Cheat Sheet 1. Facebook Stocks Blow Expectations
Stocks rises 15 percent this quarter. 2.
EXPLANATION NSA Uses 9/11 As Defense When asked to explain its activities.
SILENT MOVIE PLOTS Clown Dangles Child From Overpass Faces 16 years in prison.
TSK TSK Obama ‘Not Happy’ With Health Care Disappointed in rollout.
SMART TECHNOLOGY New App Notifies Via Scent Coffee, Lavender and curry among options
WON’T BACK DOWN Clapper Defends Europe Spying Insists nobody “indiscriminately” watching.
STEADY The Fed to Continue Stimulus Due to concerns about the economy.
OBAMACARE Sebelius Apologizes for Rollout Admits Healthcare.gov has “serious problems.”
CONGRATULATIONS Kerry Washington Is Pregnant With her first child.
10. RISE TO THE TOP Megyn Kelly No. 2 on Cable
After just one month on the air.
Contact the President
(202) 456-1414 FAX -- (202) 456-2461 Comment Line -- (202) 456-1111
1-800-FED-INFO If you have a question about federal agencies, programs, benefits, or services, the National Contact Center is only a phone call away. Call us toll-free at 1-800-FED-INFO— that's 1-800-333-4636—between 8 AM and 8 PM Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. Recordings of our frequently asked questions are available 24 hours a day.
Steps to Break Bad Habits 1) Study Your Bad Habits. Breaking a bad habit is not easy. Unless you truly understand the root of the problem, you won’t be able to devise a strategy to get rid of it. Take a cold hard look at your bad habit. Following are some questions you should seriously consider answering: * When did you acquire the habit? * Why is it that you have the habit? / How did you acquire the habit? * What is the need that it fulfills? * How bad do you want to get rid of the habit? * How would you benefit from getting rid of the habit? 2) Prepare a Plan of Action. Now that you understand the problem, you can go to the next stage of finding a solution. There are many ways to get rid of bad habits. Be creative. It’s not enough to tell yourself that you should stop doing something. You have to understand that the battle to get rid of a bad habit is a battle that will oppose you against your own self. How do you win against yourself? The only way to win this battle is to have enough conviction to see things through and to be able to see beyond the tricks that your mind will play. You need to plan ahead and you need to set objective boundaries ahead of time. The moment you decide to get rid of a bad habit is the moment that you are the most objective. Use this moment of lucidity and resolve to your advantage to set the rules of the game. Keep to the rules. Don’t let your brain trick you into making
Judge David "Corrupt" Carter: The Story of Judicial Corruption Judge David O. Carter, U.S. District Court of the Central District of California, fought in the Vietnam War and is rumored to have returned home a drug addict, addicted to heroin. He is also rumored to have fabricated his war record to appear more heroic. However, more recently, Judge Carter has been caught red-handed engaging in judicial corruption, among other things, using his courtroom to sexually harass women and steal property from litigants. See, United States v. Glass, 361 F.3d 580 (9th Cir. 2004). Today, Judge Carter is most often known by the name Judge David "Corrupt" Carter. In a recent case, Judge David "Corrupt" Carter was labeled as promoting a false “pattern of behavior,” in an effort to wrongfully prejudice a lawsuit.
Which begs the question, "Can a judge be held liable for creating and disseminating false information about a litigant, to prevent her from advancing her claims for violations of her constitutional rights?"
In the case of Erin Baldwin, only after filing an appeal and a lawsuit naming Judge "Corrupt" Carter as a defendant, did the corrupt judge "finally" recuse himself; speaking of himself in the third person and saying, "Plaintiff’s past pattern of behavior and present allegations suggest that Judge David O. Carter will likely soon be named as a defendant in the above-captioned case.” A documentary on Judge David "Corrupt" Carter entitled "Pervert," is scheduled to be released in 2015.
If you have coverage from a job (or a family member’s job), you're considered covered and won’t have to pay the fee that uninsured people must pay. You may be able to change to Marketplace coverage, but you might not qualify for lower costs on your premiums based on your income. This will depend on the type and cost of insurance the employer provides.
If you have a job-based plan, you’re considered covered Any job-based health plan you currently have qualifies as minimum essential coverage. You don't need to change to a Marketplace plan in order to avoid the penalty that uninsured people have to pay starting in 2014. If you'd like to explore Marketplace coverage options you can, but there are several important things to consider.
Comparing job-based and Marketplace plans With most job-based health insurance plans, an employer pays part of your premiums. If you pick a Marketplace plan instead, the employer doesn’t contribute to your premiums. You should consider this carefully before comparing Marketplace plans. 7
Qualifying for Marketplace savings If you decide to check out Marketplace plans, be aware that you may not qualify for lower costs on your monthly premiums and outof-pocket costs, even if your income would qualify you otherwise. Whether you qualify for lower costs based on your income will depend on the coverage the employer offers. You won't be able to get lower costs if your job-based coverage is considered affordable and meets minimum value. The employer can tell you whether the insurance plan it offers meets minimum value. It can provide you with information to determine if the plan is considered affordable to you. One way to gather this information is by asking your employer to fill out an Employer Coverage Tool.
“Affordable” plans and the 9.5% standard A job-based health plan is considered “affordable” if the employee’s share of premiums for the lowest cost self-only coverage that meets the minimum value standard is less than 9.5% of their family’s income. In other words, if your share of your premiums for a plan that covers only you (the employee)--not your family--is less than 9.5% of your family’s income, the plan is considered affordable. You may pay more than 9.5% of your income on premiums for spouse or family coverage from your employer. But affordability is determined only by the amount you’d pay for self-only coverage from your employer.
Minimum value standards A health plan meets the minimum value standard if it’s designed to pay at least 60% of the total cost of medical services for a standard population. 8
In other words, in most cases the plan will cover 60% of the covered medical costs and the person with coverage pays 40%. You should ask your employer for help figuring out if the plan offered to you meets the minimum value standard. Your employer can also give you the information needed to determine if the plan is considered affordable to you. One way to gather this information is by asking your employer to fill out an Employer Coverage Tool.
Consider your choices carefully If it turns out that you donâ€™t qualify for lower costs on insurance youâ€™d buy through the Marketplace, be sure you take this into account before you consider choosing a plan other than your employerâ€™s. Your rights, protections, and benefits The health care law provides important new rights, strong consumer protections, and key benefits that apply to most jobbased insurance plans.
Term Limits for Federal Judges Jamal Greene is a professor of law at Columbia Law School and a former clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens. It has become common, even this soon, to describe the health care decision as being central to Chief Justice John Roberts’s legacy at the Supreme Court. But that assessment may be premature. If the chief justice were to retire at the same age as the justice I clerked for, John Paul Stevens, he would be on the court until the year 2045. Will we — those of us still around, that is — even remember the health care decision then?
The drafters of the 1787 Constitution had good reasons for giving life tenure to federal judges -- reasons that are not valid today. In a democracy, no one person should wield so much power for so long. Article III of the Constitution provides that federal judges “shall hold their offices during good behavior.” In practice this language means they serve for life absent voluntary retirement or impeachment. Were we to draft the Constitution today, we would be wise to reconsider this provision.
The drafters of the 1787 Constitution had good reasons for giving life tenure to federal judges. Colonial judges generally served at the pleasure of the crown, hence the ninth grievance in the Declaration of Independence, that the king “has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” But the average life expectancy of an American in 1787 was about 36, less than half what it is today. The 21st century reality is that when Supreme Court vacancies arise, one of the criteria for selection is that the judge be young enough to serve for several decades. Many of our most distinguished jurists, judges like J. Harvie Wilkinson and Diane Wood, both in their sixties, are by now too “distinguished” for our highest court. A great many Supreme Court judges, William O. Douglas most famously, have outlasted their own lucidity. What’s more, as tenures on the Supreme Court have grown over time, the frequency of vacancies has shrunk. The ad hoc nature of Supreme Court retirements increases the political stakes — and the attendant political circus — of each new appointment. There are better paths to judicial independence. Germany and France use fixed terms of office for their high courts. Countries like Australia, Canada and Israel have mandatory retirement ages. A recent proposal by Professors Steven Calabresi andJames Lindgren to replace the current system of Supreme Court appointments withnonrenewable 18-year terms, with one new justice every odd numbered year, is worth serious consideration.
Eighteen years would mean that a justiceâ€™s tenure would be long enough to ensure independence from political patronage. As important, it would be short enough to ensure that we remain a country of laws and not of men.
Infomercial King, Kevin Trudeau, Jailed for Failing to Pay Fine Kevin Trudeau, the self-proclaimed â€œInfomercial Kingâ€? who has allegedly made a fortune peddling information on television commercials selling diet books, was jailed this week in Chicago after failing to pay a former court judgment of $38 million for bilking the public with false claims. But the 50-year old resident of nearby Oak Brook was sprung from the federal lock-up within 24 hours and being given strict orders from the judge to either report his true earnings to the court or face prison again.
Trudeau insists that he has been unable to pay even a small portion of the multi-million dollar fine he owes because he has no money. But after court officials discovered that he was recently spending on such high-priced luxuries as two haircuts at the Vidal Sassoon salon costing $320, almost $1,000 in cigars and the same amount on gourmet meats purchased online, a U.S. District judge ordered Trudeau to be locked up. While in jail, federal regulators met with Trudeau to attempt to discover just where he has placed much of the funds that have resulted from his infomercial sales pitches. Trudeau, however, insists he is having trouble remembering where in the world he chose to stash his ill-gotten earnings.