Specially-Designated ‘FOIA Denial Officers’ Are Handling The Education’s Rejected Requests

Specially-Designated ‘FOIA Denial Officers’ Are Handling The Dept. Of Education’s Rejected Requests
from the we’ve-got-some-bad-news-and-some-bad-news dept
While you would think this position exists at multiple agencies (NSA, FBI, CIA, the NYPD), it’s never been captured in stark black-and-white. Morgan Smith, reporter for the Texas Tribune, recently tweeted out a photo of a rejected FOIA request. A rejected FOIA is not necessarily newsworthy. But it is when it’s been rejected by someone bearing the unlikely title of “FOIA Denial Officer.”

Taylor D. August, of the Dept. of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, is also a FOIA Denial Officer. Considering the government’s general antipathy towards transparency, you’d think several agencies would have a full-time request denier on staff. But while many agencies spend more time stonewalling and denying requests, only the Dept. of Education actually has designated employees on hand solely to reject requests.

A look at the DOE’s FOIA FAQ gives us the first clue:
10. Who has the authority in ED to withhold documents (in part/whole)?

The FOIA Officers, the Office of Inspector General and the Regional FOIA Denial Officers have the authority to withhold documents.
It appears this agency is extremely well-equipped to handle numerous rejections. Three tiers of rejection are available to requesters, running all the way up to the OIG. There’s no reason given as to why the DOE would need regional “denial officers,” but this position traces back to 2006.

In a section titled (of all things) “Customer Service,” the DOE details its FOIA response automation, which routes through the Office for Civil Rights. Citing the “significant number” of requests it receives (at that point averaging around 900 per year), the agency detailed its efforts to keep up with the paperwork.
To further customer service with respect to FOIA and Privacy Act requests, OCR has been a significant participant in the Department’s initiative to automate case management under these laws. Executive Order 13392, “Improving Agency Disclosure of Information,” issued on Dec. 14, 2005, emphasizes the need for more efficient and effective processing of FOIA and Privacy Act requests.
What most of us would believe was an order intended to increase the release of responsive documents, the DOE read it as an indication it wasn’t rejecting requests efficiently enough.
In addition, in FY 2006, consistent with Executive Order 13392, OCR established new FOIA procedures, including delegation to the 12 OCR office directors of the authority of FOIA denial officers. This allows FOIA requests to be processed in a more efficient and timely manner, and establishes clear accountability for FOIA processing.
As of 2006, the DOE had 12 more officials dedicated solely to rejecting FOIA requests than all other government agencies combined. (Unofficial numbers obviously impossible to obtain, much less verify, but the term “FOIA denial officer” produces search results that indicate only the DOE has such a position.)

More details on the “Denial Officers” can be found in the agency’s FOIA policies and procedures (embedded below.) Here’s the definition of the term:
Denial Officers. The FOIA Officers, the Secretary’s Regional Representatives, or officials designated by them (Regional FOIA Review Officers), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) who are authorized to withhold records, in whole or in part, that fall within one (1) or more of the nine (9) exemptions or three (3) exclusions of the FOIA.
Initial determinations are made by regular FOIA officers who look for possible withholding exemptions and consider fee waivers. This is handled regionally and requests possibly eligible for rejection are passed on to one of the 12 regional denial officers.
In each instance in which it is recommended that record(s) or portion(s) thereof be withheld, carefully separate materials to be withheld from those to be released, redact (e.g., remove) all exempt information from the records, and forward a copy of the redacted materials, along with an unredacted version for comparison, to the appropriate denial official. Indicate where in the records the redactions occur and why the relevant exemption(s) apply;

In each instance where “no responsive records” are located, forward (a) a memorandum to the appropriate denial official describing with particularity what records (both electronic and hard copy) were searched, search times (differentiating between computer search times and manual searches since there is a different fee rate assessed for each of these searches), and who conducted the search, and stating that the search results were negative together with (b) a draft denial letter to the requestor to be signed by a FOIA Officer;
Denial officers will always be the be the bearer of bad news.
If the denial official agrees with the recommendation to deny the request, the denial official notifies the requestor in writing of the decision to withhold the information, in whole or in part, and informs the requestor of his/her appeal rights.
However, the denial officer isn’t solely limited to writing rejection letters. He or she can also push back.
If the denial official disagrees with the recommendation to deny the request, he/she notifies the FOIA Coordinator and the PO Action Office and directs the FOIA Coordinator to provide the records to the requestor.
At which point, the requester receives the responsive documents thanks to a denial officer, but from someone whose title is less resolutely negative. As much fun as it might be to press the REJECT button, denial officers will never know the joy of making a requester happy. It’s a thankless job with a brusque title… unless you’re the sort of person who enjoys doling out rejection or simply takes pride in your work, no matter what that work might mean.

It seems odd that the DOE would stand alone in its creation of a FOIA Denial Officer. So many government agencies are more than happy to reject request after request (and appeal after appeal), but none have been so brutally honest as to create a position solely for this purpose. The DOE’s system may actually be more streamlined than those at comparable agencies, but only the DOE has the strength of character to let requesters know that a fully and specifically trained expert is behind their request’s rejection.

PASG

Everyone knows my view regarding requests from Dr. Bill Bernet (in my
opinion, one of the most, if not the most knowledgeable person in the
Parental Alienation world, and leader of the world’s most esteemed PA
group).  When he has a request, it is very important, and I will do it.

So look below and please oblige him in his request.

This is a TAKE ACTION item!!

Mick

Subject: EMERGENCY — PLEASE HELP (From William Bernet)

Hello PASG Members:  Just yesterday a very problematic article was posted on
the website of Forbes magazine, an influential periodical in the U.S.  The
article is by Patricia Fersch.  The article makes many negative statements
about parental alienation and provides false information.

It is just a short article.  Please take a look at it here:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patriciafersch/2021/03/29/parental-alienation-a
s-a-defense-to-allegations-of-domestic-violence-and-allegations-of-child-sex
ual-abuse/?sh=11577e8825c3

I hope that you will send a quick email to the editor of Forbes magazine,
who is at: readers@forbes.com

You don’t need to ask me (or anyone else) exactly what to say.  Just take a
look at the short article and see what part bothers you the most.  Then tell
the editor of Forbes what you think!

Let me know if you have any problem with the links.  Also, please let me
know if you receive a reply from the Forbes editor.

