Senator West Virginia

During the 2008 election there were countless allegations made against Barack Obama’s character. He was accused of being a Muslim, a Marxist, and the Antichrist himself. While most of these accusations were completely unfounded and did little besides distract the public from the truth, there are indeed connections between him and powerful elite organizations which are working behind the scenes to bring about a one world government. This brief article will discuss some of Barack’s most nefarious connections which will forever change the way you see the man.

While most of the accusations against him are proved to be completely unfounded when they are placed under scrutiny, the Obama Illuminati connections only get deeper the more you examine them. It can be easily seen that he does indeed have a part to play in bringing about the New World Order, the talk of which has only increased after he took office and the economy continued to plummet. Well known political figures such as Henry Kissinger and Gordon Brown have come out and openly endorsed the New World Order as a solution to the growing global economic crisis.

Many of the Obama Illuminati connections have to do with the powerful, elitist organizations which so many of his cabinet belong to. The Bilderberg group in particular arouses suppositions as they meet secretly each year in order to plot out their plans for world domination. These meetings are by invitation only with each attendee being handpicked by the Bilderberger’s organizing committee. The Obama administration practically reads as who’s who when it comes to members not only of the Bilderberg Group, but other powerful international think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and so on.

While most of what the Bilderberg Group does is in secret, other organizations such as the Trilateral Commission are more transparent, so it’s easier to pinpoint their actions on the world stage. Tim Geithner, Susan Rice, Richard Haass, and Richard Holbrook are just a few examples of Commission members who now enjoy top level positions in Obama’s Administration. The Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973 with the expressed goal of bringing about a “New International Economic Order,” and from the looks of things they are nearing the final stages of their plan.

One of the more frightening realties of the Obama Illuminati plan involves the merging of the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union. This union would adopt a new currency, currently being called the Amero, and would be interconnected with a new series of highways. This comes as no surprise when one of its biggest supporters is the Council on Foreign Relations, a group that has been seeking to undermine U.S. sovereignty since 1923. They have recently published several essays in which they endorse the idea of the North American Union and a new global currency such as A North American Community, A Modest Proposal by CFR member Robert Pastor.

The more you study the Obama Illuminati connection, the easier it is to see how he has a unique part to play in bringing about the New World Order which has been in development for the past number of decades. If you’re interested in learning more about this topic as well as other subjects of interest including the lineage of the antichrist, Prince Charles of Wales, and the European Union, be sure to visit www.theantichristidentity.com. They are offering a 150 page report titled The Antichrist Identity which seeks to solve these and many other issues.

During the 2008 election there were countless allegations made against Barack Obama’s character. He was accused of being a Muslim, a Marxist, and the Antichrist himself. While most of these accusations were completely unfounded and did little besides distract the public from the truth, there are indeed connections between him and powerful elite organizations which are working behind the scenes to bring about a one world government. This brief article will discuss some of Barack’s most nefarious connections which will forever change the way you see the man.

While most of the accusations against him are proved to be completely unfounded when they are placed under scrutiny, the Obama Illuminati connections only get deeper the more you examine them. It can be easily seen that he does indeed have a part to play in bringing about the New World Order, the talk of which has only increased after he took office and the economy continued to plummet. Well known political figures such as Henry Kissinger and Gordon Brown have come out and openly endorsed the New World Order as a solution to the growing global economic crisis.

Many of the Obama Illuminati connections have to do with the powerful, elitist organizations which so many of his cabinet belong to. The Bilderberg group in particular arouses suppositions as they meet secretly each year in order to plot out their plans for world domination. These meetings are by invitation only with each attendee being handpicked by the Bilderberger’s organizing committee. The Obama administration practically reads as who’s who when it comes to members not only of the Bilderberg Group, but other powerful international think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and so on.

While most of what the Bilderberg Group does is in secret, other organizations such as the Trilateral Commission are more transparent, so it’s easier to pinpoint their actions on the world stage. Tim Geithner, Susan Rice, Richard Haass, and Richard Holbrook are just a few examples of Commission members who now enjoy top level positions in Obama’s Administration. The Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973 with the expressed goal of bringing about a “New International Economic Order,” and from the looks of things they are nearing the final stages of their plan.

