Can you explain the &quot;Rule of Three Scores&quot;? In plain English? The term is used several times at https://sfgov.org/civilservice/rule-111a-position-based-testing and I can't fathom the meaning. I searched the site and found a definition (copy below, indented). But even after (roughly) understanding what eligibles, appointing officer, and more are, I still can't grok it. To me it seems akin to intentionally obfuscated source code. I can't grok what's in italics. Even after finding this help while drafting this. I can't grok what it means to consider a score. I think &quot;employee organization&quot; = union, but I'm not sure. Sec. 202.6 Certification - Rule of Three Scores The names of eligibles with the three highest scores on the list of eligibles for a position, who are available for appointment, are certified to the appointing officer. When there are two or more approved personnel requisitions on file for the same class, the number of scores certified shall be equal to the number of positions to be filled plus two scores. An eligible list adopted under the Rule of Three Scores shall in all cases be exhausted when eligibles standing at less than three scores are available. Use of the eligible list when there is less than the minimum certification available shall be at the discretion of the appointing officer. If all eligibles at a score waive appointment or fail to respond within the time limits provided in these Rules, the appointing officer may request supplementary certification(s) from the next highest score. Is it language designed to be impenetrable other than to a union's lawyers? That's my hunch, but it's just a WAG I'm hesitant to even mention.
Put most simply: A &quot;score&quot; is the examination score for a job candidate who performed well enough to be considered for a position. It is more helpful to think of it as the candidate himself. &quot;Certifying&quot; a score mostly just means that the commission transmits the score to the hiring officer and promises that it's accurate. So whenever there is an opening for a position, the civil service commission must certify/send a list of scores/candidates for the hiring officer to consider, i.e. choose from. The Rule of Three Scores says that list must have at least two more scores than there are open positions. If the city is hiring 50 police officers, the list must have at least 52 scores (50 positions plus 2). If it is hiring three secretaries, the list must have at least five scores (3 positions plus 2). It's called The Rule of Three Scores because the existence of a list presumes at least one opening, which necessitates at least three scores. For example, if the city is hiring one fire chief, the list must have at least three scores (1 position plus 2).
Barrister to instructing solicitor: “Am I working for the plaintiff or defendant?” Plaintiff Your honour, this excellent study and the expert testimony you have heard from the authors, clearly demonstrates that whiteboard testing is sexual discrimination by another name. The clear correlation between the gender of the interviewee and their ability to perform this task, which is unrelated to the job and is actually a test of how good the person is at handling performance anxiety, is being used to prejudicially and unlawfully screen out female applicants. Defendant Your honour, this discredited paper and the inconsistent testimony of the author clearly demonstrated that the methodology was flawed and the conclusions are unsupportable. When pressed, it turned out that the number of females encompassed by the catch-all word “all” was 6 - hardly a sample big enough to draw any meaningful conclusions from. Further, it turned out that the number of men who also improved was unknown because they didn’t test them! So we have the authors of a study with gender discrimination in its very methodology drawing asinine conclusions from it about gender discrimination! It may be that whiteboard testing is better at finding competent actors than programmers and this may make it a terrible recruitment tool. However, my client can run their businesses in whatever inefficient way they choose so long as it isn’t unlawful discrimination - and this isn’t that.
united-states In the US, such an IOU may be grounds for suit The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) which has been enacted (with minor variations) in every UIS staye, governs such matters. UCC § 3-104 provides that: (a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), &quot;negotiable instrument&quot; means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it: (a)(1) is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder; (a)(2) is payable on demand or at a definite time; and (a)(3) does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money UCC § 3-106 provides that: (a) Except as provided in this section, for the purposes of Section 3-104(a), a promise or order is unconditional unless it states (i) an express condition to payment, (ii) that the promise or order is subject to or governed by another record, or (iii) that rights or obligations with respect to the promise or order are stated in another record. A reference to another record does not of itself make the promise or order conditional. UCC § 3-108 provides that: (a) A promise or order is &quot;payable on demand&quot; if it (i) states that it is payable on demand or at sight, or otherwise indicates that it is payable at the will of the holder, or (ii) does not state any time of payment. Thus it appears that the IOU described in the question would be a negotiable instrument under the UCC. Since it has no specified date, it is treated as payable on demand, in the absence of any specific language to the contrary. UCC § 3-301 provides that: &quot;Person entitled to enforce&quot; an instrument means (i) the holder of the instrument, (ii) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (iii) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 3-309 or 3-418(d). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument. UCC § 3-303 provides that: (a) An instrument is issued or transferred for value if: ... (3) the instrument is issued or transferred as payment of, or as security for, an antecedent claim against any person, whether or not the claim is due; Thus the person to whom the IOU was originally given would be entitled to enforce it, assuming it had not been negotiated to some other person. The IOU w3as security for the loan, and thus was issued for value, and is binding. UCC § 3-501 provides that: a) &quot;Presentment&quot; means a demand made by or on behalf of a person entitled to enforce an instrument (i) to pay the instrument made to the drawee or a party obliged to pay the instrument or, in the case of a note or accepted draft payable at a bank, to the bank, or (ii) to accept a draft made to the drawee. UCC § 3-502 provides that: (a) Dishonor of a note is governed by the following rules: (1) If the note is payable on demand, the note is dishonored if presentment is duly made to the maker and the note is not paid on the day of presentment. A note that has been dishonored may be sued on to enforce payment. The specific procedures, and what courts such a suit may be brought in, will vary significantly by state. Not all states have smal claims courts, and those that do have significant differences in what cased they will hear.