William Bernet, M.D.
President, Parental Alienation Study Group

Ill legislature 2021

It looks we have no Bills scheduled for Illinois next week.  

Most Committee Headings next week are regarding redistricting and appropriations.  Nonetheless, that does not mean you should sit on your ass and do nothing.  You can still contact legislators (contact information attached) and ask, “When is Illinois going to have Equal-Shared Parenting?  Or are you all just flunkies of the Bar Associations – placing lawyer revenues above what is best for kids?!  Oh. You are a lawyer – Fuck you, you fucking piece of fucking shit!!!”  or words to that effect.

Now, on to other States.  (Remember, a win anywhere is a win everywhere.  We can leverage each other’s victories in our home States; so, we need to support them.)

I would like to note that Arkansas has passed their equal-shared parenting Bill last week.  Do not celebrate yet; remember, we passed equal-shared parenting in Florida, and 40% minimum in Minnesota before the Bar Associations when nuts and flooded the governor’s offices with dollars and high priced lobbyists who were successful in getting the governors to veto our successes.  (Note the wording of Arkansas SB18.  Some interesting wording, especially how a parent’s disruptive behavior (screwing with parenting time) may be deemed “material change of circumstances” whereby custody may then go to the nondisruptive parent.)

Also, of interest in Minnesota is a lawsuit alleging that current Minnesota custody laws are unconstitutional.  We are following this to see how the court and Bar reacts.  This is in State court with talks of a potential federal class action with a well-funded litigant.

Now onto Texas.  Love then or hate them, they did a great job of pulling together numerous organizations (See attached) to support HB2153 (See attached) defining parental alienation as a form of abuse, without using the words “parental alienation.”   Note the wording of the Bill (Abuse includes: “engaging in conduct that results in a child’s reluctance or refusal, without legitimate justification, to have a relationship with one of the child’s parents.”) and how they pulled all these groups together for support.

April 25^th is international Parental Alienation Awareness Day.  Will you mope, gather to blow bubbles, or blow up a Bar Association’s headquarters or family court?

We all need to get on the ball and get our asses out there!!

Remedies in child support cases there own rules for modifications ?

the robbing of SSI more now then ever is there going to be any left for future generations to get or steal ?

OVER 32 BILLION COMING OUT OF OUR SSI TITLE ALOTMENT PROGRAMS TITLE-IV A-F ILLINOIS GETS OVER 750 MILLION DOLLARS how do they divide this up good ? for hfs time to foia on what each county gets from its family court or other court ordered scam process to trick you to agree to pay ? So the big ? is it they are selling bonds for this or floating it on the derivative market. Or does it get funneled into the retirement funds of the state actors through the general fund through instructions ? State-by-State Child Support Data 6/25/2019According to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), states collected approximately $32 billion on behalf of the 14.7 million children served by child support enforcement programs across the country during FY 2018.While collections remained relatively steady and caseloads trended slightly downward, the cost effectiveness of the program remained almost unchanged with $5.14 being collected for every $1 spent on the program.Below is a 50-state breakdown of total distributed collections, total arrearages, amount of current support due, total caseload and total administrative expenditures over the last 4 years (2015-2018).For more information, check out the FY 2018 Preliminary Report to Congress.Total Distributed CollectionsNationally, there was a 0.1% increase in total amount of child support distributed to families from 2015-2018.Guam, Idaho, West Virginia, and the Virgin Islands saw double digit decreases in their total distributed collections while Texas and Nevada saw the largest increases at 9% and 7%, respectively.State2015201620172018% Change 2015-2018Alabama$320,480,355$325,009,128$320,472,376$320,468,6310%Alaska99,574,78099,600,93291,580,01391,089,079-9%Arizona313,943,546312,073,959310,751,664309,651,612-1%Arkansas234,810,293231,187,031226,334,421226,526,488-4%California2,247,498,8662,311,471,6822,339,598,8692,380,160,3836%Colorado318,996,217321,101,279318,001,995317,402,2530%Connecticut242,487,423245,530,131240,197,387236,288,787-3%Delaware75,417,44975,986,35474,674,43673,727,914-2%District of Columbia47,343,43047,110,09947,259,50846,723,686-1%Florida1,443,751,0021,477,346,2181,474,661,2201,488,532,0963%Georgia678,646,491690,988,211695,453,588688,879,5132%Guam10,748,1589,763,3979,578,2929,101,247-15%Hawaii98,888,61599,425,23097,241,05695,541,812-3%Idaho169,281,382171,537,029170,006,144150,628,783-11%Illinois807,772,022811,743,030787,682,797766,636,244-5%Indiana553,887,280549,292,842529,806,427521,988,045-6%Iowa307,628,096307,779,154305,476,647304,654,109-1%Kansas182,652,580187,350,486187,303,061193,295,2416%Kentucky383,607,980379,507,355367,103,526359,230,952-6%Louisiana406,865,602397,885,269400,575,903411,115,1941%Maine98,680,730100,753,45897,795,28096,774,293-2%Maryland533,041,437534,748,108528,767,756520,842,681-2%Massachusetts626,665,708634,750,462626,795,847590,286,872-6%Michigan1,324,213,6391,328,650,3781,309,828,8241,289,544,205-3%Minnesota583,371,957575,056,824561,127,628553,660,410-5%Mississippi322,142,959328,139,566327,399,379337,385,2025%Missouri596,717,964596,454,203580,321,575568,964,104-5%Montana62,718,67060,586,66160,742,57261,980,050-1%Nebraska206,767,027206,148,541204,462,116204,543,763-1%Nevada179,728,430183,853,843187,677,416191,616,1167%New Hampshire78,122,97476,548,06774,828,64373,871,990-5%New Jersey1,154,241,6061,154,277,5401,111,861,1821,057,922,406-8%New Mexico121,805,960121,491,197121,914,934121,423,2430%New York1,701,208,2061,750,878,9951,716,965,3601,718,403,8121%North Carolina661,805,785663,210,244656,441,704653,822,768-1%North Dakota96,939,84096,264,44995,775,24395,839,200-1%Ohio1,662,243,1461,651,453,0681,612,205,9961,596,227,531-4%Oklahoma348,822,105342,044,816336,207,183336,945,403-3%Oregon354,419,271359,706,112355,411,282359,210,8541%Pennsylvania1,247,383,4341,240,481,7541,213,348,9171,199,364,892-4%Puerto Rico328,304,424336,108,619325,574,413311,694,891-5%Rhode Island73,768,66974,327,82474,058,17273,322,355-1%South Carolina276,692,044287,578,479289,376,633292,763,6206%South Dakota92,266,27191,900,75092,283,95593,925,8962%Tennessee601,662,972604,695,788598,990,132597,725,019-1%Texas3,869,737,0923,975,425,5864,090,214,2434,219,325,9969%Utah208,930,091212,273,414211,549,807212,174,0272%Vermont44,091,88443,660,06442,203,35541,668,899-5%Virgin Islands6,698,2686,913,6285,513,4575,483,328-18%Virginia610,461,256607,383,240602,399,240600,344,184-2%Washington637,489,204640,491,685632,754,285631,396,686-1%West Virginia199,206,476188,496,816178,978,477173,021,206-13%Wisconsin639,018,256645,190,808646,836,291648,156,5111%Wyoming65,484,85362,578,29660,923,45663,098,112-4%U.S. Total$28,559,134,175$28,834,212,099$28,625,294,083$28,584,372,5940%Total Amount of ArreragesAmount of Current Support DueTotal CaseloadTotal Administrative ExpendituresAbout This NCSL ProjectNCSL staff in D.C. and Denver can provide comprehensive, thorough, and timely information on critical child support policy issues. We provide services to legislators and staff working to improve state policies affecting children and their families. NCSL’s online clearinghouse for state legislators includes resources on child support policy, financing, laws, research and promising practices. Technical assistance visits to states are available to any state legislature that would like training or assistance related to this topic.The Denver-based child support project staff focuses on state policy, tracking legislation and providing research and policy analysis, consultation, and technical assistance specifically geared to the legislative audience. Denver staff can be reached at (303) 364-7700 or cyf-info@ncsl.org.NCSL staff in Washington, D.C. track and analyze federal legislation and policy and represent state legislatures on child support issues before Congress and the Administration. Staff in D.C. can be reached at (202) 624-5400 or cyf-info@ncsl.org.The child support project and D.C. human services staff receive guidance and support from NCSL’s Standing Committee on Health & Human Services.Additional ResourcesChild Support and Family Law Legislation DatabaseChild Support Homepage

