Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
!!! THIS IS BETTER THAN SEX LOL !!!
!!!PRESS IS IN!!!
I Salute Andy also Seven the guy is tough as nails nice projection you posted here congrats my friend & Let The Goodtimes Roll ON
So ture Simps i salute Andy it has been one hell of a fight for this Vet and i salute you also for your continued DD and valuable info throughout all the negative attacks on biel
People are smart enough to take the device and put it on their back hip or wherever the pain is and secure it with medical adhesive tape while waiting for the approval of the same device with the medical adhesive strips in the box its all the same accept the back and joint package will include med adhesive strips same as medical adhesive tape med tape is sold at all drug stores Only thing will be different is packaging for intended use back joint etc, same device different name for use areas on the box This Approval is huge!!!!!
Your Always Spot on Dew us Longs Thank You Very much For your continued dedicated Hard work & DD on biel i salute you my friend
Somebody just bought 18 million @ 4 in a lump
I feel the same i bought my last order of 3s a couple weeks ago
And The Proof Is In This Pudding. This judge is !!Strict On Interpreting The U.S. Constitution!!. I dare Those Unconstitutional Illegal Clowns To Step foot in this Judges Court they will be struck down LOL
Politics
Who Is Neil Gorsuch, Trump's First Pick For The Supreme Court?
January 31, 20178:05 PM ET
Carrie Johnson 2016 square
Carrie Johnson
Twitter
Judge Neil Gorsuch of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals makes a point while delivering prepared remarks before a group of attorneys last Friday at a luncheon in a legal firm in lower downtown Denver.
David Zalubowski/AP
President Trump has selected federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill a Supreme Court seat that has sat vacant for nearly a year, setting up a blockbuster confirmation hearing that could put the new White House's domestic political agenda on trial in the U.S. Senate.
President Trump Nominates Neil Gorsuch To The Supreme Court
Politics
The selection fulfills an early campaign promise by Trump to nominate a solidly conservative judge with a record of strictly interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Gorsuch, 49, sailed through an earlier confirmation process for a spot on the federal appeals court in Denver.
Only weeks after his nomination in 2006, the Senate confirmed him by voice vote. The American Bar Association rated him as "unanimously well qualified" at the time.
Trump Made His Supreme Court Pick. Now What? 5 Steps To Confirmation
Politics
Here Is What It Takes To Confirm A Supreme Court Nominee
Gorsuch has a sterling legal pedigree. He clerked for two Supreme Court justices, Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. He also served as a clerk on the second most important appeals court in the country, in Washington D.C., for conservative Judge David Sentelle.
Like Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he is in line to replace, Gorsuch has cultivated a reputation as a memorable and clear author of legal opinions. He also considers himself to be an originalist. Lawyers who practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, where Gorsuch currently works, said he is a popular and approachable judge.
Trump Fires Acting Attorney General For Refusing To Defend Immigration Order
Politics
Trump Fires Acting Attorney General For Refusing To Defend Immigration Order
SCOTUSblog, the leading Supreme Court blog, described some of Gorsuch's parallels to Scalia as "eerie."
"He is an ardent textualist (like Scalia); he believes criminal laws should be clear and interpreted in favor of defendants even if that hurts government prosecutions (like Scalia); he is skeptical of efforts to purge religious expression from public spaces (like Scalia); he is highly dubious of legislative history (like Scalia); and he is less than enamored of the dormant commerce clause (like Scalia)," the blog wrote.
Supreme Court Considers Trademark Battle Over Band Name
Law
Supreme Court Considers Trademark Battle Over Band Name
Among other rulings that came to national attention, Gorsuch sided in favor of "religious freedom" claims made by the Little Sisters of the Poor and the owners of the craft company Hobby Lobby, who challenged language in the Affordable Care Act that required them to pay for contraceptive coverage for employees. The Supreme Court backed those Hobby Lobby challengers, in a divided vote, in 2014.
In a lecture to the conservative Federalist Society in Washington more than three years ago, Gorsuch elicited laughter from the audience as he quoted from the 1853 Charles Dickens novel Bleak House, referenced the work of the late novelist David Foster Wallace, and discussed irony and the law.
Can Trump's Pick For Attorney General Serve Independently From The White House?
