Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (341362)	1/4/2010 5:00:07 PM
From: SirWalterRalegh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

<<The "gunman" is unidentified yet. Can you say.....? Does it start with M and end in m? Sort of like the candy MnM

To: LindyBill who wrote (341362)	1/4/2010 9:02:05 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Well, the shooter wasn't a RightWing Extremist....Guess again....One REALLY has to look to find much about the LV shooter, Johnny Lee Wicks. It will be interesting to see how many "news outlets" mention the race of this guy....This article mentions it. But we can KNOW that if it were a RIGHTWING Extremist, we would have known about it this morning within minutes of the shooting. I'm really disgusted with our media. Shooting ends gunman’s two-year battle over benefits lasvegassun.com Sam Morris Law enforcement evidence cones sit on the steps of the Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse Monday, January 4, 2010 after a shooting that left a court security officer dead and another seriously wounded. By Steve Green (contact) Monday, Jan. 4, 2010 \| 5:24 p.m. Las Vegas and opened fire, killing a security officer. Raw YouTube video of shooting Johnny Lee Wicks, identified as the man who opened fire at the federal courthouse Monday morning in downtown Las Vegas, has been at odds with the federal government over Social Security benefits for about two years. That’s according to documents in a federal lawsuit he filed in Las Vegas against the Social Security Administration on March 7, 2008. Wicks moved from California to Nevada in January 2008 and called the Social Security Administration’s Nevada office soon thereafter to change his address, according to an August 2009 report in the case by U.S. Magistrate Judge George Foley Jr. Wicks likely was surprised and upset to learn that his Social Security benefits would be reduced due to the move because he would be losing a "California State Supplement’’ of $317 a month to his federal Social Security benefits. Before moving to Las Vegas from San Bernardino, Wicks was receiving $974 monthly in Social Security and Supplemental Security Income payments; records in his lawsuit show. He was receiving $886 monthly in Nevada before losing the $317 per month, records in his lawsuit show. Foley’s report shows Wicks had in-person meetings with a Social Security case manager at the agency office at 1250 S. Buffalo Drive as well as telephone and U.S. mail contact with the agency before filing his suit. "Plaintiff met with (the case manager), who was allegedly disrespectful and told the plaintiff to move back to California,’’ Foley’s report says. Things may have gotten worse in February 2008 when Wicks received a notice from the Nevada Social Security office that he had been overpaid $317 and asked him to repay the money and saying that, otherwise, it would withhold $63.70 per month beginning in May 2008. The agency later found Wicks did not need to repay the overpaid $317, records show. Nevertheless, Wicks filed his lawsuit alleging that in cutting his benefits, his civil rights were violated by the agency because of his race (black). "Lots of state workers and agencies have taken part in this scam, mainly for old blacks who are not well educated,’’ Wicks charged in the lawsuit, in which he had no attorney and represented himself. Foley’s report recommended Wicks’ lawsuit be dismissed because Wicks had failed to exhaust the administrative appeals process. U.S. District Judge Philip Pro on Sept. 9 dismissed the case, saying in a ruling he had reviewed and affirmed the recommendation of Foley. As the lawsuit proceeded, it appeared Wicks suffered further setbacks as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an appeal of a ruling and Wicks apparently failed to show up for an Aug. 17, 2009, hearing. "Plaintiff is not present. The court waited an additional 10 minutes before continuing these proceedings to allow the plaintiff time to appear,’’ court minutes read. "As the plaintiff is not present, the court cannot hear any additional arguments on his behalf regarding the defendant’s motion to dismiss.’’