Must Jerry Henderickson be "Debarment" ? Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Salary over $100,xxx.xx yrly
Please read Briefs:http://www.stpaul.gov/DocumentView.asp?DID=5788
Please read the Contracts:City of St. Paul, MN - Official Website
Interference with Contract Complance ie: Citizens Homeowner Insurance,Car Ins, avoiding legal process http://nancylazaryan.blogspot.com/
Covertly denying e-commerce Legal Notice's of Sharon Anderson
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 9:14 AM, <Sharon4Anderson@aol.com> wrote:
DEBARMENT WORKS BOTH WAYS, MISCONDUCT OF CITY OFFICIALS
|31.||First Reading - 08-894 - An ordinance creating Chapter 185 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to regulate contract compliance. (GS 3058197)|
Debarment means an action * * *covered Transaction * * *
- Sec. 95.01. Policy.
- Sec. 95.02. Definitions.
- Sec. 95.03. Applicability.
- Sec. 95.04. Effect of action.
- Sec. 95.05. Causes for debarment.
- Sec. 95.06. Debarment process.
- Sec. 95.07. Process for appeal.
- Sec. 95.08. Debarment period.
- Sec. 95.09. Human rights violations.
- Sec. 95.10. Debarment records.
- Sec. 95.11. Business licensing.
Sec. 95.01. Policy.
(a) In order to protect the public interest, it is the policy of the city to conduct business only with responsible persons. Debarment and suspension are discretionary actions that, taken in accordance with this chapter, are appropriate means to implement this policy. The city shall not solicit proposals from, award agreements to, or approve or consent to subagreements with organizations and individuals that are suspended, proposed for debarment, debarred, ineligible or voluntarily excluded.
(b) Debarment and suspension are serious actions which shall be used only in the public interest and for the city's protection and not for purposes of punishment. The city may impose debarment or suspension for the causes and in accordance with the procedures set forth in these regulations.
(c) The existence of a cause for debarment or suspension, however, does not necessarily require that the contractor be debarred; the seriousness of the contractor's acts or omissions and any mitigating factors should be considered in making any debarment decision.
Tech Firms Pitch Tools For Sifting Legal Records
Will Technology Displace Lawyers in e-Discovery?
Remember the folk tale of John Henry, the railway worker who went head to head in a contest of efficiency with a steam-drill to prove that man was superior to machine? Henry beat the machine, but worked himself to death to do it.
I was reminded of John Henry in reading this Tech Firms Pitch Tools" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121936262421062033.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Tech Firms Pitch Tools">Wall Street Journal article about law firms' efforts to stave off automation of the e-discovery process. As WSJ reports, tech companies are developing tools that can perform many tasks previously handled by teams of attorneys -- such as weeding out duplicate or irrelevant material and identifying privileged documents. Automation results in substantial cost savings since by culling documents, lawyers can review a smaller amount of material. According to Hewlett-Packard, automated e-discovery tools could reduce the cost of review of 100 gigabytes of data from $180,000 to $25,000.
But law firms aren't convinced that these new tools are effective and remain concerned that companies may wind up spending more money in the long run to fix mistakes. For example, Robert Brownstone, a partner at Fenwick & West, described a situation where a client declined to have attorneys oversee an e-mail archive search, relying on internal IT staff to handle the job for less. The IT workers disposed of files that legally, needed to be preserved -- and while the documents were recovered, the client also wound up paying Fenwick more to fix the problem than it would have cost to retain the firm for oversight at the outset.
Are today's lawyers the new John Henrys of discovery, a last line in the sand to preserve a way of doing business that's fast fading into the sunset? Like John Henry, lawyers correctly make the point that not everything can be automated and that by relying on machines, we lose some of the craftsmanship and judgment that individuals bring to a project. On the other hand, John Henry worked himself to death to prove his point -- is that really what lawyers want?
H/T EDD Blog Online.
A growing number of tech companies are riding the rising flood of corporate email and electronic records by pitching software to sift them -- and meeting resistance from lawyers who want a piece of the action.
Lawsuits increasingly rely on electronic documents being produced early on, feeding demand for tools that help archive and retrieve those records, a process known as e-discovery work. Much of that work requires little brainpower or legal training, says Michael Lynch, chief executive of British software company Autonomy Corp., which last year acquired e-discovery company Zantaz for $375 million.
"The old-fashioned way of doing this