God old Chicago machine breaking down Madigan to follow?

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fchicago.suntimes.com%2F2020%2F9%2F11%2F21431547%2Fed-burke-michael-toomin-james-shapiro-investment-club-table-wisdom-margarita-kulys-hoffman%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0L8_KE7u3IQzjyvZcKiWtVt0XjVLkgVFuJv0fw4UWPFz539ne1SHtWY-o&h=AT11VSxaqmmxZ0TGCijNZ1ewU4wK8wu2qhwm8WKdNChf5q2GF-Qh2ph-0E7S6cyGPEx2T9WhzoZ19kYf3mpuK9iUMIkuWa_u6p9qE32FGyhfIfkOdhy_Iw_N2zoTUJz9aK3WiysYIUf42jyOVVTk&tn=H-R&c%5B0%5D=AT0z_TbbnS2fPanCv28MsKEMLbjDHvlHOxkW4GgWwBZt-w-4MSpbk0_C5WKxI50pwT9xs-8z8yHyk7ryCaosx9gi85CuPUi9KavoklaUXOu6__QlGGfX47CkLy3oHW_FLSDpH5lmSmkfPGNd8hI-G0ZRdUWCyWNn6b-sRdweSPu8r_GJ1HWaYA4ZP8ZFJ5kyPh2sJaZkc7j9nkHkx-JUPpypgQ

