Rove Expedience & A Simple Activation Mechanism: A bloated bafoon in a suit who treated his wealth as carefully as the Beverly Hill Billies

• - Mauricio - - By taking Watt's place at the table October 25, 2007 at 00:27:57 AM
  
  How interesting? Well Watts, it goes to show you can't win them all. Are you familiar with the Art of War? You should not leave your weakest point of penetration unguarded and stupidly exposed to the world. Well, you knew that. Arrogance was the snake under your pillow. And that snake took the form of bloated bafoon in a suit who treated his wealth as carefully as the Beverly Hill Billies. How funny! This will now lead to all the political stooges Watts put in place to fall like dominoes. There will be a vaccum set up and maybe a couple of the right people might step in.
  
  Juan G. is not one of them. Let's not get our hopes up. The wannabe Kennedy impersonation worked in the 60's, maybe the 70s, but not now. We need leaders, not actors.
  
  Lesson to be learned: Learn who the real power is in your area and don't piss them off.
  
  Goodbye Watts. Your undeserved millions might not keep you safe through this scandal.
  
  I'm taking your place at the table now.
  You will hear about me in a couple or few more years. "Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name."
• • Non mihi, non tibi, sed nobis - By Jaime Kenedeno October 25, 2007 at 01:22:59 AM
    
    Let's take a look at this picture.
    
    Unsolicited
    7.03 (b) A lawyer shall not pay, give, or offer to pay or give anything of value to a person not licensed to practice law for soliciting prospective clients for, or referring clients or prospective clients to, any lawyer or firm, except that a lawyer may pay reasonable fees for advertising and public relations services rendered in accordance with this Rule and may pay the usual charges of a lawyer referral service that meets the requirements of Occupational Code Title 5, Subtitle B, Chapter 952.
    
    So an unlicensed person can solicit prospective clients and deliver them to an attorney but the attorney cannot pay according to the potential value of the client (and his case). The attorney can pay the unlicensed person reasonable fees for advertising and public relations services rendered . In the same exact client and case, the receiving attorney can pay, give, or offer to pay or give anything of value to a licensed attorney .
    
    Basically it is a housekeeping issue for the attorney profession. It prevents upward financial mobility unless one has a license.
    
    Here is where the loathing sets in.
    
    A doctor receives his clients be referral, word of mouth and quality work performed. He does not pay for the referrals.
    
    A runner or legally untrained person refers clients to an attorney and for every case the lawyer takes on, the runner is paid "reasonable fees" (chump change) depending on the amount "advertising and public relations " work performed.
    
    Or if that same runner realizes he has something valuable, he can take it to a market where he will be compensated appropriately.
    
    Dramatists speak of the unconscionable "ANYONE WHO PRAYS ON THE INJURED OR DEAD UNSOLICITED IS A PIECE OF ####".
    
    I must disagree and let me tell you why. Last year on October 8,2006 my father had a heart attack. I performed CPR and kept him viable until the fire department arrived and took over. They hooked him up to an AED an Automatic Electronic Defibrillator and procedded to apply the shock needed to restart his heart. As my family watch in horror the AED malfunctioned. The rescue squad just looked at each other as they were thinking "not again"; then they quickly scooped and ran with my pops to the hospital. The machine malfunctioned and one of the men who was cleaning up made a comment he said, yeah we still have a few bugs to work out it (referring to the AED). Still to this day I would consider it a God send to be solicited. When something unfortunate happens to a loved one his or her family is looking for the reason and they want somebody to pay for their loss. They didnt choose to have their loved one snatched from their lives and certainly there is not any amount of money that will bring their loved one back. The family does not know how to preserve their legal rights. Who will protect them for free?
    
    NOBODY
    
    I also can see the argument one makes regarding a money seeking runner playing on the emotions of the grieving family.
    
    In the end did the family receive Justice is the question?
    
    A family is prayed on if they are not justly compensated and provided for. If the family receives compensation then the runner receives compensation per quantum meruit.
    
    If there are attorneys are burning grieving families of injured or dead victims; give us some specifics where this has happened.
    
    From my experience most of these cases where runners have solicited the family, the family and the runner develop a client / agent fiduciary relationship. The runner advocates for the family as he advocates for himself. He works with a law firm and barters parameters for himself as well as the family and power of attorney is transferred to the Licensed attorney.
    
    Quantum Meruit - "For what it's worth"
    
    As far as unconscionable, take a look at the funeral homes and their taking advantage of the grieving family. Maxwell P Dunn is the only Funeral Home in town who did not try to take advantage of a grieving family.
    
    I am still pondering this dilemma. With Celis, I think we have a man who has advocated for a lot of families and these families (at least most of them) are content / satisfied with the end result. This little tidbit about him not being licensed has been known for quite a while and he was an accepted asset in the Legal Community. Thomas J Henry has known of this same fact for quite a while as well so why now?
    
    Mauricio is being fried because Mikal is running for Senator. Why not run that BND corruption up the chain of command. Now, there is a legitimate decay in our society. @! million is only the tip of the iceberg, what about the illegal human trafficking, the asians, the dream team and the Cohens?
    
    And
    
    barratry
    n. creating legal business by stirring up disputes and quarrels, generally for the benefit of the lawyer who sees fees in the matter. Barratry is illegal in all states and subject to criminal punishment and/or discipline by the state bar, but there must be a showing that the resulting lawsuit was totally groundless. There is a lot of border-line barratry in which attorneys, in the name of being tough or protecting the client, fail to seek avenues for settlement of disputes or will not tell the client he/she has no legitimate claim.
    
    Sounds like TJ Henry to me?
    
    And for the Record I supported Mikal Watts in his Senatorial run. He was the only candidate that could upset Junior John Cornyn. Noriega will be debunked, count on it.
    
    We at Los Kenedenos believe in
    
    The Engagement of the Average Citizen in the Formulation of Public Policy
    
    When the people are engaged the result might not be the outcome I want or the outcome you want but it is what the people want.
    
    Non mihi, non tibi, sed nobis
    
  • You should not leave your weakest point of penetration unguarded and stupidly exposed to the world - By Jaime Kenedeno October 25, 2007 at 01:01:59 AM
    
    Why not come out with it, since you want so bad to tell us your the details of your small victory.
    
    Power we giveth and power we can taketh away. Ask Elizondo, Juan G and yes ask even Mikal Watts.
    
    Power is a united people.
    
    Dont piss us off.
    
    And just remember it aint over just yet.
    
    Where is Lencho?
    
    I understand he is under investigation as well as his Laredo Clan he brings to infect our community.
    
    
    Dos Logistics, Omega, LR Global, OSI, Mando & Bobo for the siphon. Now you try to turn on the ones who brought you.
    