Politics
Can Trump's Pick For Attorney General Serve Independently From The White House?
"Like any human enterprise, the law's crooked timber occasionally produces the opposite of the intended effect," he said. "We turn to the law earnestly to promote a worthy idea and wind up with a host of unwelcome side effects that do more harm than good. ... We depend upon the rule of law to guarantee freedom, but we have to give up freedom to live under the law's rules."
Off the bench, Gorsuch in 2006 published a book called The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, criticizing the practice and defending the "intrinsic value" of human life. He also contributed to The Law of Judicial Precedent last year.
Supreme Court
Well if the junk gets to supreme court this new judge will strike the garbage down this judge obeys the constitution unconstitutional alj's wont work in his court lol
The SEC Is A Joke 3 out of five comissioners quit and the 2 remaining comissioners don't agree on nothing 1 republican and 1 demorcrat, And all the alj's were appointed illegally in vioalation of the US Constitution lol id say their orders carry no weight not even worth the paper its printed on lol
Also Seven Trump Just put a freeze the other day on government hiring the government is in limbo LOL
Smart i added more myself tuesday good to see biel moving up on the breakout board even the negative post help move us up lol
The US Supreme Court will rule in favor of the US Constitution if the clowns even dare to go there no one can violate or circumvent the appointment clause for ALj's The US Constitution wait and see
It don't matter what he says or denies he is not even a legal ALJ LOL the US Appeals court struck him down did you read it? stick around after the appeal is filed it only takes three years for the US Appeals court to rule LOL strike this garbage wait till 2020
It don't matter they are unconstitutional and they are unprofessional why so many errors? the initial decision will be appealed when it becomes final these are not even legal judges according to the constitution
Seems like corruption to me
From Bloomberg News This Gives Even More Info Regarding SEC Alj's Unlawful Appointment's and more info on how the Court has found that the Agency appoints Unconstitutionally the court has a strong case the court has a very strong defense against every SEC Argument.
Jan 10, 2017 / by N. Peter Rasmussen
THE DEFENSE BAR’S NEW TOY: APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE CHALLENGE TO SEC ALJS PREVAILS
SEC HQ4The recent decision by the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bandimere v. SEC called the constitutionality of the SEC’s system of in-house tribunals into question. The appellate panel determined that SEC administrative law judges carry out “important functions” and exercise “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,” and are therefore “inferior officers” of the United States. Under the Appointments Clause, these officers must be appointed by the president, a federal court or a department head.
Clearly, the selection process for SEC ALJs does not meet this constitutional requirement. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), agencies hire ALJs through a merit-selection process administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and ALJs fall under civil service requirements and protections. OPM administers an examination and presents the top three candidates to the SEC for review. The SEC's Chief ALJ then hires from the top three candidates subject to the approval and processing by the SEC's Office of Human Resources.
The SEC convincingly argued that their administrative judges lack the authority to bind the agency, and possess only initial adjudicatory authority. The SEC described how no ALJ decision can become final without Commission action, and asserted that the inability of ALJs to enter final binding judgments meant that they could not be considered “inferior officers.” The Tenth Circuit panel emphatically rejected the SEC claim.
The decision sets up a split between the circuits. In August 2016, the District of Columbia Circuit stressed the importance of the inability of ALJs to enter final decisions in Raymond J. Lucia Cos. v. SEC. According to the court:
the Commission's ALJs neither have been delegated sovereign authority to act independently of the Commission nor, by other means established by Congress, do they have the power to bind third parties, or the government itself, for the public benefit. The Commission's right of discretionary review and adoption of its regulatory scheme for delegation ensure that the politically accountable Commissioners have determined that an ALJ's initial decision is to be the final action of the Commission (internal citations omitted).
According to the Tenth Circuit, both the D.C. Circuit and the SEC erred in relying on the lack of ALJ authority to enter final decisions. The court recognized that the authority to enter final and binding decisions is relevant in determining whether a public servant is an inferior officer, but concluded that the relevance of this factor “does not mean every inferior officer must possess final decision-making power.” It is sufficient for the administrative personnel to exercise significant discretion in performing “important functions.” The court listed several ways in which ALJs may discretionarily influence the course of administrative enforcement proceedings. The most significant is the authority to make findings of fact and impose sanctions in initial decisions. In the appellate panel’s view, ALJs may also influence these cases by:
eliciting testimony;
regulating document production and depositions;
ruling on the admissibility of evidence;
receiving evidence;
ruling on dispositive and procedural motions;
issuing subpoenas;
presiding over trial-like hearings; making credibility determinations; and
holding and requiring attendance at settlement conferences.
