legal basis to use the Conners Rating Scales?
145779
The Conners’ Rating Scales are a result of 30 years of research on childhood and adolescent psychopathology and problem behavior. It is used as an assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. The Conners’ Rating Scales-Revised evaluate problem behaviors as reported by the teacher, parents (or alternative caregivers), and adolescents.Normative data for the revised forms comes from a large community-based sample of children and adolescents collected throughout the United States and Canada. Norms are available for children and adolescents aged 3 to 17 on the parent and teacher rating forms; norms are available for adolescents aged 12 to 17 on the self-report forms.\n\nBecause these are children under the age of 18 taking the test, the parents are giving their authorization for the test results to be used.\n\nThere are some case studies on the subject at the following links:\n\nhttp://continuingedcourses.net/active/courses/course004.php?PHPSESSID=5e3250ec4bfaccabc347ea79583440db\n\nhttp://www.purdue.edu/ODOS/adpro/add.htm
774778
The only example I can cite would be my testimonial "discussion" with an expert, relating to the content of "other than marijuana" contained within an 82lb. sample with which my client was busted. Tennessee law provides for a grossly stiffer prison penalty for arrests over 75#, so it made a huge difference to my client's sentencing.
626129
i believe the ratings are done by phone survey. it will not effect the ratings.
789258
at this point few jurisdictions are completely on line.\ni would call the da's office for info.\nthey are familiar with the system and aren't as backed up with cals as the courts.
460134
I think any advice you get from this site should be taken with caution. Probably the only legal advice I'd actually follow from here is, "call a lawyer".
10498
It's presumably legal, but it may not be ethical.  Depending on the state's judicial recusal standards, certain requirements may exist for recusal in participation in certain cases where the judge's judgment may be impaired, such as with a relative.  This depends heavily on local custom, bar restrictions, the judge's official recusal policy, and so forth.  Requesting a change is permissible and in fact preferable; you made the right decision, even if you're subject to harassment.  I've included a link that references federal policy on the matter of relatives in a firm coming before the judge, which is a related issue in a different forum.  If you provided the specific state, I might be able to help more.  I hope this helps.
30577
4-1.15. Safekeeping Property\n \nSee link below.
419458
http://www.groklaw.net
530997
The whole rating system is a farce. Remember these are the same people (homeland security) who instructed people to seal their windows with duct tape in case there is a chemical,biological, and radiological attack.Have you ever heard of anything as ridiculous as using duct tape against the effects of a CBR attack?
303276
According to § 42-4-237 of the Colorado Statutes:\n\n(3) Except as provided in section 42-2-105.5, the requirement of subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to:\n\n(a) A child required by section 42-4-236 to be restrained by a child restraint system;\n\n(b) A member of an ambulance team, other than the driver, while involved in patient care;\n\n(c) A peace officer as described in section 16-2.5-101, C.R.S., while performing official duties so long as the performance of said duties is in accordance with rules and regulations applicable to said officer which are at least as restrictive as subsection (2) of this section and which only provide exceptions necessary to protect the officer;\n\n(d) A person with a physically or psychologically disabling condition whose physical or psychological disability prevents appropriate restraint by a safety belt system if such person possesses a written statement by a physician certifying the condition, as well as stating the reason why such restraint is inappropriate;\n\n(e) A person driving or riding in a motor vehicle not equipped with a safety belt system due to the fact that federal law does not require such vehicle to be equipped with a safety belt system;\n\n(f) A rural letter carrier of the United States postal service while performing duties as a rural letter carrier; and\n\n(g) A person operating a motor vehicle which does not meet the definition of "commercial vehicle" as that term is defined in section 42-4-235 (1) (a) for commercial or residential delivery or pickup service; except that such person shall be required to wear a fastened safety belt during the time period prior to the first delivery or pickup of the day and during the time period following the last delivery or pickup of the day.
866985
Section 805 of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act states:\n 805.  Communication in connection with debt collection   [15 USC 1692c]\n\n(a) COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONSUMER GENERALLY.  Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt -- \n\n(1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o'clock antimeridian and before 9 o'clock postmeridian, local time at the consumer's location.\n\nSo, if the person is a debt collector (which usually DOES NOT include a person collecting their own debt), they can call between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. under federal law.  Notwithstanding, there may be other harassment or other state laws that could apply to your situation.\n\nThere are many specialized debt collection practices attorneys who work for debtors to stop / prosecute harassing behavior of debt collectors.  Many of them will take your case.  Contact the Texas bar and ask for a referral.
636546
have not heard Deming for sometime, His 14 points are at this location\n\nHere just one big difference.\nRemove the barriers that rob hourly workers, and people in management, of their right to pride of workmanship. This implies, among other things, abolition of the annual merit rating (appraisal of performance) and of Management by Objective. Again, the responsibility of managers, supervisors, foremen must be changed from sheer numbers to quality.
689009
I'm not a lawyer. But, I definitely believe that you can approach the consumer grievance redressal forum.\n\nSee http://ncdrc.nic.in/ and http://www.consumercourt.netfirms.com/ to know the procedure.
522529
The CT statute spells it out in sadly graphic details:\nSec. 53-21. Injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children. Sale of children. (a) Any person who (1) wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that the life or limb of such child is endangered, the health of such child is likely to be injured or the morals of such child are likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child, or (2) has contact with the intimate parts, as defined in section 53a-65, of a child under the age of sixteen years or subjects a child under sixteen years of age to contact with the intimate parts of such person, in a sexual and indecent manner likely to impair the health or morals of such child, or (3) permanently transfers the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money or other valuable consideration or acquires or receives the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years from another person upon payment of money or other valuable consideration to such other person or a third person, except in connection with an adoption proceeding that complies with the provisions of chapter 803, shall be guilty of a class C felony for a violation of subdivision (1) or (3) of this subsection and a class B felony for a violation of subdivision (2) of this subsection.\n(http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap939.htm)\n\nMost statutes also have definitions, which is what the 53a-65 section contains.\n(http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap952.htm)
438433
The standard for this type of information is from the Ibbotson Associates book, which gets updated every year.  It costs a bit of money, but you might be able to find a copy at your local library.  There are random sites once in a while that summarize the information for display purposes, such as this one: http://www.fundadvice.com/fehtml/psychhurdles/0502.html
723911
Try the UK court website HCMS.  They should be able to help you.
825898
I don't know what state you live in, but when you file a complaint that is later investigated in most states the complainant can not be identified by the police, your friends are yanking your chain.  All the police do is send over an officer to measure the decible level, then they knock on the door and say they just measured the decible level and it exceeds the city's ordinance.  If they don't turn down the noise the by-law officer or the police officer then can file charges based on their measurement of the decible level alone.