    Go for it big boy, we will wait for you in the tall grass.
    
    
    That includes the blabber mouth nephew with no audience.
    
    And Fil Vela that goes for your agenda as well.
    
    Just remember that last step is a doozie.
    
    TTFN
    • Ad Litems for "unknown or unborn........ - By D1 October 25, 2007 at 01:25:59 AM
      
      heirs"? Where is all that MOOLA?
      
      IN an IOLTA? Swiss bank?
      
      American bank?
      
      Why appoint an Ad litem for people that do not exist?
      
      They either do exist, or it BETTER be sitting in a bank account.
      
      But, but is it not the JOB of the Ad litem Appointed by the Judge to require the ad litem to represent an unknown heir and there are many that have not been informed that they were represented but have not been informed by the ad litem.
      
      Smells like fraudulent representation.
      
      And these are licensed attorneys.
      
      If there were no funds involved there would not be an Ad Litem to oversee that their (unknown/unborn)"best interest" is secured.
      
      MONEYMONEYMONEYMONEYMONEYMONEYMONEYMONEY
    • Working for the man and dont even know it - By Sgt. Julio Cesar Pacheco October 25, 2007 at 01:14:19 AM
      
      The netroots progressive voters are unaware of their buffered affiliation with the Republican GOP calling the shots. Follow the chain of command from the lefty affiliations connected to Solly Jr (various companies and board members in South Texas to the relationship with fort bend county progressives and Houston progressives). From Solly Jr to his Father Congressman Solomon Ortiz Sr and his henchman Lencho Rendon who work directly the Junior Senator. This is a forged relationship due to the strained relationship between Kay Bailey and Solomon Sr.
      
      Solomon Sr is pro life and votes along republican lines. The progressives are controlled by the republicans and will deny it nonetheless.
    • • Draco - By Big Boy October 25, 2007 at 01:09:31 AM
      
      
      #1 lesson to remember is that power is always on loan from the people. It's good to know that some are still vigilant for the people. #2 thing is that I really do admire El Defenzor's and J.K.'s work. #3 thing to know is always be careful as to what girls you spill your secrets to because they too can be bought.
      • Re(1): Draco - By D1 October 25, 2007 at 01:38:09 AM
        
        Yes, but do they have credibility?
        • Re(2): Draco - By Big Boy October 25, 2007 at 01:41:55 AM
          That's a tough one. In ancient Greece, the true role of the wise was preparing the young to be the next philosopher kings. The truly noble would stand back and bolster young leaders for the greater good.
          
          Look to a young man in Kingsville to lead South Texas someday. He is honest to a fault, but gets less naive with age.
          • Re(3): Draconian..... - By D1 October 25, 2007 at 01:57:02 AM
            
            don't we all?
            
            If I only knew then........What I know now.
            
            K~Town? r u sure? Racism is required if you are a gringo.
            
            Many spirits are there,besides the B/S DA now in lugar.
          • Re(3): Draco - By Jaime Kenedeno October 25, 2007 at 01:56:53 AM
            
            R B
            
            You were always one to reference Sun Tzu
            
            How's law school
            • Re(4): Draco - By Big Boy October 25, 2007 at 02:00:34 AM
              
              Nope. Odiame, Los Tres Reyes. Clue.
      • Re(1): Draco-L.R. S.P and L.. - By Big Boy October 25, 2007 at 01:16:04 AM
        will have their day as well. Who will step up?
        
        Do you guys see any young leaders coming up?
        
        And please we don't need anymore juniors in our state legislature.
  • Re(1): - Mauricio - - By D1 October 25, 2007 at 00:34:06 AM
    
    Be Careful they might be serving crow at the table.
    
    You sure don't want to eat that?
    
    It tastes yuk!
    • Re(2): - Mauricio - - By It's Watt's 4 dinner October 25, 2007 at 00:46:24 AM
      
      Point well taken. We could all be wrong. Everyone is out to serve the greater good- not their own agenda. In that way, we may all have to eat crow. Well , at least we won't have to see Watts's face or hear his voice on T.V. during election time. That is good enough for me at this point. Besides, there are more honorable ways to help the community than to stand in those shoes. Maybe Homero will post Celis's campaign donations and where they went to. That would be interesting.
      • WATT are you inferring... - By Jaime Kenedeno October 25, 2007 at 03:13:54 AM
        
        "That is good enough for me at this point"
        
        I say the bar has been lowered by Watts dropping out.
        
        The VA hospital will it see fruition
        
        Immigration issues
        
        Cornyn will be re elected unless we find another horse to run. Not just any horse but one who is responsive to the people.
        
        Noriega dont have a chance and he is dirty as well.
        
        I am not ready to concede just yet.
        
        What about Barbara Ann?
        • Re(1): WATT are you inferring... - By D1 October 25, 2007 at 05:05:59 AM
          
          Yeah, she gave k bay a close run for it.
      • This little ruse about Mauricio not being licensed is stale at best and way late - By Jaime Kenedeno October 25, 2007 at 01:28:07 AM
        
        
        This is old news. It is common knowledge Maurico Celis has never held a JD or State BAR License.
        
        I spoke to Mauricio and his representatives on Friday.
        
        I was told, "Mauricio is the Manager of CGT Group" and " he is not licensed to practice law in the State of Texas".
        
        Thomas J Henry did not return calls.
        
        Why now?
        
        Why did Vance move to California?
        
        When we revealed this information, nobody gave a ####.
        
        And now?
        
        TJ Henry, his actions speak for themselves.
        
        Mauricio possesses a clientèle niche and is the manager of CGT Group. As far as referrals, it would be imprudent to turn down clients because a non attorney acting as an agent is the "referrer".
        
        If I bring a high dollar case to any attorney,I expect to be compensated accordingly. We dont call it a referral fee as I am not referring the case. I bet Les Cassidy, TJ Henry, Abel Cavada and every other attorney rewards people who bring them money making cases. That is the real world people. The laws were made to allow attorneys to retain an inside track and charge the high rates. If the BAR had it their way, there would be no internet access to the written law. It is called a housekeeping issue.
        
        Henry is mad because he did not get the referral. He didnt get the big case.
        
        The real question here is, who has Mauricio Celis represented in a courtroom?
        
        Which courtroom and who was the Judge?
        
        Now, there is something new to write about.
        