The Tenth Circuit also rejected the SEC’s assertion that the court should defer to the will of Congress as expressed in the APA selection process. According to the SEC, the “limited authority vested in ALJs reflects Congress’s choices in determining the relative role of such adjudicative personnel as opposed to politically accountable agency officials. In establishing merit selection and civil service protections, Congress sought to ensure that hearing examiners would not “be paid, promoted, or discharged at the whim or caprice of the agency or for political reasons.” The SEC concluded that Congress did not elevate the status of ALJs within their agencies to that of officers of the United States by providing them with a measure of independence.
The Tenth Circuit stated that the SEC overplayed their hand in its congressional deference argument. Nowhere in the legislative record was there a discussion of the Appointments Clause or a specific congressional determination that ALJs should be classified as employees. "However 'carefully devised' the ALJ system may be generally and the SEC ALJ program particularly, that should not excuse failure to comply with the Appointments Clause," stated the court.
Although not cited by the Tenth Circuit majority, a 2007 Justice Department memorandum appears to support the court’s conclusion on congressional deference. A Memorandum Opinion for the General Counsels of the Executive Branch stated that “it is not within Congress’s power to exempt federal instrumentalities from the Constitution’s structural requirements, such as the Appointments Clause ... the 'methods of appointment' the Appointments Clause specifies 'are exclusive.'”
The court’s decision comes in the context of increasing criticism of the SEC’s administrative enforcement regime. Critics see the administrative proceedings as an unfair “home court” advantage for the Commission. The existence of a friendly home court can be hard to dispute when the Enforcement Division regularly racks up a higher winning percentage in its ALJ cases than did Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls in 1996. The agency has increased its usage of administrative actions since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, which expanded the authority of the SEC to obtain civil penalties against parties other than regulated securities industry entities.
On the surface, there is a relatively easy fix to the problem. The SEC can still comply with both the APA merit selection process and the Appointments Clause by having the Commissioners, rather than the Chief ALJ, make the hiring decisions. It would not impose a burden on the SEC’s time, given that the agency only employs five ALJs (unlike the Social Security Administration, with more than a thousand). Lurking beneath that surface, though, is the impact of a decision by the SEC to re-appoint its ALJs. The defense bar would likely see this as a tacit admission that the ALJ regime was constitutionally flawed. While it could be a boon to defense lawyers, and would provide a wealth of story subjects for securities bloggers, the possibility of challenges to hundreds of ALJ verdicts would be a logistical nightmare for the SEC.
The Tenth Circuit carefully tiptoed around the questions of retroactive impact and the constitutional infirmities of ALJs in other agencies. As the court stated:
We recognize that our holding potentially implicates other questions. But no other issues have been presented to us here, and we therefore cannot address them. Nothing in this opinion should be read to answer any but the precise question before this court: whether SEC ALJs are employees or inferior officers. Questions about officer removal, officer status of other agencies' ALJs, civil service protection, rulemaking, and retroactivity … are not issues on appeal and have not been briefed by the parties. Having answered the question before us, and thus resolved Mr. Bandimere's petition, we must leave for another day any other putative consequences of that conclusion.
N. PETER RASMUSSEN
N. Peter Rasmussen is a senior legal editor with Bloomberg BNA, concentrating on corporate transactions and federal securities law. He is a graduate of DePauw University, the Graduate College of Liberal Arts of the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Illinois College of Law.
DC Court LOL your joking right? that's were all this shady stuff came from and that's why this guy fought it. Lets just wait and see if it even goes to the supreme court when or if it gets there it will be struck lol
Only one problem this is just a piece of paper you have to be an legally appointed AlJ in order for this to be legal lol right now looks like he will be relieved of his duties of being appointed an illegal ALJ LOL
Below i have listed info on the correct way of appointing ALJ's any other way besides what is listed below is illegal.
"Because the SEC ALJ was not constitutionally appointed, he held his office in violation of the Appointments Clause," the majority said.
