jurisdictions where the courts ask for social security numbers of
parties applying for divorce, child support, paternity, and marriage
licenses non-work social security number should be issued. /See
Memorandum regarding §466(a)(13) of the Social Security Act/. /See also/
POMS RM 00203.510

^2 POMS RM 00203.560(A)(2)

^3 POMS RM 00203.560

^4 POMS RM 00203.001(C)(1), (D)(1), (D)(3)

^5 20 C.F.R. § 422.107(b)

^6 20 C.F.R. § 422.107(c)

^7 20 C.F.R. § 422.107(d)

^8 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12. This list also includes temporary workers or
trainees; information media representatives; exchange visitors;
intra-company transferees; persons having extraordinary ability in the
sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; athletes, artists,
and entertainers; person engaged in business activities under North
Atlantic Free trade Agreement (“NAFTA”).

^9 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(1)

^10 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(2)

^11 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(3)

^12 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(4)

^13 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(5)

^14 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(6)

^15 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(7)

^16 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(8)

^17 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(10)

^18 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(11)

^19 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(12)

^20 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(13)

^21 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(b)(1)-(5)

^22 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(b)(6)(i)-(iii)

^23 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(b)(7)-(8)

^24 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(b)(15)-(16)

^25 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(b)(17)-(18)

^26 All non-work social security numbers state: “not authorized for work
purposes” in bold letters on the face of the card.

^27 POMS RM 00203.001(C)(2), D)(2), (D)(4)

^28 20 C.F.R. § 422.107 (b)

^29 20 C.F.R. § 422.107(c)

^30 20 C.F.R. § 422.107(e). The traditional legal requirements for
non-work SSNs have not included state statutes requiring social security
numbers for the issuance of divorce decrees, child support orders, and
paternity actions. These requirements, however, are a logical extension
of the use of non-work SSNs, because they are located in the same state
statutes, and fulfill the same purpose, as the legal requirement of a
SSN as a prerequisite for driver’s licenses and motor vehicle registration.

^31 EM-00058; POMS RM 00202.142

^32 20 C.F.R. § 422.107 (c)

^33 2
 

Deadline for Voter Registration

Tuesday, March 28th, 2006

With more races on the ballot than ever before in Kentucky’s history, Kentuckians who wish to vote in the upcoming May 16, 2006 primary only have a few more days to register to vote.  The deadline to register for the upcoming May primary is Monday, April 17th.  County Clerks’ offices throughout Kentucky will accept voter registration cards until the close of business that day.

U.S. SUP. CT. LIMITS RESIDENTIAL SEARCHES

Sunday, March 26th, 2006

GEORGIA v. RANDOLPH – Mar. 22, 2006 – U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-3 margin rules that when one cotenant of residence grants permission for police to search residence, and other cotenant denies consent to search, the rights of the objecting tenant must prevail to deny the right to conduct a warrantless search of the residence. Justice Alito recused from this decision as he was not on the bench when the case was argued to the court. Read full text of this important 4th. Amendment ruling.

Legislature Amends Eminent Domain Law

Saturday, March 25th, 2006

The New Eminent Domain Law is awaiting the signature of the Governor after passing the House and Senate.

HB 508 (BR 1154) – R. Wilkey, J. Barrows, R. Adams, R. Adkins, E. Ballard, C. Belcher, Dw. Butler, L. Clark, R. Damron, C. Embry Jr, D. Floyd, J. Gooch Jr, J. Gray, W. Hall, J. Hoover, D. Keene, G. Lynn, T. McKee, R. Nelson, S. Nunn, D. Osborne, R. Palumbo, D. Pasley, R. Rand, T. Shelton, T. Thompson, M. Weaver, R. Webb, S. Westrom, A. Wuchner

AN ACT relating to eminent domain.
Create a new section of KRS 416.540 to 416.680 to delineate the allowable public uses for eminent domain in the Commonwealth; amend 416.540 relating to eminent domain, to replace the phrase “public purpose” with the phrase “public use”.
HB 508 – AMENDMENTS

SFA (1, E. Harris) – Amend to exempt the acquisition of property financed by state road funds or federal highway funds from the public use requirement for eminent domain.