        You know at one time, mainstream CC did not know Mikal's mother was the Judge but think WATT it would sound like to make the announcement today? This little ruse about Mauricio not being licensed is stale at best and way late. The bearer of this news is either very uninformed or has acquiesced and now finds it personally advantageous to bring it up now. But go for it guys, y'all got yourselves a humdinger of a scoop. Blast away, after all; as far as credibility, you guys dont got anything to lose.
        JK
        • Re(1): This little ruse about Mauricio not being licensed is stale at best and way late - By Babaloo October 25, 2007 at 01:32:29 AM
          Yeah, but it gets nastier. Sometimes egos flare. Tons of money can make you make mistakes when it goes to your head. He probably would still be able to bag chicks telling them he is an attorney if Watt they did was not try to act like Mikal Corleone during a politcal baptisim.
          • Re(2): This little ruse about Mauricio not being licensed is stale at best and way late - By Jaime Kenedeno October 25, 2007 at 01:40:09 AM
            
            So she was a roving mole
      • Here is an entree, we have plenty of side dishes. - By Jaime Kenedeno October 25, 2007 at 01:08:03 AM
        
        
        PUBLIC DEMANDS JUSTICE
        
        http://elrocinante.blogspot.com/2007/10/public-demands-justice.html
        
        In the latest South Texas Independent Journalists Association (STIJA) survey, the public is demanding that Congressman Solomon Ortiz, his former aide Lencho "El Pescado" Rendon and State Senator "Sucio" Eddie Lucio should spend time in prison for their roles in the $21 million Port of Brownsville heist.
      • Re(3): - Mauricio - - By D1 October 25, 2007 at 01:05:49 AM
        
        Totally interesting, but then what would the Texas Ethics Commission do?
        
        Thank God for the net, talk about ethics.
        
        Now the greater good for whom?
        I for one have not seen Watts mug on TV , and only times I have heard his voice was on Keys radio the day after the 2006 November election and his web site
        sometime @ June 007.

Moloch - By Guantanamera!!! October 24, 2007 at 04:57:44 PM
Sugar cane, gambling/resorts, and muy bueno tabacco are in the future for U.S.Aers to enjoy.

Their own controlling labor union will probably sell out. After that, you know the rest.

My counterpart predicted this three years ago. He quoted right here on this forum that "it will happen before the next U.S. presidential election."

"Raul gusta dinero." The Bonillas might regret kissing those commies asses because the new regime will take note of that.

The port of CC will need to adjust to that. They will have to get somoeone different for the greater economical benefit to CC.

Brownsville, that's a different story. How will Solomon react?

• Pos I hear Stone Phillips wants an interview................. - By D1 October 25, 2007 at 00:55:43 AM
  
  with the "Dream team".
  
  It is going to be recorded at one of the sixteen offices Lencho "is leasing".
  
  I think Solomon needs to call Mary Cano for his reaction policy.
  
  She will advise him "Americano" style.
  
  Who are the commies?
  
  John Kelly? Does he not chair the party to elect Dog catcher as amended ....of the election code?
  
  • Babaloo sees all - By Big Boy October 25, 2007 at 01:22:09 AM
    
    S.P.- chineese women. hot tubs in D.C.?
    
    Did S.P. jr even graduate from hulabaloo caneck caneck?
    • Now there is a something about practicing law and the District of Columbia... - By Jaime Kenedeno October 25, 2007 at 01:52:40 AM
      
      one needs not to be licensed.
      
      Also, A sheriff can deputize at his discretion regardless of law enforcement licensing.
      
      And there are many pressure points who will halt this procession as it deteriorates.
      • Re(1): Now there is a something about practicing law and the District of Columbia... - By Big Boy October 25, 2007 at 01:57:59 AM
        
        Hang on to your hat...
        
        Are you wearing one?
        
        He is not worth helping. The sharks are circling and the esoteric laws will be brought out. A "feast of friends."
        • Re(2): Now there is a something about practicing law and the District of Columbia... - By D1 October 25, 2007 at 02:36:33 AM
          
          I hear Filemon Vela has been retained by Celis?
          
          I believe Vela is the expert on "Watt is or is not, "white collar crime".
          
          Too bad he is selling out his people for a promise that will never be honored much less acknowledged.
          
          Poor guy, he actually believes in the "mutual faith", but truth is hidden, portrayed as false, irritation, annoying, deceitful.
          
          I am certain, that Bruce will be having fish tonight.
          
          After all he is a shark........
        • I agree but I disagree.... - By Jaime Kenedeno October 25, 2007 at 02:21:15 AM
          with the concept of non attorneys who bring valuable cases and receive little while the attorney profits immensely.
          
          Mauricio, he likes to spend money but he dont like to pay his debts. I could help him but why? His money is worthless and will be swept up in the housekeeping. His greed sealed his fate.
          
          There must be an esoteric law for such situations.
• Guantanamera!!!! - By Che's Algerian lover (82 yrs old) October 24, 2007 at 05:00:34 PM
  
  What happened to loyalty?
  • Re(1): Guantanamera!!!! - By Che's lebanese gay lover (56 yrs old) October 24, 2007 at 05:02:47 PM
    
    you tell me.

---

Google Yourself Corpus Christi: setexasrec: If you disagree, I got 4 brand spankin new ones to put on your family vehicle; oh yeah & one spare just in

Google Yourself Corpus Christi: setexasrec: If you disagree, I got 4 brand spankin new ones to put on your family vehicle; oh yeah & one spare just in case you survive the blow out.


So WATT does this mean for Texas?

Who is the author?

After reading this article i got to believe the author is not familiar with the adversarial process or the article is pure prevarication. Who wants to buy a vehicle without laminated windows. I don't, but in Mikal's argument it was just mental re-enforcement for the jury and he is representing his client with zeal. .In layman terms Laminated glass, which is two layers of plate glass with plastic laminate in between, is used on automotive windshields. It has been used for decades to keep objects from easily getting through the windshield and entering the vehicle. The negative is it prevent easy exit should one need to break the glass in order to escape in a submerged situation or something of that nature.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

KENEDENO: "I say hot damn we got ourselves a fighter, and advocate. Now there's an attribute money cant buy, a game mentality moving unencumbered through legal birds nests and over hurdles to accomplish results.

"Like a Pitbull in the Middle of a Bunch of Poodles upon Capitol Hill.

The bottom line is the tire is faulty but it is cheaper to pay the injured and dead than it is to replace all of the tires on all of the brand new vehicles. Well, at least that was the word according bean counters (Actuarial Analysts). I bet they dont work there anymore, eh? When an automaker knows there is a faulty product that will "cause a death or two" and they acquiesce, or continue to produce the vehicle with the defective product and they dont recall the defective product for WATT ever reason they need to pay.

Watt if you or your family member purchased a brand new Explorer or Expedition or Excursion. You plan a vacation and plot out your trip planning to stop for the young ones at the rest areas and to stretch the legs and maybe even swap drivers. Everybody has their pillow and their reading material or headphones and music, for the kids you had the video screen and dvd systenm installed and you even went the extra mile and installed a Playstation III for the kids and the kids at heart.