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit,

Judge Amy Coney Barrettsits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, whosetables of complaints against federal judges in the Circuit show thatshe has condoned the systematic dismissal of 100% of those complaints,thus protecting herself and her fellow judges, who remainunaccountable through abusive self-exemption from any discipline;harming complainants and the rest of the public, who areleft unheard, uncompensated, and exposed to judges ever more emboldened to abuse; andimpairing her and the other judges’ integrity,which is bound by their oath to“administer justice without respect to persons, anddo equal right to the poor and to the rich [in relations to judges]”[1], and to“avoid impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety[2]”http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero…ByDr. Richard Cordero, Esq.Ph.D., University of Cambridge, EnglandM.B.A., University of Michigan Business SchoolD.E.A., La Sorbonne, ParisJudicial Discipline ReformNew York Cityhttp://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.orgDr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.comA. Judges’ power to hold themselves and be held unaccountable1. You may be affiliated with one or the other party or be an independent or even hold no political views at all and still recognize the factual accuracy of the aphorism: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”(*>jur:27[28]).2. The enabling circumstance of absolute power is unaccountability. The latter is the faculty of exercising one’s power however and for whatever purpose one wants with the certainty that one will suffer no adverse consequences from anyone: one can get away with anything.3. Unaccountability is substantially different from independence in exercising one’s power without being directed by anybody to do so one way or the other. Judges are not independent from the fundamental requirement of the rule of law: its fair and impartial application, even to themselves. That requirement is expressed in the inscription on the frieze of the Supreme Court building thus: Equal Justice Under Law[3].4. Nobody has as much power as a single federal judge: One of them, District J. James Robart of Seattle, Washington State, suspended nationwide the Muslim travel ban ordered by President Trump, who had campaigned on issuing it and was elected by more than 62.5 million voters; three circuit judges on a three-judge federal appellate panel upheld the suspension, although only two would have sufficed to uphold it nationwide. Now imagine how much power all the federal judges wield.1. The power and fear of judges’ retaliation5. Republican and Democratic politicians in Washington and everywhere else are equally to blame for having allowed judges to become so powerful. Politicians recommend, endorse, nominate, and confirm candidates for federal judgeships and justiceships and, after their confirmation, protect them as ‘our men and women on the bench’:a. The judges appointed by one party are the ones expected to declare the constitutionality of the respective party’s laws and subpoenas, and the winning of its electoral candidate; and hold those of other party unconstitutional and its candidate the loser. Judges’ counter-expected declarations constitute the key source of their power of devastating retaliation against politicians and parties that try to limit their unaccountability.6. This is how judges give practical effect to the gang mentality that Then-Judge Neil Gorsuch manifested when he said: “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us.”(†>OL2:546)7. This explains how in the last 231 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789 the number of federal judges impeached and removed from office is 8![4]8. To gauge that number’s implications compare it against the 2,340 federal judicial officers on the bench on September 30, 2019.[5]9. Politicians have heard loudly and clearly judges’ menacing cry: «Don’t you ever mess with us!»2. The mockery of “good Behaviour” ascertained by the actors of the “Behaviour”10. Another source of judges’ power is the Constitution. In Article III, Section 1, it authorizes judges to hold office for life. Actually, they are the only officers in our country with life-tenure, whether through appointment or election.11. However, their holding of office is “during good Behaviour” only. This constraint is a source[6] of politicians’ constitutional right to exercise checks and balances on judges by investigating and removing them for ‘bad Behaviour’.12. But exercising that right makes a politician, all his or her supporters, and their party as a whole run the risk of antagonizing judges and provoking their retaliation.13. So, in the interest of their own preservation, politicians have abdicated their duty of interbranch supervision by entrusting judges with a unique power: to administer self-discipline. This has been in defiance of common sense and knowledge of human nature, expressed in the axiom: “Nobody can be an impartial judge of himself, his friends, or his peers”.3. Judges’ interest in peers’ approval and their impairment by peers’ example 14. Judges have strong motives for protecting their unaccountability: self-interest and example.15. By so doing they ensure a benefit to them: the approval by their fellow judges. That protects them from judges’ retaliation against judges who dare denounce their abuse of power, who can be deemed traitors and ostracized as pariahs.16. To ensure continued social acceptance by fellow judges, judges keep silent. Progressively, the abuse that they condone becomes normal.17. Their integrity is impaired by the example of abusive judges. It becomes ineffectual at keeping them as only silent abettors of the principals’ abuse. They commit the abuse that they allow others to commit. From ‘live and let live’, for ‘it is what they do’, they transition to «I too grab all I can!», for ‘that’s what we do’.18. Far from only looking away in silence, they join the others in bragging about how smart they are at grabbing.19. Integrity is corrupted by watching in silence the abuse of one’s friends and peers.20. This is shown in both the table‡ and the two-volume study* † of judges and their judiciaries that support this article, both based on original law research and writing, and strategic thinking:Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability andConsequent Riskless Abuse of Power:Pioneering the news and publishing field ofjudicial unaccountability reporting* †* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero…† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero…‡ http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero…i. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free at https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pdf-reader.html..a. Some articles have been posted to the website Judicial Discipline Reform at www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.b. They have appealed to so many webvisitors that 35,491+ have become subscribers. Join them thus:go to the site homepage <left panel ↓Register or + New or Users >Add New.B. Judges self-exonerate from all complaints to ensure their unaccountability1. The processing of complaints against judges 21. Any complaint against a federal circuit, district, bankruptcy, or magistrate judge must be filed with the clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit where the judge sits[7], as provided for under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (the Act; 28 U.S.C. §§351-364)[8].22. The complaint is processed, in the first instance, by the circuit chief judge. Any petition for review of his or her decision is determined by the circuit judicial council[9], composed of circuit and district judges, including the chief.23. Each circuit court must prepare its official statistics on the handling of complaints against judges in the circuit; and send them to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO)[10], as provided for in §604(h)(2).24. AO compiles and reports them in the Annual Report[11] of its Director, who is appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.25. The chief justice is the presiding member of the Judicial Conference of the U.S., §331, which is the highest policy making body of the Federal Judiciary and includes all the circuit chief judges and one district judge per circuit.26. The Director must submit his Report to the Conference and Congress, §604(a)(3, 4); it is a public document.27. The complaint statistics appear on Table S-22 of the Report. Since 1996 they are available online.28. Dr. Cordero has collected all of them and made them available in one running file with links to the originals in AO[12].29. In addition, Dr. Cordero has made tables that aggregate their values for all the circuits for all the years and for some circuits for some years[13].2. The statistics of 100% self-exoneration from complaints 30. The table[[14]] supporting and accompanying this article‡ collects all the statistics on the complaints that were processed between May 11, 2008 and September 30, 2019, in Judge Barrett’s Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, with links to the originals[15].31. Covering decades, these statistics show that even in consecutive years judges have dismissed 100% of complaints and denied 100% of dismissal review petitions; this justifies rounding up the