One of the more frightening realties of the Obama Illuminati plan involves the merging of the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union. This union would adopt a new currency, currently being called the Amero, and would be interconnected with a new series of highways. This comes as no surprise when one of its biggest supporters is the Council on Foreign Relations, a group that has been seeking to undermine U.S. sovereignty since 1923. They have recently published several essays in which they endorse the idea of the North American Union and a new global currency such as A North American Community, A Modest Proposal by CFR member Robert Pastor.

The more you study the Obama Illuminati connection, the easier it is to see how he has a unique part to play in bringing about the New World Order which has been in development for the past number of decades. If you’re interested in learning more about this topic as well as other subjects of interest including the lineage of the antichrist, Prince Charles of Wales, and the European Union, be sure to visit www.theantichristidentity.com. They are offering a 150 page report titled The Antichrist Identity which seeks to solve these and many other issues.

During the 2008 election cycle, the Internet was awash with Barack Obama antichrist allegations. Videos on YouTube linked his name with 666, chain emails were sent out listing a number of ways he resembled the Man of Sin spoke of in the Bible, and various other rumors were circulated involving him. Although things have cooled off a bit now that the election is over, there still remains a lot of questions in people’s minds regarding him and his mysterious background. This article will cover these topics in order to help you better understand whether or not these allegations are really valid.

Surprisingly enough, at the core of most of these Obama antichrist theories is his alleged Muslim background. What makes his background lend itself to conspiracy theories so easily is the fact that it’s so shrouded in mystery. While he was most likely born in Hawaii as he states, it wasn’t long before his parents split up and his mother married another man, Lolo Soetoro. They moved to his native Indonesia in 1967, where Barack would attend school. Because this was in a Muslim country, and his new step-father was a Muslim, this is where the allegations usually begin.

In 2008, Google reported that there had been millions of searches for keywords such as “Obama antichrist.” So, besides the usual sensationalism and mudslinging that is the part of every election, what caused all these rumors? The 2012 doomsday scenarios may have something to do with it, as the end of his first term would coincide with this year. However, most of these allegations simply couldn’t stand up to any kind of detailed analysis and proved to be nothing more than exaggerations.

So if the Obama antichrist rumors are indeed false, that leaves us the question of just who the man really is. The connections between Barack Obama and socialism, Black liberation theology, and radical domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn provide a much more accurate picture. Many of the most influential people in his life were in fact members of the Communist Party USA. In fact, the CPUSA official Web site admitted to actively supporting him during the election. The church he attended for 20 years, Trinity United Church is founded on the teaching of Black Liberation Theology, a radical faith that changes the loving and forgiving God of Christianity to one of hate and revenge.

When one studies the big picture, things only get darker and more sinister as ties to elite international organizations such as the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Affairs are discovered. This leaves us with the question; does Barack Obama have a role to play in bringing about a one world government? If you are interested in delving further into this subject, the Web site www.theantichristidentity.com is currently offering a comprehensive, 150 page report covering this and a wide range of subjects including Bible prophecy, Prince Charles of Wales, the linage of the antichrist, and the European Union.

Have you been wondering what July 24^th commemorates? This is the day that “The Liberator” was born. For those of you who are unaware of this little piece of Spanish history, read on to learn more or simply brush up on your Simon Bolivar trivia.

The man known as “The Liberator”, Simón José Antonio de la Santísima Trinidad Bolívar y Palacios Ponte Blanco, or Simon Bolivar, for this article’s purpose, was born on the 24^th of July, 1783 in Venezuela’s capital city, Caracas. Though his legacy was not necessarily etched in stone, the Bolivar name was associated with the higher classes. In fact, his father was a remote descendant of King Fernando III.

Here is a little tidbit that you might find in a Simon Bolivar quiz. Bolivar’s parents had both passed away quite early in life; forcing the young Bolivar to finish his education in Spain. He met and subsequently married a young woman, named Maria del Toro, in Spain in 1802. By 1804, he had lost his young wife to yellow fever and had chosen to leave Venezuela to revisit Europe.  

During the year of 1808 in South America, Bolivar joined the resistance juntas to support the efforts that were being made against Spain. Shortly after this, in 1812, Bolivar had to flee Venezuela. It was during this time that he wrote the Manifesto de Cartagena. This also happens to be the first public document of Bolivar.

The very next year, Bolivar headed up the military in what is now Columbia, but was then Tunja New Granada. May 14, 1813 is what initially set things into motion for the Admirable Campaign. This was the day that Bolivar and his troops invaded Venezuela. By June 9^th, Bolivar was being called “The Liberator” and was soon ratified as such.