So we are cruising and everyone is commenting on the comfort, the neat features, the enhanced entertainment, and the overall "On The Road" experience the new vehicle provides.

The last thing on their mind is breaking down, needing to check the fluids every few miles, or rolling down the window because the air conditioning dont work. The passengers and the driver feel secure and safe; maybe they dont even buckle up.

The next thing we know the vehicle has become impaired and unstable. The resulting tumbling, sliding, shattering of glass, screaming, and bending of metal that happens in less than a minute (but feels like a lifetime) comes to a rest and there is a eerie silence for a moment. Then the lucky ones can moan in their pain and the silent ones Vaya Con DIOS. How long before the Halo FLight? How long before rescue?

And you come to find out you have lost 1 or 2 or 5 of your loved ones because of something that makes no sense at all.

I am not talking about the Blowout people, I am talking about the decision made by the automaker that your loved ones were just another number, a casualty in the name of profits.

Would you want an advocate fighting for your interests like Mikal Watts fights the giant automakers?

If you disagree, I got 4 brand spankin new ones to put on your family vehicle; oh yeah and one spare just in case you survive the blow out.



@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Mikal Watts' arguments
http://www.setexasrecord.com/arguments/198814-mikal-watts-arguments

8/4/2007 10:58 AM

Three college girls are driving cross-country pulling a U-Haul trailer while simultaneously sharing a bag of marijuana. About 20 hours into the voyage, the driver brakes hard on a hill and loses control, sending the car off the side of the road.

They weren't wearing seat belts.

Was she high? Fatigued? Did she forget that breaking hard on a downslope while pulling a fully-stuffed U-Haul is a big no-no?

Whatever. Represented by Corpus Christi plaintiff's lawyer Mikal Watts in a suburban Houston courtroom, she demanded millions in damages over the accident-- from a tire maker.

No matter that Texas state investigators blamed the wreck on driver error and speeding, concluding the tires remained intact after the crash and worked just fine. Still, Watts argued they were wrong, that it wasn't her fault. He even demanded the judge declare a mistrial when the defense had the nerve to raise the girl's driving-while-pot smoking in court.

Is this the kind of guy-- one who would make such a specious, if self-serving, argument with a straight face-- that we want representing Texas in the U.S. Senate?

Mr. Watts, a 39-year-old mega-millionaire and judge's son who flies private, is traveling the state this summer, raising money and straining to re-define himself as a populist "everyman" in preparation for the Spring 2008 Democrat primary election.

He made his bones making arguments like the aforementioned, suing automakers and other businesses. But suffice to say, he won't be bragging on the campaign trail about the "marijuana mistrial" or his lawsuit blaming Ford for an accident in which the driver was speeding, had been drinking and wasn't wearing a seat belt.

The automaker was at fault because, according to Watts, it didn't laminate its side windows.

Watts will also remain mum about the embarrassing hiccup in that Ford case-- when it was revealed mid-trial that one of his associate lawyers was dating one of the jurors. She had even helped him "recruit" two of the plaintiffs for Watts, evidence showed.

Apparently under no ethical obligation to tell the court about this, Watts remained quiet and steadfast. It paid off-- he won a $31 million verdict.

"Mikal Watts has spent his entire career fighting on behalf of average, working Texans," promised his spokesman in a recent interview.

Don't believe it just because he says so.

"The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard." Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914).

skip to content

Search Cornell
LII / Legal Information Institute
home
search
sitemap
donate
Supreme Court collection
main page
about
search
subscribe previews -->