Five SEC ALJs Just Lost Their Jobs
The court said the Appointments Clause. U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, mandates that inferior officers -- who report to higher officers -- must be appointed by the President, a court, or a department head. In this case, the SEC argued that its five ALJs were employees rather than inferior officers.
The appeals court disagreed, citing criteria defining a tax court judge as an inferior officer in Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 501 U.S. 868 (1991). The Tenth Circuit majority, Judges Mary Beck Briscoe and Scott M. Matheson, Jr., said the SEC ALJs fit the definition, and so their appointments were not constitutional.
- See more at: http://blogs.findlaw.com/tenth_circuit/2017/01/appeals-court-strikes-alj-appointments.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FindLawLPNews+(FindLaw+News+for+Legal+Professionals#sthash.TjvwO8ld.dpuf
As i said when it gets there if it even goes there it will be struck down the US Supreme Court will not go Against the US Constitution The way those SEC ALJ's was appointed was in violation of the US Constitution Appointment Clause and the 10th District Court Of Appeals in Colorado proved that enough said.
Correct Srincocal good to see that you know the law of the land the Supreme court is the highest court the decision from there is final. Those clowns should avoid further embarrassment and step down by taking this to the supreme court they will be struck down the supreme court will not rule against the US Constitution.
It sure will goto supreme court it may not even make it there the constitution has been violated. I feel all his decision are null and void he broke appointment clause of the constitution and he claims to be a judge smdh what a joke
This is 2017 who cares about 2015 ? LOL
I Agree Srinsocal And According to the information that i have posted below it validates your info.
“The decision of any SEC (administrative law judge) is subject to being vacated,” said Martin Berliner, a securities attorney in Denver. “The outcome is welcome and, in my opinion, long overdue.”
The appeals court said in a 37-page opinion that Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot, who decided Bandimere’s case, and the SEC commissioners concurred, should be appointed to the job like many other ALJs in other federal agencies. Instead, Elliot and his four judicial colleagues were hired through a civil service process by the federal personnel office that violates the Appointments Clause to the U.S. Constitution.
“The decision of any SEC (administrative law judge) is subject to being vacated,” said Martin Berliner, a securities attorney in Denver. “The outcome is welcome and, in my opinion, long overdue.”
The appeals court said in a 37-page opinion that Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot, who decided Bandimere’s case, and the SEC commissioners concurred, should be appointed to the job like many other ALJs in other federal agencies. Instead, Elliot and his four judicial colleagues were hired through a civil service process by the federal personnel office that violates the Appointments Clause to the U.S. Constitution.
Appeals court ruling could nullify hundreds of decisions by SEC judges in Colorado and 5 other states
The ruling dissolves a $1.2 million fine levied against David Bandimere
By David Migoya | dmigoya@denverpost.com
PUBLISHED: December 28, 2016 at 12:14 pm | UPDATED: December 28, 2016 at 2:11 pm
Sign up for newsletters and alerts
Submit your news tips or photos
Most Popular
A federal appeals court ruling could nullify hundreds of decisions made by administrative law judges in securities cases from Colorado and five other states.
The five judges who preside over administrative hearings for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on cases involving tens of millions dollars in fines improperly hold their positions, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a decision released Tuesday.
The 2-1 ruling by the Denver-based appeals court not only dissolves the $1.2 million fine an administrative law judge levied in 2013 against David Bandimere, one of the founders of the eponymous racetrack in Morrison, but potentially throws other decisions the judges have made into question.
“The decision of any SEC (administrative law judge) is subject to being vacated,” said Martin Berliner, a securities attorney in Denver. “The outcome is welcome and, in my opinion, long overdue.”
The appeals court said in a 37-page opinion that Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot, who decided Bandimere’s case, and the SEC commissioners concurred, should be appointed to the job like many other ALJs in other federal agencies. Instead, Elliot and his four judicial colleagues were hired through a civil service process by the federal personnel office that violates the Appointments Clause to the U.S. Constitution.
“This is the first time in 36 years the 10th Circuit has vacated an administrative decision by the SEC, and that was the only time that happened,” said David Zisser, Bandimere’s attorney who successfully argued the case. “There was a lot we thought was wrong with SEC’s decision.”