Bolivar went on to fight for independence from Spain for many years; until Venezuela, New Granada, and Ecuador were all independent of Spain. On the 7^th of September, Gran Colombia was formed and Bolivar became the President. But, Simon Bolivar’s life as “The Liberator” was far from over. He also concentrated on fully liberating Peru and was eventually named the country’s dictator. Bolivar had partnered with Antonio Sucre and together they defeated the Spanish.

Simon Bolivar trivia extends much farther than the information that you’ve just read. His life was spent engrossed in fighting for independence. In fact, his legacy was worthy enough that an entire country was named after him. Do you know what it was? Think hard…Bolivia! How many individuals have that honor? Surely, only a very special few could have possibly been bestowed this.  

It is indisputable that every President of the United States has in their own way helped to shape the world of the era that they lived in, and Bill Clinton is certainly no exception. Much of his legacy still related directly to current events, and future students of political history will certainly need to consider many points of Bill Clinton trivia as important parts of their education. For instance, did you know that Bill Clinton is certainly not the name on his birth certificate? He was born as William Jefferson Blythe III in 1946, and was in fact the third youngest president to ever be sworn into office. He became president in 1993 and held office until 2001 when George W. Bush would take the office,.

            Any Bill Clinton Quiz is going to contain some trivia about his early life, such as the fact that he briefly considered becoming a professional musician, (and many of us have images in our heads of Clinton playing his saxophone), but it is his political career which has helped shape history. His first official political position was while he was attending Yale in the year of 1972 when he took part in the presidential campaign of McGovern.

            He would begin actively running himself for public office in 1974, with a failed run at the House of representatives, but would then be elected Arkansas Attorney General in 1976. Next he would become the Governor of that State in 1978. He was the youngest governor in the country at only 32 years old. He practiced law for a brief period after losing the position in 1980, but became reelected later and would stay as Governor for ten more years. It was during this period that he began to become an important figure in the Democratic Party at large. It was thought he might run for president in 1988, but he decided to instead support Michael Dukasis.

            Bill Clinton trivia is of course going to have to include information on his presidency, which began in 1992 after his defeat of the first President Bush and Ross Perot. This was the end to a long period of Republican Rule in the White House.

            His presidency is well remembered, but the recent life of Bill Clinton after his terms is also of interest. He was a firm supporter of his wife, Hilary Rodham Clinton’s own bid for the presidency, and then worked for the eventually successful election of the chosen democratic candidate, Barak Obama

I can understand why Lions for Lambs, Robert Redford’s recent movie, received mixed reviews; in fact, I can completely understand why many people would hate it. It is incredibly preachy. Nearly one-third of the film portrays Tom Cruise’s character (a Republican senator) lecturing Meryl Streep’s character (a veteran reporter) in support of the administration’s fight against terror, while the reporter in turn lectures the senator about the misguided war in Iraq. In the process, they preach at each other about their complicity in America’s failures.

That’s already a lot of preaching.

But here lies the genius within the movie: it questions whether the political debates in government and academia have any meaning at all. The likable heroes of the film are two young men who have exhausted all of the arguments and choose action, to wit, going to Afghanistan to fight for their country. As a result of political decisions that are being debated in offices and hallways a long way away, they end up in mortal danger.

The motion picture itself has four primary settings. The first venue is the office of the senator. In the second, a university professor’s office, Robert Redford’s character debates a promising but disengaged student about his role in life. In the third venue, the reporter is quarrelling in her editor’s office about the responsibility of the press. The fourth is a cold and wintry mountain ridge in Afghanistan.

The senator and reporter have the first Great Debate. Both are skilled insiders. The senator is a crucial player in a new hard-hitting military strategy in Afghanistan, with repercussions for Iraq, Iran, and the entire Near East. The reporter’s initial job in her profession concerned Vietnam, and her left-wing sensibilities — anti-war and anti-Republican sentiments come through loud and clear. After running through the worn out pros and cons for, and against, military action in Asia, the two end up challenging each other over who is using who in the relationship between media and government. When the reporter takes the argument back to her editor, it takes on a different slant: what is the relationship between the corporate world and ‘real’ news?

The more accessible argument is between the professor and the student. The professor is a Vietnam vet turned protester, who became a professor. He believed that he could use his intellect, his writings, and his professorial credentials to change the world. He was ineffective. He resigned himself to a different mission: to single out a few exceptional students and push them toward greatness.