Goldberg v. Kelly (No. 62) ___
Syllabus
Opinion [ Brennan ]
Dissent [ Black ]
HTML version PDF version
HTML version PDF version
HTML version PDF version
BRENNAN, J., Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
397 U.S. 254
Goldberg v. Kelly
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
No. 62 Argued: October 13, 1969 --- Decided: March 23, 1970
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision is whether a State that terminates public assistance payments to a particular recipient without affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to termination denies the recipient procedural due process in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This action was brought in the District Court for the Southern District of New York by residents of New [p256] York City receiving financial aid under the federally assisted program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or under New York State's general Home Relief program. [n1] Their complaint alleged that the New York State and New York City officials administering these programs terminated, or were about to terminate, such aid without prior notice and hearing, thereby denying them due process of law. [n2] At the time [p257] the suits were filed, there was no requirement of prior notice or hearing of any kind before termination of financial aid. However, the State and city adopted procedures for notice and hearing after the suits were brought, and the plaintiffs, appellees here, then challenged the constitutional adequacy of those procedures.
The State Commissioner of Social Services amended the State Department of Social Services' Official Regulations to require that local social services officials proposing to discontinue or suspend a recipient's financial aid do so according to a procedure that conforms to either subdivision (a) or subdivision (b) of § 351.26 of the regulations as amended. [n3] The City of New York [p258] elected to promulgate a local procedure according to subdivision (b). That subdivision, so far as here pertinent, provides that the local procedure must include the giving of notice to the recipient of the reasons for a proposed discontinuance or suspension at least seven days prior to its effective date, with notice also that, upon request, the recipient may have the proposal reviewed by a local welfare official holding a position superior to that of the supervisor who approved the proposed discontinuance or suspension, and, further, that the recipient may submit, for purposes of the review, a written statement to demonstrate why his grant should not be discontinued or suspended. The decision by the reviewing official whether to discontinue or suspend aid must be made expeditiously, with written notice of the decision to the recipient. The section further expressly provides that
[a]ssistance shall not be discontinued or suspended prior to the date such notice of decision is sent to the recipient and his representative, if any, or prior to the proposed effective date of discontinuance or suspension, whichever occurs later.
Pursuant to subdivision (b), the New York City Department of Social Services promulgated Procedure No. 68-18. A caseworker who has doubts about the recipient's continued eligibility must first discuss them with the recipient. If the caseworker concludes that the recipient is no longer eligible, he recommends termination [p259] of aid to a unit supervisor. If the latter concurs, he sends the recipient a letter stating the reasons for proposing to terminate aid and notifying him that, within seven days, he may request that a higher official review the record, and may support the request with a written statement, prepared personally or with the aid of an attorney or other person. If the reviewing official affirms the determination of ineligibility, aid is stopped immediately and the recipient is informed by letter of the reasons for the action. Appellees' challenge to this procedure emphasizes the absence of any provisions for the personal appearance of the recipient before the reviewing official, for oral presentation of evidence, and for confrontation and cross-examination of adverse witnesses. [n4] However, the letter does inform the recipient that he may request a post-termination "fair hearing." [n5] This is a proceeding before an independent [p260] state hearing officer at which the recipient may appear personally, offer oral evidence, confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, and have a record made of the hearing. If the recipient prevails at the "fair hearing," he is paid all funds erroneously withheld. [n6] HEW Handbook, pt. IV, §§ 6200-6500; 18 NYCRR §§ 4.2-84.23. A recipient whose aid is not restored by a "fair hearing" decision may have judicial review. N.Y.Civil Practice Law and Rules, Art. 78 (1963). The recipient is so notified, 18 NYCRR § 84.16.
I
The constitutional issue to be decided, therefore, is the narrow one whether the Due Process Clause requires that the recipient he afforded an evidentiary hearing before the termination of benefits. [n7] The District Court held [p261] that only a pre-termination evidentiary hearing would satisfy the constitutional command, and rejected the argument of the state and city officials that the combination of the post-termination "fair hearing" with the informal pre-termination review disposed of all due process claims. The court said:
While post-termination review is relevant, there is one overpowering fact which controls here. By hypothesis, a welfare recipient is destitute, without funds or assets. . . . Suffice it to say that to cut off a welfare recipient in the face of . . . "brutal need" without a prior hearing of some sort is unconscionable unless overwhelming considerations justify it.
Kelly v. Wyman, 294 F.Supp. 893, 899, 900 (1968). The court rejected the argument that the need to protect the public's tax revenues supplied the requisite "overwhelming consideration."
Against the justified desire to protect public funds must be weighed the individual's overpowering need in this unique situation not to be wrongfully deprived of assistance. . . . While the problem of additional expense must be kept in mind, it does not justify denying a hearing meeting the ordinary standards of due process. Under all the circumstances, we hold that due process requires an adequate hearing before termination of welfare benefits, and the fact that there is a later constitutionally fair proceeding does not alter the result.
Id. at 901. Although state officials were party defendants in the action, only the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York appealed. We noted probable jurisdiction, 394 U.S. 971 (1969), to decide important issues that have been the subject of disagreement in principle between the three-judge court in the present case and that convened in Wheeler v. Montgomery, No. 14, post, p. 280, also decided today. We affirm.
Appellant does not contend that procedural due process is not applicable to the termination of welfare benefits. [p262] Such benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them. [n8] Their termination involves state action that adjudicates important rights. The constitutional challenge cannot be answered by an argument that public assistance benefits are "a ‘privilege,' and not a 'right.'" Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 627 n. 6 (1969). Relevant constitutional restraints apply as much to the withdrawal of public assistance benefits as to disqualification for unemployment compensation, Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); or to denial of a tax exemption, Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958); or to discharge from public employment, Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, 350 U.S. 551 (1956). [n9] The extent to which procedural due process [p263] must be afforded the recipient is influenced by the extent to which he may be "condemned to suffer grievous loss," Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 168 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), and depends upon whether the recipient's interest in avoiding that loss outweighs the governmental interest in summary adjudication. Accordingly, as we said in Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 (1961),
consideration of what procedures due process may require under any given set of circumstances must begin with a determination of the precise nature of the government function involved, as well as of the private interest that has been affected by governmental action.
See also Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 440, 442 (1960).
It is true, of course, that some governmental benefits may be administratively terminated without affording the recipient a pre-termination evidentiary hearing. [n10] [p264] But we agree with the District Court that, when welfare is discontinued, only a pre-termination evidentiary hearing provides the recipient with procedural due process. Cf. Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337 (1969). For qualified recipients, welfare provides the means to obtain essential food, clothing, housing, and medical care. [n11] Cf. Nash v. Florida Industrial Commission, 389 U.S. 235, 239 (1967). Thus, the crucial factor in this context -- a factor not present in the case of the blacklisted government contractor, the discharged government employee, the taxpayer denied a tax exemption, or virtually anyone else whose governmental entitlements are ended -- is that termination of aid pending resolution of a controversy over eligibility may deprive an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits. Since he lacks independent resources, his situation becomes immediately desperate. His need to concentrate upon finding the means for daily subsistence, in turn, adversely affects his ability to seek redress from the welfare bureaucracy. [n12]
Moreover, important governmental interests are promoted by affording recipients a pre-termination evidentiary hearing. From its founding, the Nation's basic [p265] commitment has been to foster the dignity and wellbeing of all persons within its borders. We have come to recognize that forces not within the control of the poor contribute to their poverty. [n13] This perception, against the background of our traditions, has significantly influenced the development of the contemporary public assistance system. Welfare, by meeting the basic demands of subsistence, can help bring within the reach of the poor the same opportunities that are available to others to participate meaningfully in the life of the community. At the same time, welfare guards against the societal malaise that may flow from a widespread sense of unjustified frustration and insecurity. Public assistance, then, is not mere charity, but a means to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." The same governmental interests that counsel the provision of welfare, counsel as well its uninterrupted provision to those eligible to receive it; pre-termination evidentiary hearings are indispensable to that end.
Appellant does not challenge the force of these considerations but argues that they are outweighed by countervailing governmental interests in conserving fiscal and administrative resources. These interests, the argument goes, justify the delay of any evidentiary hearing until after discontinuance of the grants. Summary adjudication protects the public fisc by stopping payments promptly upon discovery of reason to believe that a recipient is no longer eligible. Since most terminations are accepted without challenge, summary adjudication also conserves both the fisc and administrative time and energy by reducing the number of evidentiary hearings actually held. [p266]
We agree with the District Court, however, that these governmental interests are not overriding in the welfare context. The requirement of a prior hearing doubtless involves some greater expense, and the benefits paid to ineligible recipients pending decision at the hearing probably cannot he recouped, since these recipients are likely to be judgment-proof. But the State is not without weapons to minimize these increased costs. Much of the drain on fiscal and administrative resources can be reduced by developing procedures for prompt pre-termination hearings and by skillful use of personnel and facilities. Indeed, the very provision for a post-termination evidentiary hearing in New York's Home Relief program is itself cogent evidence that the State recognizes the primacy of the public interest in correct eligibility determinations, and therefore in the provision of procedural safeguards. Thus, the interest of the eligible recipient in uninterrupted receipt of public assistance, coupled with the State's interest that his payments not be erroneously terminated, clearly outweighs the State's competing concern to prevent any increase in its fiscal and administrative burdens. As the District Court correctly concluded,
[t]he stakes are simply too high for the welfare recipient, and the possibility for honest error or irritable misjudgment too great, to allow termination of aid without giving the recipient a chance, if he so desires, to be fully informed of the case against him so that he may contest its basis and produce evidence in rebuttal.
294 F.Supp. at 904-905.
II
We also agree with the District Court, however, that the pre-termination hearing need not take the form of a judicial or quasi-judicial trial. We bear in mind that the statutory "fair hearing" will provide the recipient [p267] with a full administrative review. [n14] Accordingly, the pre-termination hearing has one function only: to produce an initial determination of the validity of the welfare department's grounds for discontinuance of payments in order to protect a recipient against an erroneous termination of his benefits. Cf. Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 343 (1969) (HARLAN, J., concurring). Thus, a complete record and a comprehensive opinion, which would serve primarily to facilitate judicial review and to guide future decisions, need not be provided at the pre-termination stage. We recognize, too, that both welfare authorities and recipients have an interest in relatively speedy resolution of questions of eligibility, that they are used to dealing with one another informally, and that some welfare departments have very burdensome caseloads. These considerations justify the limitation of the pre-termination hearing to minimum procedural safeguards, adapted to the particular characteristics of welfare recipients, and to the limited nature of the controversies to be resolved. We wish to add that we, no less than the dissenters, recognize the importance of not imposing upon the States or the Federal Government in this developing field of law any procedural requirements beyond those demanded by rudimentary due process.
"The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard." Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914). The hearing must be "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965). In the present context, these principles require that a recipient have timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for a [p268] proposed termination, and an effective opportunity to defend by confronting any adverse witnesses and by presenting his own arguments and evidence orally. These rights are important in cases such as those before us, where recipients have challenged proposed terminations as resting on incorrect or misleading factual premises or on misapplication of rules or policies to the facts of particular cases. [n15]
We are not prepared to say that the seven-day notice currently provided by New York City is constitutionally insufficient per se, although there may be cases where fairness would require that a longer time be given. Nor do we see any constitutional deficiency in the content or form of the notice. New York employs both a letter and a personal conference with a caseworker to inform a recipient of the precise questions raised about his continued eligibility. Evidently the recipient is told the legal and factual bases for the Department's doubts. This combination is probably the most effective method of communicating with recipients.
The city's procedures presently do not permit recipients to appear personally, with or without counsel, before the official who finally determines continued eligibility. Thus, a recipient is not permitted to present evidence to that official orally, or to confront or cross-examine adverse witnesses. These omissions are fatal to the constitutional adequacy of the procedures.