Bandimere was sanctioned and fined for allegedly assisting two now-convicted fraudsters — Richard Dalton of Golden and Larry Michael Parrish of Maryland — extend a $20 million Ponzi scheme to about 200 people over 13 states. Bandimere said he was pulled in by the men’s charm and believability.
At issue is whether the ALJs are federal employees rather than officers requiring appointment by the president, a court of law or the head of a federal agency, in this case the SEC commissioners. The appeals court relied heavily on a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said administrative judges used by the U.S. Department of Revenue in tax cases were “inferior officers” requiring appointment.
An inferior officer is one who sits below the higher-ranking officials such as Supreme Court justices and other federal judges appointed by the president. ALJs fall into that definition because of their far-reaching authorities to decide cases, even if those decisions are not binding, such as at the SEC.
However, the appeals court found that 90 percent of the ALJ decisions were simply adopted by the SEC.
“An SEC ALJ’s authority to issue an initial decision is significant because, even if reviewed (by the SEC), the ALJ plays a significant role as detailed above in conducting proceedings and developing the record leading to the decision, and the decision publicly states whether respondents have violated securities laws and imposes penalties for violations,” Appellate Court Judge Scott Matheson Jr. wrote in the majority opinion.
The decision runs contrary to one made in August 2016 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in which the judges ruled 3-0 that the SEC judges were employees who did not need to be appointed, in part agreeing with the SEC’s argument that ALJ decisions are not final.
Critics have long argued that the SEC conveniently pushes civil cases into its own administrative courts rather than federal circuit courts in part to avoid judicial criticisms of how they prosecute cases, but also to ensure favorable outcomes. In 2015, for example, the SEC brought more than 90 percent of its cases against public companies before its ALJs rather than federal courts.
“I have for many years complained that the entire ALJ mechanism deprives the (defendant) of due process,” Berliner said.
Part of the criticism has been about the speed with which ALJ cases move, often at the expense of fairness to the defendants, who are called respondents because the cases are not in federal court.
In a 16-page dissent, Appeals Court Senior Judge Monroe McKay lamented that the decision could let otherwise guilty respondents free.
“I began this dissent by expressing my fears of the probable consequences of today’s decision,” McKay wrote. “It does more than allow malefactors who have abused the financial system to escape responsibility. … Its holding is quite sweeping.”
McKay pointed out that there are 1,537 ALJs who work for the Social Security Administration and are deemed civil service employees hired much like the SEC’s ALJs.
“Today’s decision risks throwing much into confusion,” McKay wrote.
The government has 45 days in which to ask for a review by all 19 judges of the 10th Circuit, known as an en banc review. A similar appeal is underway in the D.C. Circuit case.
The Bandimere ruling applies only to SEC cases involving respondents who live in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. Zisser said it’s probable the matter will have to end up with the Supreme Court, which often reviews matters when the circuits are split.
“If someone from Colorado or Utah, for example, is in an SEC administrative proceeding, unless the ALJ gets appointed properly, that person knows that unless something happens to change this decision, he should have a get out of jail free card down the road,” Zisser said.
Bandimere has not paid the fine the SEC assessed, he said.
An SEC spokeswoman said the agency was reviewing the decision and offered no additional comment.
The US Government don't move quickly check the dates on this stuff lol
And that takes time especially with a new administration coming in
"But in Tuesday's ruling, U.S. Circuit Judge Scott Matheson said Elliot and the SEC's other four in-house judges held their offices in violation of the U.S. Constitution's appointments clause
October 2017 LOL You think the US Supreme court will go Against the US Constitution? LMAO!!!!
This post deserves a sticky yankee55 go ahead and stick it up there
LOL Supreme court that will take years have you seen the date on this company initial decision it was 2013 here it is going on 2017 supreme court adds more time lets say 2020 lol and if biel go the same route i say 2023 is when the supreme court issues the final decision can you wait 6 more years LMAO!!
Who cares what he says this case will be appealed out of his Kangaroo Court He was appointed judge unconstitutional according to the US Constitution who's side are you on the kangaroo court?
SEC-RULES-IN-BIOELECTRONICS-FAVOR-NO-PENALTY GO BIEL
SEC-RULES-IN-BIOELECTRONICS-FAVOR-NO-PENALTY GO BIEL
Yes they have won he just settled a huge one and there is more in the fire LOL