Currently, those of us who educate students in the social sciences can be forgiven, I believe, for considering the professor something other than a complete disappointment. We educate our kids about history and geography and politics, but these are things that don’t necessarily interest most kids, but for good reason. They do not have a frame of reference for understanding the vital importance of these subjects. But as they grow up, they will use what we teach — though probably without awareness —- as they connect the mental dots and make sense of the world.

The student opposite Redford’s professor became a cynic, figuring at a young age that certain elites make the decisions, and that even entering those elites is corrupting. So earn some money, live a charmed life, and don’t take any responsibility for any of the decisions made in the halls of power.

This brings me to Afghanistan. Two soldiers were in the professor’s class. They decided on action, they decided to do something. They had faith that serving their country furnished them with the credibility to be agents of change but academia did not. The professor tried to dissuade them, but they joined the Army, as special forces soldiers. This put them in grave danger, and this tied them to the other debates.

Should the youngster stay home and live a charmed life, or risk being shot at by the Taliban in an icy gorge in the Hindu Kush? To what degree does it make a difference if the senator’s military plan is the right one? Does it reduce the soldiers’ nobility and absolve the professor and student who choose a battlefield of words in a cushy college setting? If soldiers are killed, is the reporter culpable for playing the insiders’ games instead of sounding the alarm? Does the path of action turn the soldiers into pathetic pawns in a game played for the benefit of distant powers? Or are they the only real players, and the pathetic ones are the suits who send our hopes into the snowy skies over a shadowy and barren country?

Maybe the world is just too complicated for regular folks, and the noble life of action is the morally correct one. Maybe the debates of wonks in Washington or New York no longer connect to the real world.

Yasser Arafat was a figure well known or at least well seen on the nightly news for year when Israel came up. But just how much do people really know about the man that affected the foreign and world policies of the U.S. from the nineteen fifties until his death in 2004? Taking a Yasser Arafat quiz can be beneficial to you; it might even assist you in passing a history class.

After all Yasser Arafat trivia questions are a part of history. For instance do you know that in 2003 Sharon and the Bush administration decided to end there negotiations with Yasser Arafat and excluded him from talks. What was the reason? He was excluded because he didn’t take a tougher stance on militant Islamic groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.

A question that might come up during a Yasser Arafat quiz might have to do with why he appointed the U.S. backed Mahmoud Abbas prime minister in 2003. The answer would be that he folded under international pressure and made the appointment in an effort of reforming the Palestinian government. What year did the offices of Yasser Arafat get destroyed? The answer is in 2002 from a series of Israeli raids.

How many of us know the name that Yassar Arafat was given at birth? This bit of trivia about him could put you over the top at game night. The answer is Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat al Qudwa al-Hussein. Another trivia question could very well be about the year he was born and where. The answers to these would be 1929 and Cairo, Egypt not Jerusalem as Yassar insisted, respectively.

Did you know that Yassar Arafat was only four years old when his mother died and he was sent to live with an uncle in Jerusalem by his father? What was the occupation of Yassar Arafat’s father? This is another question that could easily come up to test your knowledge. The answer is that he was a Palestinian merchant.

When it comes to history an interesting question that might come up with Yassar Arafat trivia is what role he played during the late 1940’s in the Arab-Israeli war? In an effort to assist the Arab countries he smuggled weapons into Palestine. What is the current name of the University attended by Yassar Arafat? The answer to this bit of trivia is the University of Cairo in Egypt.

Yassar Arafat trivia could cover a lot since he was lived from the nineteen twenties until 2004. Brush up on your history and you’ll easily show how much you know with a quiz about the well known terrorist.

Might 2009 be the beginning of the post-democracy era, complements of the current financial crisis?

Francis Fukayama on one occasion declared the ‘end of history,’ to know, that the Great Questions of History have been resolved, and that the consensus was that the best course for mankind was economic capitalism combined with a democratic government. There would be no more need for conflict; the case was closed in favor of modern Western values. The winning model included human rights, free and fair elections, and free markets.

Then came 9-11, which left no doubt that conflict remains, and that the consensus was not so consensual. There are some people who balk at modern notions of economics and government, and some become violent.