He has this phrased like it's the ability to decide which laws you follow, and that it's an ability being withheld from the general public (although I seriously doubt that at least the former is the case). This is yet another false claim made by "freemen" or those who claim "common law defences". Notice of Understanding has no legal meaning unless the context demands that it evidences a meeting of the minds for the purposes of contract formation. It is a well-settled principle of common law that in order to be bound by a contract, there must be an agreement. Put simply, I cannot bind someone simply by sending them a Notice unless it is a right conferred on me by some earlier statute or legislation, or legally binding agreement. I tried searching for a solid definition, but all I could find was people/organization's Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights. The reason you've found nothing official about the terms Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights is that there is nothing official or legal about those terms. They are ordinary terms with ordinary meaning being bastardised by deluded people who believe they can fine the government and refuse to be bound by the law of the land. Of course, none of this holds up. What is the purpose of declaring your Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights? It might make you feel better, even though it has no legal, practical or other effect.
If you say something twice, eventually they’ll be in conflict Law codes are vast. They deal with many things and sometimes, as here, they deal with the same thing twice. If they duplicated themselves, rather than cross-referencing, every time the law was changed, every single instance would have to be tracked down and changed. Admittedly, that is not as big a problem with digital codes (but still not infallible and definitely time-consuming) but when these would have to be found by hand, it was damn near impossible. Written this way, change it once and it’s changed everywhere. My first boss taught me that. The fired was engineering rather than law but the principle is the same.
While it is true that jury instructions are typically less than optimal, it is ideological hyperbole or cynicism to claim that instructions are purposely confusing. The ultimate source of the confusion is that the legal system has to assume (pretend) that it has clear-cut rules that any reasonable person can easily understand and automatically apply. In order to maintain uniformity of the law, there is an externally-defined instruction that a judge may read (rather than giving his personal spin on what "reasonable doubt" means or what the relationship is between "reasonable doubt" and convicting a defendant). Once the relevant body of government (committee of judges and lawyers) has established the apparently correct formula for expressing the applicable legal concept, they don't mess with it, until SCOTUS overturns decisions enough times based on crappy instructions. Legal professionals are trained to carefully scrutinze language so as to achieve a single interpretation of a given clause (never mind the fact that there turn out to be many such interpretations). Since they can apply these interpretive rules, it is assumed that anyone can apply them. But in fact, we know that people don't just use literal semantic principles to reach conclusions – but the law resist pandering to that imperfection in human behavior. There is a huge literature on problems of jury instructions, some of the better of which relies on psycholinguistic experimentation to establish that a given instruction is confusing or gives the wrong result. See for example Solan's "Refocusing the burden of proof.." (and references therein) that addresses the problem of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" instruction, which has the unintended consequence of implying that the defense has an obligation to create a doubt (which is not the case, and allows conviction if there is the weakest imaginable evidence which hasn't been refuted). But who gets to decide what the improved instructions should say? The instructions have to correctly state what the law holds (where "the law" means not just statutes, but the trillions of relevant court decisions and applicable regulations). Thus there is massive inertia, and improved jury instructions will not come about quickly.
There are two kinds of evidence for discrimination. The primary evidence is direct, that is, statements by an employer, for example "We need to make sure not to hire a ___ for this position". The act of hiring a person that has a certain demographic property is never evidence for discrimination, because discrimination law treats all races and religions (etc) the same, so hiring a European is not intrinsically discriminatory, nor is hiring an African or Asian. Discrimination is also not defined in terms of the sameness or difference of an employee and a supervisor. Another possibility w.r.t. a discrimination claim is demonstrating a discriminatory pattern. However, the law does not demand exact proportional representation of all protected demographic classes. It is possible that certain circumstances would be compelling enough that illegal discrimination could be established, but this would require showing a pattern, and would not be useful in an individual action. There is no law requiring employers to be up-front about hiring decisions. There is also no law requiring posting a job (I assume this is not a government job), and no law requiring consideration of more than on candidate. It might be contrary to company policy. This is not murky from a legal perspective, even if it is scummy from an HR perspective.
No law prevents this -- the court may use its judgement on which petitions to accept. Under the current rules, any petition which four Justices choose to accept will be accepted and given a hearing. The traditions of the court indicate various reason for acceptance, but these are not legally binding. No Court to date has failed to accept a significant number of petitions for "cert".