mathematical average of 99.83%.32. Such consistency in 13 circuits and two national courts across the country cannot be achieved but for an institutionalized policy of the Federal Judiciary.3. Policy hatched in corruptive secrecy33. Its adoption is facilitated by the secrecy that pervades the Judiciary: It holds all its policy-making, administrative, disciplinary, and adjudicative meetings behind closed doors and holds no press conference.34. Although “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”[16], judges ensure that what they do is not to be seen. The Judicial Conference meets secretly twice a year, thus setting the example for the rest of the Federal Judiciary and its judges.35. Justice Brandeis said “Sunshine is the best disinfectant” precisely because secrecy breeds the mold of conspiratorial corruption.36. So, circumstantial evidence gives probable cause to believe that the policy institutionalizes judges’ implicit or explicit complicit agreement for reciprocal exoneration from all complaints:a. ‘Today I exempt you from the complaint against you, and tomorrow you exempt me and my friends from any complaint against us, no matter the nature, extent, and gravity of the abuse complained-about’; cf. “Allegations” listed in the official Tables(and at table infra[14], Lines A21-40=A21-40).C. Judge Barrett has condoned judges’ self-exoneration and compromised her integrity37. In the 7th Circuit during the more than 11 years covered by the table :a. 984 complaints were filed (O3), but only 3 judges were censured or reprimanded(O89).b. The 7th Circuit chief judges dismissed 902 complaints in whole or in part(O48); 4(N1) were pending on September 30, 2019.c. Only 5 Special Investigative Committees were appointed(O63), but only 1 report was submitted to the circuit judicial council(O70).d. Of the 476 dismissal review petitions(O71), 475 were denied(O75). “Denied” is the only operative word, with no reasoning, that appears in the 5¢ preprinted, pro forma notification of denial: a dumping form![17], issued as a kneejerk reaction to review petitions.e. The 7th Circuit judicial council was a dead end, for it did not return any complaint to the chief judge for appointment of an Investigative Committee(O77). Dismissal without investigation was systematic.38. The systematic complaint-dismissal by the chiefs and petition denial by the council were a cover-up operation to protect their fellow judges. They arrogated to themselves the power to abrogate in effect the Act of Congress. Complainants never had a chance of establishing their complaints, let alone getting compensation[19]. The judges ran a deceptive complaint mechanism. It was a sham.39. One cannot know whether Judge Barrett has been complained-about because complaints are kept secret, not even the names[18] of the complained-against judges are disclosed. This facilitates covering up their abuse[19], be it an illegal or unethical act or an impropriety.1. Judge Barrett’s imputed knowledge of judges’ abuse and complaint processing sham40. But she has imputed knowledge of judges’ complicit reciprocal exoneration agreement and of the sham:a. Judge Barrett began her legal career as an insider of the courts, clerking in 1997-1998 for Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit[20], and in 1998-1999 for Justice Antonin Scalia at the Supreme Court.b. She worked as a lawyer at a top law firm and was a law professor for almost 17 years.c. She took the bench on November 2, 2017[21], as a circuit judge of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the circuit complaint statistics are prepared.d. She has participated in the judges’ secret meetings. She has met with judges in the lounge, their chambers, and the corridors, where they formally and informally have discussed, among other things, the complaint filed against any of them and where they have reassured each other: ‘Don’t sweat it. The chief and the council will get rid of it, as they always do.’41. Willful ignorance or blindness(*>jur:90§§b, c) are of no avail to her. It was impossible for her not to know how complainants had been abused and would be further abused by their complaints and review petitions getting ‘dumped by form’.42.. Knowingly, Judge Barrett failed her duty to report[22] the judges and joined the dumping as an accessory:a. By looking the other way in silence after the complained-about abuse, she facilitated the judges’ keeping and enjoying the gain or convenience that they had grabbed, thus becoming an accessory after the fact.b. Her silence informed them or others that she would not report them if they committed another abuse, encouraging them as an accessory before the fact.43.. Through both dumpings, Judge Barrett harmed abusees. She also harmed the Judiciary’s and her own integrity(supra ¶6).44. Nothing protects integrity: Politicians’ self-preservation interest leaves judges unrestrained to give free rein to their pursuit of the motive of gain and convenience at every opportunity by abusing their means: their enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives and shape their identities..45. Hence, judges they start chipping away at their duties. Gradually, discharging them becomes optional[23]; grabbing takes precedence. Instead of working as public servants in “government of, by, and for the people”(*>jur:82172), they work as free agents for life for their own account. They maximize the return on their investment of abuse of power. 2. Judges’ abusive self-enrichment denounced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren46.. In fact, a politician as knowledgeable about financial matters as Sen. Elizabeth Warren dare denounce in her “I have a plan for the Federal Judiciary too”[24] how federal judges fail to recuse themselves from cases in which they own stock in one of the companies that is a party to the case before them in order to resolve the ensuing conflict of interests in their favor by protecting or increasing their stock’s value. Sen. Warren refers to such practice throughout the Federal Judiciary as judges’ abusive self-enrichment.. She attributes it to their unaccountability.47.. Their abusive self-enrichment necessarily entails their commission of the crimes of concealment of assets, tax evasion, money laundering, fraud, and breach of contract for judicial services, of public trust, and of the oath of office.48.. But it is riskless for judges. So they become predators, always prowling for the next prey. 3. Abuse for convenience through pro forma disposal of appeals causes compensable waste49.. In addition to abusing for gain, judges also abuse for convenience: Circuit judges defraud appellants of their filing fees by disposing of 93% of appeals in decisions that are “procedural [mostly the catchall pretext of “lack of jurisdiction”], unsigned, unpublished, without comment, and by consolidation”[25].50. Those decisions are unreasoned, therefore unprecedential, ad hoc, and arbitrary fiats.51.. They cause injury in fact to the people whose money they grab and the participants in judicial process, whose effort, time, and money spent on discovery, briefs, court and attorney’s fees, etc., they render wasteful. 4. Judge Barrett’s compromised integrity and extortionable refusal to supervise52.. Judge Barrett has compromised her integrity by in self-interest failing to denounce her fellow judges’ unaccountability and abuse of power.53.. If she is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice and you filed a petition for certiorari challenging judges’ unaccountability and abuse of power, would it be reasonable to expect her to vote against even taking up your petition for review?54.. For the rest of her life-appointment, she must avoid by all means the risk of incriminating herself by allowing the investigation of current and even new judges, each of whom knows or can find out from other judges about her own abuse and shout at her menacingly: “If you let them take me down, I’ll bring you with me!” She is extortionable.55.. To preserve herself, she will not supervise the abuse of the judges of the circuit to which she will be allotted as circuit justice[26].56.. She will have to resist any attempts of Congress, law enforcement authorities, and the media and academia conducting unprecedented citizens hearings[27], to investigate her, any of her fellow judges, and the Judiciary itself. She must strive to preserve by law and by fact the independence and secrecy of the Judiciary so that she and her fellow judges continue to be an unaccountably grabbing State within the state. D. Impeaching Justice Barrett for deceiving the Senate57.. At her confirmation hearings, Judge Barrett answered senators’ questions by affirming that her integrity would not have allowed her to be nominated in exchange of her promise to carry out the mission of declaring Roe v. Wade [allowing abortions] and the Affordable [Health] Care Act/Obamacare unconstitutional, and P. Trump the winner of a suit over the election outcome.58. Her self-serving affirmation is doubtful because the facts show that her integrity is apt to compromise:a. Instead of abiding by her oath to administer “Equal Justice under Law”, she has joined her fellow judges in providing themselves Unequal Protection from the Law to keep grabbing.59. This begs the questions:a. whether if confirmed, Justice Barrett can be impeached and removed for materially deceiving the Senate about her integrity; andb. whether answering it