Asia would seem to be a case study proving that capitalism and democracy don’t need each other. Post-World War II Japan was democratic on paper, but a one-party state in actuality. South Korea and Singapore followed appropriately. All three developed into wealthy countries. President Lee, Singapore’s former leader, stated that personal freedoms, which we regard as key to our democracy, will lead to the downfall of the US. Such independence unleashes individualism, which leads to decadence and instability. For now ‘soft authoritarian’ countries on the Pacific Rim are boasting growing economies; their price is personal freedom, which Confucian societies value less than conformity and stability. China is following the same lead as the other ‘tiger economies,’ and this formerly-communist economy is increasing its GDP faster than any other nation, while its currently communist government swats away the flies of dissent. This archetype says that government will offer a stable environment for business; people are liberated to do as they wish, within the limits of this ordered society, and everyone profits. With the exception, perhaps, of artists, oddballs, wierdos, innovators, non-conformists, rebelling teenagers, and anyone else not in line with the grand scheme of things. And why stand up for them, at the cost of a increasing prosperity?

So maybe we are too free, and our decadent way of life will cost us our place atop the hierarchy of nations. But the financial catastrophe of 2008-2009 lead to another option: that the sheer complexity of economic life in the modern world is in the process of making democracy as we know it obsolete.

When the largest financial crisis in three-quarters of a century occurred, who took the lead in addressing the issue? Appointed, not elected bureaucrats. The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, and the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, laid out the national response, leading our representatives in Congress to at first interfere with and then rubberstamp President Bush’s economic team’s plan. For the time being, we regular citizens tried to take hold of both the causes and the vastness of the situation. Seven-hundred billion tax dollars to begin to fix this? Maybe a trillion-and-a-half when it is all over? To paraphrase the late Senator Dirksen, a trillion here and a trillion there and now we’re talking real money.

The Chinese understand a system run by unelected bureaucrats. Americans’ expectation of government is different. But we have to handle the difficulties of re-regulating investment banks, controlling complex investment instruments, manage our $13 trillion economy, not to mention coordinating with central banks around the globe. It is possible, just possible, that the local politician we elected (wherever in the US we live) as our congressperson because s/he did such a great job on the school board is not up to this?

Actually, the President was little visible at the forefront of the crisis, which contributed to the inclination of the nation to elect the opposition political party to the presidency. What bold actions are in store from our new elected officials? Well, the new president brought in skilled bureaucrats to fill his economic team. Other essential changes? No. There is a stimulus plan, pretty much like the one pushed by President Bush, only bigger.

Is this abrogation of the policy limelight by elected officials in favor of insiders a good thing or a bad thing? If the central bankers believe it necessary to rescue big corporations, raise unemployment benefits, and create jobs, why should we raise any objections? If the wellbeing of big business means the welfare of most of us, what is the dilemma? If we need swift action, why put our reliance in the slow, political process of democracy?

Maybe we should not be concerned about the rights of those on the political and social fringe, because our idea of the fringe has changed over time. In his book Supercapitalism, Robert Reich, who is more optimistic than I am about the state of democracy today, looked back at the ‘50s as the Golden Years, saying that America offered high-paying blue collar jobs, corporate statesmanship, and a government-industry-labor partnership that maintained stability and prosperity; he noted that the cost was a rigid and stifling conformity. Peter Beinart recently wrote in Time that “The public mood on economics today is a lot like the public mood on culture 40 years ago: Americans want government to impose law and order — to keep their 401(k)s from going down, to keep their health-care premiums from going up, to keep their jobs from going overseas…”

Maybe people need only the appearance of control over their own lives. We can debate personal rights, protest over the internet a military action we disagree with, and decide local issues. Are we ready to allow the essence of national/global policy-making, the part that controls how people make a living, to the experts? That is how China does it and they are growing at 8% a year.

Everyone knows that Arnold Schwarzenegger was the terminator and that he married Maria Shriver but what else do we know about him? Taking an Arnold Schwarzenegger quiz will test your knowledge of the actor. We know he was a body builder but do we know when he began lifting weights or his full name?

Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger is his full name but what about his birthday and where he was born. July 30, 1947 in Thal, Austria would be the answers to those questions. Another interesting fact is that during 1965 he won the title of Mr. Europe junior. How many of us are aware that the same year he was a “Dating Game” contestant?