The opportunity to be heard must be tailored to the [p269] capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard. [n16] It is not enough that a welfare recipient may present his position to the decisionmaker in writing or second-hand through his caseworker. Written submissions are an unrealistic option for most recipients, who lack the educational attainment necessary to write effectively and who cannot obtain professional assistance. Moreover, written submissions do not afford the flexibility of oral presentations; they do not permit the recipient to mold his argument to the issues the decisionmaker appears to regard as important. Particularly where credibility and veracity are at issue, as they must be in many termination proceedings, written submissions are a wholly unsatisfactory basis for decision. The second-hand presentation to the decisionmaker by the caseworker has its own deficiencies; since the caseworker usually gathers the facts upon which the charge of ineligibility rests, the presentation of the recipient's side of the controversy cannot safely be left to him. Therefore, a recipient must be allowed to state his position orally. Informal procedures will suffice; in this context, due process does not require a particular order of proof or mode of offering evidence. Cf. HEW Handbook, pt. IV, § 6400(a).
In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. E.g., ICC v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93-94 (1913); Willner v. Committee on Character & Fitness, 373 U.S. 96, 103-104 (1963). What we said in [p270] Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496-497 (1959), is particularly pertinent here:
Certain principles have remained relatively immutable in our jurisprudence. One of these is that, where governmental action seriously injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action depends on fact findings, the evidence used to prove the Government's case must be disclosed to the individual so that he has an opportunity to show that it is untrue. While this is important in the case of documentary evidence, it is even more important where the evidence consists of the testimony of individuals whose memory might be faulty or who, in fact, might be perjurers or persons motivated by malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or jealousy. We have formalized these protections in the requirements of confrontation and cross-examination. They have ancient roots. They find expression in the Sixth Amendment. . . . This Court has been zealous to protect these rights from erosion. It has spoken out not only in criminal cases, . . . but also in all types of cases where administrative . . . actions were under scrutiny.
Welfare recipients must therefore be given an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the witnesses relied on by the department.
"The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel." Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 669 (1932). We do not say that counsel must be provided at the pre-termination hearing, but only that the recipient must be allowed to retain an attorney if he so desires. Counsel can help delineate the issues, present the factual contentions in an orderly manner, conduct cross-examination, and generally safeguard the [p271] interests of the recipient. We do not anticipate that this assistance will unduly prolong or otherwise encumber the hearing. Evidently, HEW has reached the same conclusion. See 45 CFR § 205.10, 34 Fed.Reg. 1144 (1969); 45 CFR § 220.25, 34 Fed.Reg. 13595 (1969).
Finally, the decisionmaker's conclusion as to a recipient's eligibility must rest solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. PUC, 301 U.S. 292 (1937); United States v. Abilene & S. R. Co., 265 U.S. 274, 288-289 (1924). To demonstrate compliance with this elementary requirement, the decisionmaker should state the reasons for his determination and indicate the evidence he relied on, cf. Wichita R. & Light Co. v. PUC, 260 U.S. 48, 57-59 (1922), though his statement need not amount to a full opinion, or even formal findings of fact and conclusions of law. And, of course, an impartial decisionmaker is essential. Cf. In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955); Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 45-46 (1950). We agree with the District Court that prior involvement in some aspects of a case will not necessarily bar a welfare official from acting as a decisionmaker. He should not, however, have participated in making the determination under review.
Affirmed.
[For dissenting opinion of MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, see post, p. 282.]
[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE, STEWART, see post, p. 285.]
1. AFDC was established by the Social Security Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 627, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 601-610 (1964 ed. and Supp. IV). It is a categorical assistance program supported by federal grants-in-aid but administered by the States according to regulations of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. See N.Y. Social Welfare Law §§ 343-36 (1966). We considered other aspects of AFDC in King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968), and in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969).
Home Relief is a general assistance program financed and administered solely by New York state and local governments. N.Y.Social Welfare Law §§ 157-165 (1966), since July 1, 1967, Social Services Law §§ 157-166. It assists any person unable to support himself or to secure support from other sources. Id. § 158.
2. Two suits were brought and consolidated in the District Court. The named plaintiffs were 20 in number, including intervenors. Fourteen had been or were about to be cut off from AFDC, and six from Home Relief. During the course of this litigation, most, though not all, of the plaintiffs either received a "fair hearing" (see infra at 259-260) or were restored to the rolls without a hearing. However, even in many of the cases where payments have been resumed, the underlying questions of eligibility that resulted in the bringing of this suit have not been resolved. For example, Mrs. Altagracia Guzman alleged that she was in danger of losing AFDC payments for failure to cooperate with the City Department of Social Services in suing her estranged husband. She contended that the departmental policy requiring such cooperation was inapplicable to the facts of her case. The record shows that payments to Mrs. Guzman have not been terminated, but there is no indication that the basic dispute over her duty to cooperate has been resolved, or that the alleged danger of termination has been removed. Home Relief payments to Juan DeJesus were terminated because he refused to accept counseling and rehabilitation for drug addiction. Mr. DeJesus maintains that he does not use drugs. His payments were restored the day after his complaint was filed. But there is nothing in the record to indicate that the underlying factual dispute in his case has been settled.
3. The adoption in February, 1968, and the amendment in April of Regulation § 51.26 coincided with or followed several revisions by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare of its regulations implementing 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(4), which is the provision of the Social Security Act that requires a State to afford a "fair hearing" to any recipient of aid under a federally assisted program before termination of his aid becomes final. This requirement is satisfied by a post-termination "fair hearing" under regulations presently in effect. See HEW Handbook of Public Assistance Administration (hereafter HEW Handbook), pt. IV, §§ 6200-6400. A new HEW regulation, 34 Fed.Reg. 1144 (1969), now scheduled to take effect in July, 1970, 34 Fed.Reg. 13595 (1969), would require continuation of AFDC payments until the final decision after a "fair hearing," and would give recipients a right to appointed counsel at "fair hearings." 45 CFR § 205.10, 34 Fed.Reg. 1144 (1969); 45 CFR § 220.25, 34 Fed.Reg. 1356 (1969). For the safeguards specified at such "fair hearings," see HEW Handbook, pt. IV, §§ 6200-6400. Another recent regulation now in effect requires a local agency administering AFDC to give
advance notice of questions it has about an individual's eligibility so that a recipient has an opportunity to discuss his situation before receiving formal written notice of reduction in payment or termination of assistance.
Id. pt. IV, § 2300(d)(5). This case presents no issue of the validity or construction of the federal regulations. It is only subdivision (b) of § 351.26 of the New York State regulations and implementing procedure 68-18 of New York City that pose the constitutional question before us. Cf. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 641 (1969). Even assuming that the constitutional question might be avoided in the context of AFDC by construction of the Social Security Act. or of the present federal regulations thereunder, or by waiting for the new regulations to become effective, the question must be faced and decided in the context of New York's Home Relief program, to which the procedures also apply.
4. These omissions contrast with the provisions of subdivision (a) of § 351.26, the validity of which is not at issue in this Court. That subdivision also requires written notification to the recipient, at least seven days prior to the proposed effective date, of the reasons for the proposed discontinuance or suspension. However, the notification must further advise the recipient that, if he makes a request therefor, he will be afforded an opportunity to appear at a time and place indicated before the official identified in the notice, who will review his case with him and allow him to present such written and oral evidence as the recipient may have to demonstrate why aid should not be discontinued or suspended. The District Court assumed that subdivision (a) would be construed to afford rights of confrontation and cross-examination and a decision based solely on the record. 294 F.Supp. 893, 906-907 (1968).
5. N.Y.Social Welfare Law § 353(2) (1966) provides for a post-termination "fair hearing" pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(4). See n. 3, supra. Although the District Court noted that HEW had raised some objections to the New York "fair hearing" procedures, 294 F.Supp. at 898 n. 9, these objections are not at issue in this Court. Shortly before this suit was filed, New York State adopted a similar provision for a "fair hearing" in terminations of Home Relief. 18 NYCRR §§ 84.2-84.23. In both AFDC and Home Relief, the "fair hearing" must be held within 10 working days of the request, § 84.6, with decision within 12 working days thereafter, § 84.15. It was conceded in oral argument that these time limits are not in fact, observed.
6. Current HEW regulations require the States to make full retroactive payments (with federal matching funds) whenever a "fair hearing" results in a reversal of a termination of assistance. HEW Handbook, pt. IV, §§ 6200(k), 6300(g), 6500 (a); see 18 NYCRR § 358.8. Under New York State regulations, retroactive payments can also be made, with certain limitations, to correct an erroneous termination discovered before a "fair hearing" has been held. 18 NYCRR § 351.27. HEW regulations also authorize, but do not require, the States to continue AFDC payments without loss of federal matching funds pending completion of a "fair hearing." HEW Handbook, pt. IV, § 6500(b). The new HEW regulations, presently scheduled to become effective July 1, 1970, will supersede all of these provisions. See n. 3, supra.
7. Appellant does not question the recipient's due process right to evidentiary review after termination. For a general discussion of the provision of an evidentiary hearing prior to termination, see Comment, The Constitutional Minimum for the Termination of Welfare Benefits: The Need for and Requirements of a Prior Hearing, 68 Mich.L.Rev. 112 (1969).
8. It may be realistic today to regard welfare entitlements as more like "property" than a "gratuity." Much of the existing wealth in this country takes the form of rights that do not fall within traditional common law concepts of property. It has been aptly noted that
[s]ociety today is built around entitlement. The automobile dealer has his franchise, the doctor and lawyer their professional licenses, the worker his union membership, contract, and pension rights, the executive his contract and stock options; all are devices to aid security and independence. Many of the most important of these entitlements now flow from government: subsidies to farmers and businessmen, routes for airlines and channels for television stations; long-term contracts for defense, space, and education; social security pensions for individuals. Such sources of security, whether private or public, are no longer regarded as luxuries or gratuities; to the recipients, they are essentials, fully deserved, and in no sense a form of charity. It is only the poor whose entitlements, although recognized by public policy, have not been effectively enforced.
Reich, Individual Rights and Social Welfare: The Emerging Legal Issues, 74 Yale L.J. 1245, 1255 (1965). See also Reich, The New Property, 73 Yale L.J. 733 (1964).
9. See also Goldsmith v. United States Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117 (1926) (right of a certified public accountant to practice before the Board of Tax Appeals); Hornsby v. Allen, 326 F.2d 605 (C.A. 5th Cir. 1964) (right to obtain a retail liquor store license); Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (C.A. 5th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 930 (1961) (right to attend a public college).
10. One Court of Appeals has stated:
In a wide variety of situations, it has long been recognized that, where harm to the public is threatened, and the private interest infringed is reasonably deemed to be of less importance, an official body can take summary action pending a later hearing.
R. A. Holman & Co. v. SEC, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 43, 47, 299 F.2d 127, 131, cert. denied, 370 U.S. 911 (1962) (suspension of exemption from stock registration requirement). See also for example, Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 U.S. 594 (1950) (seizure of mislabeled vitamin product); North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U.S. 306 (1908) (seizure of food not fit for human use); Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944) (adoption of wartime price regulations); Gonzalez v. Freeman, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 180, 334 F.2d 570 (1964) (disqualification of a contractor to do business with the Government). In Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy, supra, at 896, summary dismissal of a public employee was upheld because, "[i]n [its] proprietary military capacity, the Federal Government . . . has traditionally exercised unfettered control," and because the case involved the Government's "dispatch of its own internal affairs." Cf. Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113 (1940).
11. Administrative determination that a person is ineligible for welfare may also render him ineligible for participation in state-financed medical programs. See N.Y.Social Welfare Law § 366 (1966).
12. His impaired adversary position is particularly telling in light of the welfare bureaucracy's difficulties in reaching correct decisions on eligibility. See Comment, Due Process and the Right to a Prior Hearing in Welfare Cases, 37 Ford.L.Rev. 604, 610-611 (1969).
13. See, e.g., Reich. supra, n. 8, 74 Yale L.J. at 1255.
14. Due process does not, of course, require two hearings. If, for example, a State simply wishes to continue benefits until after a "fair" hearing, there will he no need for a preliminary hearing.
15. This case presents no question requiring our determination whether due process requires only an opportunity for written submission, or an opportunity both for written submission and oral argument, where there are no factual issues in dispute or where the application of the rule of law is not intertwined with factual issues. See FCC v. WJR, 337 U.S. 265, 275-277 (1949).
16. "[T]he prosecution of an appeal demands a degree of security, awareness, tenacity, and ability which few dependent people have." Wedemeyer & Moore, The American Welfare System, 54 Calif.L.Rev. 326, 342 (1966).
about us
help
© copyright