can start now by investigating federal judges’ unaccountability and abuse of power, including 100% dismissal of complaints and denial of review petitions, as proposed[28].E. Offer of a presentation via video conference or in person 60. I offer to present to you and your group of colleagues and guests this article and the proposal for:a. the publication of one or a series of articles exposing judges’ unaccountability and riskless abuse of power;b. a joint investigation of judges’ abuse, to be focused and cost-effective by following the abundance of leads involving Supreme Court justices;c. the holding of unprecedented citizens hearings, to be conducted virtually and broadcast nationally by media outlets and universities to take the testimony of victims of judges’ abuse;d. the development of the website at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org to capitalize on its 35,491+ subscribers and turn it into the center of a multidisciplinary academic and business venture.http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero…61.To decide whether to accept my offer, you may want to watch my video and follow it with its slides.http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero…http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero…62.. See also my related article:Reuters, a major news organization,investigated state judges,found «hardwired judicial corruption»and asked readers to send it their stories of abuse by judges.See a method for writing your story byasking the journalists’ W-questions, using dots, and connecting them at:http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero_your… 63.. To set the presentation’s terms and scheduling, please use my contact information below.F. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money64.. This article is based on my two-volume study* † of judges and their judiciaries, which is the product of the professional law research and writing and strategic thinking of:Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability andConsequent Riskless Abuse of Power:Pioneering the news and publishing field ofjudicial unaccountability reporting* †* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero…† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero…VisitJudicial Discipline Reformto strengthen yourself by reading its articles becauseKNOWLEDGE IS POWER.So have done its many webvisitors,which explains why 35,491+ have become subscribers.Join them thus:go to http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org <left panel ↓Register or + New or Users >Add New.Put your moneywhere your outrage at abuse andpassion for justice are.Donatethrough Paypalhttps://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick…by making a deposit or an online transfer toCiti Bank, routing number 021 000 089, account 4977 59 2001orby mailing a check to the address below.Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.Sincerely,Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.Judicial Discipline Reform2165 Bruckner BlvdBronx, New York City 10472 http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org tel. +1(718)827-9521https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4bDr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, Corderoric@yahoo.comNOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq. and †>OL2:1114§G, when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to increase the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.********************************************[1] 28 U.S.C. §453. Oaths of justices and judges; this is title 28 of the code of federal laws, section 453. This title is known as the Judicial Code; https://uscode.house.gov/download/download.shtml; jsessionid=527DE001938E7042255B83AAF055949A; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/28usc_Judicial…,[2] Code of Conduct of United States Judges, Canon 2; https://www.uscourts.gov/…/code-conduct-united-states…; and *>jur:68123a.[3] See the photo of the frieze at †>OL2:1040.[4] Federal Judicial Center, the research and education agency of the judicial branch of the U.S. government; https://www.fjc.gov/…/judges/impeachments-federal-judges [5] Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Judicial Business 2019, official statistics on circuit, district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges; https://www.uscourts.gov/statistic…/judicial-business-2019[6] See also U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4; and http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero_no… .[7] Each of the 11 numbered regional federal judicial circuits, the District of Columbia Circuit, the Federal Circuit, and the two national courts, i.e., the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, must file its statistics on complaints against its judges.[8] Under the Act(supra fn. 1), any person, whether a party to a case or a non-party, even a judge, can file a complaint against the conduct or disability of a federal judge The complaint is not a means of avoiding an appeal on the merits from a judge’s decision. In fact, the complaint need not be related to any lawsuit at all; e.g., it may concern the attendance of a judge at a seminar where she became drunk and disorderly or at a fund raising meeting in favor of a political candidate or against a given issue where the judge appeared to breach her impartiality or place the prestige of judicial office in favor or against thereof. But it is obvious that the most frequent occasion when a person comes in contact with a judge and complaints against her arise is a lawsuit, whether at the trial or the appeal level.[9] On judicial councils see *>jur:5796 and its link to 28usc§332. Judicial councils of circuits.[10] On AO, see http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero… >jur:2110.[11] https://www.uscourts.gov/…/anal…/directors-annual-report[12] The tables for the fiscal years 1oct96-30sep2019 have been collected in the file at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/statistical…. In that file, Table S-22 for each year also has the link to the original held at AO (Administrative Office). Readers can conveniently download that file to verify the data presented in this table and to prepare similar tables for each of the other circuits and courts and any period of years. To that end, that file contains a table template that readers can fill out.[13] See this table collected to similar tables for all and other individual circuits at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero….[14] http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero…[15] The table for the 7th Circuit is representative of the other circuits’ systematic dismissal of com-plaints against their respective judges and their judicial councils’ systematic denial of petitions for review of those dismissals.[16] Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K. B. 256, 259 (1923). Cf. “Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Aetna Life Ins. v. Lavoie et al., 475 U.S. 813; 106 S. Ct. 1580; 89 L. Ed. 2d 823 (1986).[17] Cf. http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero… >OL2:608¶5[18] By contrast, neither the law nor judges raise any objections to the disclosure of the names of, and the complaints themselves concerning, those accused of malpractice or abuse, whether they are doctors and their hospitals; lawyers and their law firms; police officers and their departments; pedophilic priests and their churches; greedy Wall Street financiers and their firms; corner-cutting pharmaceutical and polluting oil companies and their officers; and everybody else, including you …that is, if you are not a member of judges’ class. Its privilege of unaccountability, arrogated to themselves through the threat of retaliation and the abuse of self-discipline, provides. Benefiting from, and condoning, it impairs the integrity of every judge.[19] Nevertheless, complainants can make their complaints against judges public[19] on grounds of equal protection of the law and through the exercise of their 1st Amendment right of “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [on the Internet and social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances [including their request for compensation from judges and their judiciaries]”; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/US_Constitution…;http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero _inform_outrage_be_compensated.pdf.[20] Cf. Complaint filed with Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero…[21] http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/judges…/biographies7.htm and https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/barrett-amy-coney[22] 18 U.S.C. §3057; https://uscode.house.gov/…/download.shtml;jsessionid… E7042255B83AAF055949A; and Code of Conduct for Judges, supra endnote 2, Canon 3B(6).[23] http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero… >OL2:455§§B, D[24] https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/restore-trust…[25] Table B-12 of the Annual Report, reproduced at †>OL2:462 and commented upon at 457§D.[26] 28 U.S.C. §42. Allotment of Supreme Court justices to circuits[27] http://judicial-discipline-reform.org/…/DrRCordero_your… >¶73c[28] http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/…/DrRCordero…__._,_.___Posted by: “Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.” <dr.richard.cordero_esq@verizon.net>