Feb 3-introduced in House

Feb 6-to Agriculture and Small Business (H)

Feb 8-posting waived

Feb 9-reported favorably, 1st reading, to Calendar

Feb 10-2nd reading, to Rules

Feb 13-posted for passage in the Regular Orders of the Day for Tuesday, February 14,

2006

Feb 14-3rd reading, passed 95-1

Feb 15-received in Senate

Feb 17-to State and Local Government (S)

Mar 8-reported favorably, 1st reading, to Calendar

Mar 9-2nd reading, to Rules

Mar 14-posted for passage in the Regular Orders of the Day for Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Mar 15-passed over and retained in the Orders of the Day; floor amendment (1) filed

Mar 16-3rd reading, passed 37-0 with floor amendment (1) ; received in House; to Rules (H)

Mar 17-posted for passage for concurrence in Senate floor amendment (1) for Monday, March 20, 2006

Mar 20-House concurred in Senate floor amendment (1) ; passed 94-0

EXISTING KRS  416.540
416.540 Definitions.
(1) “Condemn” means to take private property for a public purpose under the right of eminent domain;

(2) “Condemnor” shall mean and include any person, corporation or entity, including the Commonwealth of Kentucky, its agencies and departments, county, municipality and taxing district authorized and empowered by law to exercise the right of eminent domain;

(3) “Condemnee” means the owner of the property interest being taken;

(4) “Court” means the Circuit Court;

(5) “Property” means real or personal property, or both, of any nature or kind that I subject to condemnation;

(6) “Eminent domain” means the right of the Commonwealth to take for a ( public
Purpose) PUBLIC USE
PUBLIC USEand shall include the right of private persons, corporations or business entities to do so under authority of law.

History: Created 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 140, sec. 2.
 

 

Ky. Supreme Court grants new trial to Shane Ragland in Fayette murder case.

Saturday, March 25th, 2006

The FBI crime lab ballistic expert was convicted of perjury regarding her testimony. It was determined that she had falsely testified that she could identify the “batch” from which the murder bullet came, and linked it to Raglands gun. The court cited Daubert and said:

“We conclude that the admission of the CBLA test results and the expert’s opinions about those results require reversal for a new trial .”

See full text at: 2002-SC-000388-MR.pdf

Sandra Day O’Connor forecasts Dictatorship

Sunday, March 19th, 2006

Why didn’t the American press chase the story?

By Jack Shafer
Posted Monday, March 13, 2006, at 7:11 PM ET  On Slate

The smoke drifting out of your computer over the weekend was not the result of a fried motherboard but the scent of bloggers setting themselves on fire in response to Nina Totenberg’s NPR Morning Edition Friday, March 10, dispatch. Totenberg had attended a speech at Georgetown University given the night before by retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in which O’Connor invoked the word “dictatorship” to describe the direction the country may be headed if Republicans continue to attack the judiciary. O’Connor’s voice was “dripping with sarcasm,” says Totenberg. But the retired justice didn’t name Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, or Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, as the leading perps, in part because she didn’t need to. (See Rawstory.com‘s transcription of Totenberg’s NPR segment.)
Filled with fury, the bloggers wanted to know why the mainstream media—outside Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown—hadn’t mentioned O’Connor’s broadside. The only newspaper stories I could find on the topic today were from England’s Guardian, with Julian Borger reporting and writer Jonathan Raban filing an opinion piece on it.
 

One Sentence Synopsis of Ky. Ct. of Appeals decisions issued March 17

Sunday, March 19th, 2006

Subscribers can go to LawReader’s Weekly Decisions to read analysis of cases and to read full text of each decision.