Comment
Jaime Kenedeno
Apr 17, 05 - 2:32 AM
He doesn't deserve the name Jaime Originally Posted on June 26, 2004 at 04:35:25 AM by Jaime He doesn't deserve the name Jaime Capelo that is. Capelo wrote a bill (house bill 4) that limited the amounts collected in lawsuits. The doctors were “all going to leave town” if the proposition (#12) did not pass and so on and so forth. The proposition passed and the personal injury attorneys were betrayed. Capelo then experienced the venom of local factions who now hated him. How did Capelo get in the position to write this bill? Capelo was elected to the Legislature filling the vacated seat of Hugo Berlanga (family friend of Tony Canales and Barbara Canales Black). Berlanga handpicked and groomed Capelo for the seat Hugo was vacating. Many questioned why Berlanga would step down at a time he could really make a difference in Austin? What influenced Hugo stepping down? Who benefited from the legislation Capelo wrote? On the outside, it looks like he wrote the legislation for the doctors who practiced medicine in this day of "lawsuit abuse". The doctors did want the legislation and they fought hard for it to pass. The doctors work in a system that takes money out of their pockets for treating patients to the best of their ability. Now a doctor must consider if he will get paid when making a medical decision. He must answer to the health system. The hospital systems in South Texas benefited much more from the bill Capelo wrote than did anyone else. I used to swear that Spohn Shoreline was the best hospital around. Then I noticed the nuns and other caring administrators being replaced by corporate accountants, streamliners etc. Then Spohn became Christus Spohn Health Systems. Christus still had the Kenedy Foundation and Trust's Money. The Diocese of Corpus Christi still controlled, but now they were money oriented. Capelo writing the bill helped the doctors? Yes, but he wrote the bill for the more influential power base, the Health Systems in South Texas. The main one is Christus Spohn, the umbrella financed by the Kenedy Foundation and Trust managed by the Diocese of Corpus Christi who is protected by the King Ranch Corporation's attorneys. The King Ranch Corporation controls South Texas. The Kenedy oil is the one that got away. Barbara and Tony own BNP, which owns all of the drilling rights along the national seashore. They (The Canales Clique) also represent the King Ranch and Christus Spohn Health Systems. Patricia Canales Bell is on the board of directors at Christus Spohn. Now Tony Canales is head prosecutor of Capelo in pending civil suit. Jaime Capelo sold out his profession. He was used by the same people who reject Anita Matilde's birthright. Capelo did leave a federal loophole. Ask Mikal Watts about the federal Loop Hole!