GRANTS TO STATES FOR ACCESS AND VISITATION PROGRAMS

GRANTS TO STATES FOR ACCESS AND VISITATION PROGRAMS
Sec. 469B. [42 U.S.C. 669b] (a) In General.—The Administration for Children and Families shall make grants under this section to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children, by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral dropoff and pickup), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
(b) Amount of Grant.—The amount of the grant to be made to a State under this section for a fiscal year shall be an amount equal to the lesser of—
(1) 90 percent of State expenditures during the fiscal year for activities described in subsection (a); or
(2) the allotment of the State under subsection (c) for the fiscal year.
(c) Allotments to States.—
(1) In general.—The allotment of a State for a fiscal year is the amount that bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants under this section for the fiscal year as the number of children in the State living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all States.
(2) Minimum allotment.—The Administration for Children and Families shall adjust allotments to States under paragraph (1) as necessary to ensure that no State is allotted less than—
(A) $50,000 for fiscal year 1997 or 1998; or
(B) $100,000 for any succeeding fiscal year.
(d) No Supplantation of State Expenditures for Similar Activities.—A State to which a grant is made under this section may not use the grant to supplant expenditures by the State for activities specified in subsection (a), but shall use the grant to supplement such expenditures at a level at least equal to the level of such expenditures for fiscal year 1995.
(e) State Administration.—Each State to which a grant is made under this section—
(1) may administer State programs funded with the grant directly or through grants to or contracts with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit private entities;
(2) shall not be required to operate such programs on a statewide basis; and
(3) shall monitor, evaluate, and report on such programs in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
About Us Accessibility FOIA Open Government Glossary Privacy Report Fraud, Waste or Abuse
This website is produced and published at U.S. taxpayer expense.

Compilation of the Social Security Laws

Compilation of the Social Security Laws
http://www.socialsecurity.gov
Home | FAQs | Contact Us | Text Size

Search
Social Security Act Home

TITLE IV—GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID AND SERVICES TO NEEDY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND FOR CHILD–WELFARE SERVICES[1]

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF TITLE[2]
Part A—BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES
Sec. 401. Purpose
Sec. 402. Eligible States; State plan
Sec. 403. Grants to States
Sec. 404. Use of grants
Sec. 405. Administrative provisions
Sec. 406. Federal loans for State welfare programs
Sec. 407. Mandatory work requirements
Sec. 408. Prohibitions; Requirements
Sec. 409. Penalties
Sec. 410. Appeal of adverse decision
Sec. 411. Data collection and reporting
Sec. 411A. State required to provide certain information
Sec. 412. Direct funding and administration by Indian tribes
Sec. 413. Research, evaluations, and national studies
Sec. 414. Study by the census bureau
Sec. 415. Waivers
Sec. 416. Administration
Sec. 417. Limitation on Federal authority
Sec. 418. Funding for child care
Sec. 419. Definitions
Part B—CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
Subpart 1—Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program
[Sec. 420. Repealed.]
Sec. 421. Purpose
Sec. 422. State plans for child welfare services
Sec. 423. Allotments to States
Sec. 424. Payment to States
Sec. 425. Limitations on authorization of appropriations
Sec. 426. Research, training, or demonstration projects
Sec. 427. Family connection grants
Sec. 428. Payments to Indian tribal organizations
Sec. 429. National random sample study of child welfare
Subpart 2—Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Sec. 430. Findings and Purpose
Sec. 431. Definitions
Sec. 432. State plans
Sec. 433. Allotments to States
Sec. 434. Payments to States
Sec. 435. Evaluations; Research; Technical Assistance
Sec. 436. Authorization of appropriations; Reservation of certain amounts
Sec. 437. Discretionary and Targeted Grants
Sec. 438. Entitlement funding for State courts to assess and improve handling of proceedings relating to foster care and adoption
Sec. 439. Grants for programs for mentoring children of prisoners
[Part C—Repealed.]
Part D—Child Support and Establishment of Paternity
Sec. 451. Appropriation
Sec. 452. Duties of the Secretary
Sec. 453. Federal parent locator service
Sec. 453A. State directory of new hires
Sec. 454. State plan for child and spousal support
Sec. 454A. Automated data processing
Sec. 454B. Collection and disbursement of support payments
Sec. 455. Payments to States
Sec. 456. Support obligations
Sec. 457. Distribution of collected support
Sec. 458. Incentive payments to States
Sec. 459. Consent by the United States to income withholding, garnishment, and similar proceedings for enforcement of child support and alimony obligations
Sec. 459A. International support enforcement
Sec. 460. Civil actions to enforce support obligations
[Sec. 461. Repealed.]
[Sec. 462. Repealed.]
Sec. 463. Use of Federal Parent Locator Service in connection with the enforcement or determination of child custody and in cases of parental kidnaping of a child
Sec. 464. Collection of past-due support from Federal tax refunds
Sec. 465. Allotments from pay for child and spousal support owed by members of the uniformed services on active duty
Sec. 466. Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness of child support enforcement
Sec. 467. State guidelines for child support awards
Sec. 468. Encouragement of States to adopt simple civil process for voluntarily acknowledging paternity and a civil procedure for establishing paternity in contested cases
Sec. 469. Collection and reporting of child support enforcement data
Sec. 469A. Nonliability for financial institutions providing financial records to State child support enforcement agencies in child support cases
Sec. 469B. Grants to States for access and visitation programs
Part E—Federal Payments for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
Sec. 470. Purpose: appropriation
Sec. 471. State plan for foster care and adoption assistance
Sec. 472. Foster care maintenance payments program
Sec. 473. Adoption and Guardianship assistance program
Sec. 473A. Adoption incentive payments
[Sec. 473B. Repealed.]
Sec. 474. Payments to States; Allotments to States
Sec. 475. Definitions
Sec. 476. Technical assistance; Data collection and evaluation
Sec. 477. John H. Chafee foster care independence program
Sec. 478. Rule of construction
Sec. 479. Collection of data relating to adoption and foster care
Sec. 479A. Annual report
Sec. 479B. Programs operated by Indian tribal organizations