Arnold Schwarzenegger trivia might also include the fact that he was twenty-one the year he immigrated to the United States. He immigrated in 1968. How many times did he win the titles of Mr. Universe and Mr. Olympia? There were five times total that he won Mr. Universe and seven times that he won Mr. Olympia. The actual years that he won each one might also be questions asked when taking an Arnold Schwarzenegger quiz.

While we all remember terminator how many of us can name the film that Arnold Schwarzenegger debuted in? The answer is “Hercules in New York” during 1970. What about where he attended school? He graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Superior in 1979. What about the fact that he majored in business administration and international marketing of fitness? These are facts that most of us don’t know about the terminator.

Another fact that might appear in Arnold Schwarzenegger trivia is the year he became a U.S. citizen. The answer to this bit of trivia would be 1983. While we are well aware of the fact that he married Maria Shriver how many of us know the date of the wedding or who his best man was? The wedding was held during May, 1986 and Arnold’s best man was Franco Columbu. How many of us actually know that the couple has four children?

What was the name of the 1989 “Simpson’s” character that was based on Arnold Schwarzenegger is another question that might appear in trivia about him. The answer is Rainer Wolfecastle. When he got an honorary Doctorate and from what school might also be a question. It was during 1996 from the University of Wisconsin Superior to recognize the work that he did with charities.

There are a number of interesting facts that few people know that could come up in a quiz to test the amount of trivia knowledge that is had about Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Mayerson & Associates, formed in 2000, is committed to securing individualized and effective educational services and programs for children and adolescents with autism and other related disabilities. Working closely with families, educators, and professionals in the field, Mayerson & Associates strives to create greater awareness and understanding within the legal system.

Mayerson & Associates is responsible for the very first autism case to reach the United States Supreme Court – Hamilton County Dept. of Educ. v. Deal, 546 U.S. 936 (2005). Located in midtown Manhattan, most of Mayerson & Associates’ matters originate in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. To date, however, Mayerson & Associates attorneys have assisted families in more than thirty states, as far away as Kodiak Island, Alaska. The firm also consults internationally and advocates before Congress and at the state legislative level.

Mayerson & Associates recognizes that every child presents differently, with their own unique mix of strengths and challenges, and that these needs will often change over time. In each and every case, the objective of Mayerson & Associates is to secure and maintain appropriate and effective services that are tailored to meet the unique needs of the child.

Gary Mayerson is a graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center and the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University. In early 2000, Gary formed Mayerson & Associates as the very first law practice in the nation dedicated to representing children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders and related developmental disabilities.

Gary speaks regularly at national conferences and major universities and has testified before Congress on the subject of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEIA”) statute. He is the author of How to Compromise with Your School District without Compromising Your Child—A Field Guide for Getting Effective Services for Children with Special Needs (DRL Books 2004). Gary and his book have been profiled by the NBC Today Show, CNN, and the New York Times, among other media.

Gary also serves as a member of the Board of Autism Speaks, the largest not-for-profit autism organization in the world measured by resources dedicated to autism research, education and treatment. In addition to his board role, Gary serves as the Director of the Autism Speaks Federal Legal Appeals Project (“FLAP”), a pro bono initiative at the federal level.

On April 1, 2009, the law firms of Mayerson & Associates and Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld jointly filed amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court in Forest Grove v. T.A., as part of the Autism Speaks Federal Legal Appeals Project.

Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the appeal of the New York City Department of Education in Board of Education v. Tom F., 128 Sup.Ct. 1 (2007). Mayerson & Associates in collaboration with Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld filed an amicus curiae brief in that case as well. The core issue was whether or not a parent who wishes to challenge their child’s IEP has “standing” to do so if the student has never before received special education services from the local educational agency (i.e., the New York City Department of Education).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that parents have standing to challenge an inappropriate IEP without first “trying out” the IEP considered to be inappropriate. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the NYCDOE’s appeal, but it resulted in a 4-4 decision (after Justice Kennedy recused himself). The U.S. Supreme Court’s 4-4 decision let the Second Circuit’s decision stand. However, the decision was only applicable in the Second Circuit (i.e., New York, Connecticut and Vermont), allowing other circuits in the nation to rule differently.

By granting certiorari in Forest Grove on the very same issue, it is clear that the high court wants to provide uniformity and consistency on the “standing” issue. This time, Justice Kennedy will be casting a vote, and given the Supreme Court’s prior 4-4 result, Justice Kennedy’s vote may well be decisive.

You can check: http://www.mayerslaw.com