Important cases:  

1. Technical errors which do not deprive a defendant of a substantive or procedural
right to which the law entitles the defendant or a fair trial are not sufficient to establish prejudice under Strickland    

2. Claims of ineffective assistance are not reviewed on direct appeal, but must be raised in front of the trial court via a Kentucky Criminal Rule 11.42 motion.

3. the overall purpose of the Unified Juvenile Code that it was the intent of the legislature that the grant of “continuing jurisdiction” set out in KRS 610.010(13) include the continuing power to amend or to modify a previously entered dispositional order.

4. The trial court’s findings did not support the award of damages to the Kruszewskis beyond return of their down-payment.

5. A person could be guilty of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine without actually possessing methamphetamine or any of its precursor ingredients.

6. An attorney generally must possess actual, not mere apparent, authority in order to bind his clients to a settlement.

7. We find no error in the trial judge’s assessment that appellant’s entry of a guilty plea in the non-support prosecution, which constituted an admission of the truth of the factual underpinnings of the amended charges, precludes his current challenge to his paternity of D.W.

8. (policeman)… waived that defense by deliberately refusing to appear and raise it either during the scheduled hearing or during an appeal from the administrative order terminating his employment …

9. an indictment may be “amended any time before [the rendering of the] verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if [the] substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced

10. the trial court erred in finding that the full repair costs were less than the reduction in value of the property due to the damage

11. There was not any evidence that would warrant an instruction on fourth-degree assault based on Butler’s theory of the case.

12. Inmate was entitled to the appointment of counsel for 11.42 hearing, only if there were material issues of fact below which could not be “determined on the face of the record.

13. A trial court has the inherent power to enforce (a settlement) , even if the agreement has not been reduced to writing even if the agreement has not been reduced to writing

14. CR 60.02 should only be used to provide relief when the movant demonstrates why he or she is entitled to the special, extraordinary relief provided by the rule.

15. a renewal (of motion for directed verdict) is not required if the defense rests immediately after the trial court denies the motion

16. It is procedurally improper to file two successive postconviction motions, as all issues that could reasonably have been presented under RCr 11.42 are foreclosed from being raised under CR 60.02.

17. 18 11.42 motion denied

18. Adverse possession: Spalding’s sublease with Buckman as well as the sublease itself caused Spalding’s use of the disputed property to be interrupted

19. Absent an allegation of fault, the trial court did not err by ruling that Perry’s claim against Smith must fail.

20. a plaintiff’s prima facie case (for job discrimination), combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer’s asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated.”

21. A disciplinary proceeding that may revoke a prisoner’s good-time credit must comport with due process

22. the issue of whether D.R. and her father testified truthfully that she did not talk to her grandmother about the abuse was a material issue, and rebuttal evidence was allowed

23. The landlord need not exercise even ordinary care to furnish reasonably safe premises, and he is not generally liable for injuries caused by defects therein.”

24. Policy issued to a corporate employer did not include employees within the class of named insureds. Employees were covered, rather, only if injured while occupying a covered vehicle.

25. A prisoner has no vested right or reasonable entitlement to meritorious good-time credit under KRS 197.045(3).

26. Fact that Deputy Jones detained defendant while awaiting the warrant does not necessarily render Walling’s subsequent consent involuntary.

27. When land is subsequently sold without reserving the family cemetery, by operation of law, the family of the deceased maintain an “easement,” not a fee, in the land, for burial purposes

28. the physical altercations between the child and his mother, and the fact that the child has failed the eighth grade once, and was perilously close to repeating that feat, supports father’s motion for change of custody

29. The trial court properly entered the domestic violence order

30. Once Kinner found herself having to prove causation, if she had not believed that she had to prior to the final hearing, her remedy was to ask for time to put on additional proof.

31. The existence of the arrest warrant will be deemed an independent intervening circumstance that dissipates the taint of the initial illegal stop vis-à-vis the evidence discovered as a consequence of a search incident to the execution of the arrest warrant.