[1] Title IV of the Social Security Act is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Office of Family Assistance administers benefit payments under Title IV, Parts A and C. The Administration for Public Services, Office of Human Development Services, administers social services under Title IV, Parts B and E. The Office of Child Support Enforcement administers the child support program under Title IV, Part D.
Title IV appears in the United States Code as §§601–687, subchapter IV, chapter 7, Title 42.
Regulations of the Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to Title IV are contained in chapters II, III, and XIII, Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations. Regulations of the Secretary of Labor relating to Title IV are contained in subtitle A, Title 29, and chapter 29, Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations.
See Vol. II, 31 U.S.C. 3720 and 3720A, with respect to collection of payments due to Federal agencies; 6504–6505, with respect to intergovernmental cooperation; 7501–7507, with respect to uniform audit requirements for State and local governments receiving Federal financial assistance.
See Vol. II, P.L. 82-183, §618, which prohibits denial of grants-in-aid under certain conditions.
See Vol. II, P.L. 88-352, §601, for prohibition against discrimination in federally assisted programs.
See Vol. II, P.L. 89-73, §213, with respect to eligibility for Federal surplus property.
See Vol. II, P.L. 89-97, §121(b), with respect to restrictions on payment to a State receiving payments under Title XIX.
See Vol. II, Appendix I, P.L. 94-241, §1, for §502(a)(1) of H.J. Res. 549, with respect to participation by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands on the same basis as Guam.
See Vol. II, P.L. 100-204, §724(d), with respect to furnishing information to the United States Commission on Improving the Effectiveness of the United Nations; and §725(b), with respect to the detailing of Government personnel.
See Vol. II, P.L. 100-235, §§5–8, with respect to responsibilities of each Federal agency for computer systems security and privacy.
See Vol. II, P.L. 100-690, §5301(a)(1)(C) and (d)(1)(B), with respect to benefits of drug traffickers and possessors.
See Vol. II, P.L. 101-508, §§13301 and 13302, with respect to the OASDI Trust Funds.
[2] This table of contents does not appear in the law.

DON’T AGREE WITH’ HAVING A GAL OR CHILD REP IT’S AGAINST THE BEST INTREST OF THE CHILD.

Once they don’t let you know with open books they violate your Childs and both parents interests to follow the Childs best interests.

HOW CAN FERDERAL APPLY TO THE STATES IF THEY DONT RECIGNIZE THEM?

The judge thinks that because of the 1st Dist Appellate case Bowman which is a 2014 case the Rule below is no good.
Rule 405.
METHODS OF PROVING CHARACTER
(a) Reputation or Opinion. In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation, or by testimony in the form of an opinion.
(b) Specific Instances of Conduct.
(1) In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct; and
(2) In criminal homicide or battery cases when the accused raises the theory of self-defense and there is conflicting evidence as to whether the alleged victim was the aggressor, proof may also be made of specific instances of the alleged victim’s prior violent conduct.

Adopted September 27, 2010, eff. January 1, 2011.

Judge has ruled that no opinion evidence regarding reputation is allowed only reputation in the community.

Cornell University Law SchoolSearch Cornell

Federal Rules of Evidence › ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS
Rule 405. Methods of Proving Character
(a) By Reputation or Opinion. When evidence of a person’s character or character trait is admissible, it may be proved by testimony about the person’s reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination of the character witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.
(b) By Specific Instances of Conduct. When a person’s character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, the character or trait may also be proved by relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct.
Notes
(Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1932; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Oct. 1, 1987; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)
Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
The rule deals only with allowable methods of proving character, not with the admissibility of character evidence, which is covered in Rule 404.
Of the three methods of proving character provided by the rule, evidence of specific instances of conduct is the most convincing. At the same time it possesses the greatest capacity to arouse prejudice, to confuse, to surprise, and to consume time. Consequently the rule confines the use of evidence of this kind to cases in which character is, in the strict sense, in issue and hence deserving of a searching inquiry. When character is used circumstantially and hence occupies a lesser status in the case, proof may be only by reputation and opinion. These latter methods are also available when character is in issue. This treatment is, with respect to specific instances of conduct and reputation, conventional contemporary common law doctrine. McCormick §153.
In recognizing opinion as a means of proving character, the rule departs from usual contemporary practice in favor of that of an earlier day. See 7 Wigmore §1986, pointing out that the earlier practice permitted opinion and arguing strongly for evidence based on personal knowledge and belief as contrasted with “the secondhand, irresponsible product of multiplied guesses and gossip which we term ‘reputation’.” It seems likely that the persistence of reputation evidence is due to its largely being opinion in disguise. Traditionally character has been regarded primarily in moral overtones of good and bad: chaste, peaceable, truthful, honest. Nevertheless, on occasion nonmoral considerations crop up, as in the case of the incompetent driver, and this seems bound to happen increasingly. If character is defined as the kind of person one is, then account must be taken of varying ways of arriving at the estimate. These may range from the opinion of the employer who has found the man honest to the opinion of the psychiatrist based upon examination and testing. No effective dividing line exists between character and mental capacity, and the latter traditionally has been provable by opinion.
According to the great majority of cases, on cross-examination inquiry is allowable as to whether the reputation witness has heard of particular instances of conduct pertinent to the trait in question. Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948); Annot., 47 A.L.R.2d 1258. The theory is that, since the reputation witness relates what he has heard, the inquiry tends to shed light on the accuracy of his hearing and reporting. Accordingly, the opinion witness would be asked whether he knew, as well as whether he had heard. The fact is, of course, that these distinctions are of slight if any practical significance, and the second sentence of subdivision (a) eliminates them as a factor in formulating questions. This recognition of the propriety of inquiring into specific instances of conduct does not circumscribe inquiry otherwise into the bases of opinion and reputation testimony.
The express allowance of inquiry into specific instances of conduct on cross-examination in subdivision (a) and the express allowance of it as part of a case in chief when character is actually in issue in subdivision (b) contemplate that testimony of specific instances is not generally permissible on the direct examination of an ordinary opinion witness to character. Similarly as to witnesses to the character of witnesses under Rule 608(b). Opinion testimony on direct in these situations ought in general to correspond to reputation testimony as now given, i.e., be confined to the nature and extent of observation and acquaintance upon which the opinion is based. See Rule 701.
Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, House Report No. 93–650
Rule 405(a) as submitted proposed to change existing law by allowing evidence of character in the form of opinion as well as reputation testimony. Fearing, among other reasons, that wholesale allowance of opinion testimony might tend to turn a trial into a swearing contest between conflicting character witnesses, the Committee decided to delete from this Rule, as well as from Rule 608(a) which involves a related problem, reference to opinion testimony.
Notes of Conference Committee, House Report No. 93–1597
The Senate makes two language changes in the nature of conforming amendments. The Conference adopts the Senate amendments.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1987 Amendment
The amendment is technical. No substantive change is intended.
Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment
The language of Rule 405 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility