spotblog.com

spotblog.com

Dear Gentle Persons,

When are the Congressional Hearings about the EEOC to begin? Since I really want to go I would very much appreciate a response from those in the know.

Bullock v EEOC: Administrative Judges - No Such Title

Bullock v EEOC: Administrative Judges - No Such Title: "Administrative Judges are referred to as Attorney Examiners. As such they must be licensed by their various State Bars. Unfortunately, many ..."

Administrative Judges - No Such Title

Administrative Judges are referred to as Attorney Examiners. As such they must be licensed by their various State Bars. Unfortunately, many have let their licenses become inactive and as such are practicing law without a license. In essence this means that every decision made by an unlicensed judge is reversible because under the Business and Professions Code as well as the State Bar Rules it is illegal to practice law without a license. John Sherlock III, of internal litigation with the EEOC, argues before Congress and others that Administrative Judges are not required to be licensed. Yet, I hold a letter Sherlock wrote to the California State Bar admitting such a fact. OPM (Office of Personnel Management) also has regulations which require this as well.  Most agencies check each year that their attorneys are indeed licensed.  Why does Congress turn a blind eye when it comes to the EEOC? Because all of the cases heard by the unlicensed judges would have to be overturned and reheard. This would open a floodgate of litigation. Report unlicensed EEOC judges to their respective State Bars. They should be sanctioned, disciplined and terminated from their positions as Attorney examiners as they are currently perpetrating a fraud upon the taxpayer. What do you think about this gem!