555caranchua

555caranchua
Tony Canales: “These Mexicans, we can buy them two for a nickel"1/16/2005 10:35 PM
BNP, Hugo & Tony Canales bulldozed through Austin & pristine sand dunes! Posted on August 3, 2004 at 03:39:06 AM by Jaime Here is a little example of Tony Canales' manipulation of Hugo Berlanga in the seat before Hugo set Capelo up to be a Fall Guy. Hugo helped get the drilling rights. Capelo got the Medical legislation passed. Then everybody who was obligated (by ties to Dr. Hector) to vote for Barbara Canales. It did not happen. Just think if it did happen. Barbara & Hugo are good friends the families are close. I overheard a conversation between the two families while I stood in line behind them at the courthouse. ENLIGHTENING! One other little thing: The King Ranch & the National Park Service are working together. King Ranch is under the National Park Service which ties in Tony's "Primo" Gen.Cisneros (KFAT CEO). There is much more like the road from Kingsville to the Island. Like the connection to the Health System that KFAT uses to hide some of the money. Texas Observer Political Intelligence: 3/15/2002 Barbara Canales-Black, who is running for the open Senate District 20 seat in South Texas, is co-owner of BNP Petroleum, which has recently begun drilling for natural gas on Padre Island National Seashore. Canales-Black’s firm quietly obtained the permit in February from the National Park Service, and the drilling has since become a hot issue in South Texas and in the election. She has three primary opponents, including McAllen State Represen-tative Juan Hinojosa, and a runoff is possible. (At press-time, the primary is still five days away.) Canales-Black is the scion of a well-connected political family and has been using her oil wealth to outspend Hinojosa three to one in the race. Her father is Tony Canales, Tony Sanchez’s private attorney. (Canales, you may recall, was the one who hired the private dicks involved in the embarrassing investigation–some say smear campaign–against former Secretary of State Henry Cuellar.) To access the site, BNP had to bulldoze a road through pristine dunes. The site itself is covered by a 1.7 acre well-pad made of crushed rock. As obtrusive as this is on an almost completely undeveloped national seashore, this well may be just the beginning. The company’s permit applies to a 1300 square-kilometer drilling area on the island, and BNP also has plans to do slant drilling–for oil, not gas–from the shore out into the bay and gulf. According to Erin Rogers of the Sierra Club, the company has benefited from the Bush administration’s "streamlined" National Park drilling rules, which do not require a separate environmental impact statement for each new well in a permitted drilling area. To add insult to injury, as recently as eighteen months ago the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had planned to designate as much as 7,000 acres in the area as critical habitat for the piping plover, a threatened bird. This designation would have made much of BNP’s proposed drilling area off limits. But BNP came back with their own habitat study, which predictably recommended protecting a much smaller portion of the seashore. Backed by Nueces County and local Chambers of Commerce, the company successfully lobbied FWS to reduce the protected area to 2,000 acres. Replies: * “These Mexicans, we can buy them two for a nickel,” he said in Spanish!. - By Jaime August 3, 2004 at 04:17:08 AM