text:
State RequirementsRifles and Shotguns
- Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No
- Registration of rifles and shotguns? No
- Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No
- Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No
- Permit to purchase handgun? Yes
- Registration of handguns? No
- Licensing of owners of handguns? No
- Permit to carry handguns? Yes
No state permit is required for the purchase of rifles or shotguns. A permit to carry, permit to sell handguns, or handgun eligibility certificate is required to purchase a pistol or revolver.
No state permit is required for the purchase of rifles or shotguns. A permit to carry, permit to sell handguns, or handgun eligibility certificate is required to purchase a pistol or revolver.
It is unlawful to sell or permanently transfer a handgun to any person who is forbidden to possess a handgun, or to a person under 21.
No person, firm, or corporation shall sell or transfer any pistol or revolver unless an application provided by the Commissioner of Public Safety is filled out. There is a 2 week waiting period from the date of the application.
A handgun eligibility certificate, valid for five years, shall be issued by the Commissioner of Public Safety within 60 days after receipt of the National Criminal History Records check from the FBI to a person who may lawfully possess a handgun, who completes a handgun safety course, is fingerprinted, and pays a fee.
The eligibility certificate entitles a person to purchase, but not to carry, a handgun.
The commissioner must be notified within two business days of an address change.
The waiting period is waived for police and parole officers, holders of a state permit to carry, holders of a permit to sell handguns, or holders of a handgun eligibility certificate.
Holders of a valid Connecticut hunting license and active or reserve members of the armed forces are also exempt from the waiting period on rifles and shotguns. Antique firearms are exempted from both the waiting period and application form requirements.
No state permit is required for the possession of rifles or shotguns.
It is unlawful to possess any other firearm by a person who has been convicted of a felony. It is unlawful to possess a handgun if convicted as a delinquent of a serious juvenile offense which includes:
- Illegal possession of a controlled substance.
- Negligent homicide.
- Third degree assault.
- First degree reckless endangerment.
- Second degree unlawful restraint, rioting, or second degree stalking.
- Or discharged from custody within the preceding 20 years after acquittal by reason of mental disease or defect.
- Confined by court order for mental illness within the preceding 12 months.
- Subject to a restraining or protective order involving physical force.
- An illegal alien.
- A permit is required to carry a handgun on or about one's person, or in a vehicle.
- The applicant must successfully complete a handgun safety course approved by the commissioner.
- A permit may be issued if the issuing authority finds that the applicant "intends to make no use of any pistol or revolver which he may be permitted to carry -other than a lawful use, and is a suitable person."
- Connecticut is in transition from a local permits process to a State Permit Process.
- A state wide permit to carry is valid (unless revoked for cause) for five years.
- A permit to carry may be revoked if the issuing authority determines that the permit holder is no longer a "suitable person" to carry a handgun.
1. If the person transporting is a peace officer.
2. While in one's own home or place of business.
3. While transporting a handgun from the place of purchase to one's residence or business if it is contained in the package in which it was originally wrapped at the time of sale.
- 4. While moving one's residence from one place to another.
5. While transporting a handgun from his residence or place of business to a place of repair and back.
6. To transport an antique handgun.
A permit to carry is required to carry a handgun outside one's home (even though one may still be on his own property, i.e. there is no express "curtilage" exception) or in any "place of business" in which one is merely an employee, not an owner or operator.
A permit is also required to transport a handgun back and forth between one's home and place of business, or to and from a range for target shooting.
It is unlawful to possess a firearm on public or private elementary or secondary school property. This prohibition shall not apply to a person with a firearm carrying permit, with permission from school officials, or while traversing school property with an unloaded firearm for the purpose of gaining access to lands open to hunting or for other lawful purposes, provided entry is not prohibited by school officials.
Miscellaneous Provisions:
- Loaded shotguns and rifles may not be carried in a vehicle or snowmobile.
- Muzzle-loading rifles and muzzle-loading shotguns are regarded as "unloaded" even though a charge may be in the bore, provided there is no powder in the flash pan or percussion cap on the nipple.
- It is unlawful to alter, remove, deface, or obliterate the name of any maker or model or maker's number or other mark of identification on any firearm. The possession of any firearm with its numbers or other marks altered creates a legal presumption that the possessor committed the offense.
- Persons convicted of any class A, B, or C felony committed with a firearm (excluding an assault weapon) "shall be sentenced" to five (5) years, which sentence may not be suspended or reduced by the court. The sentence shall be in addition to and consecutive to any imprisonment imposed for the underlying felony.
- Persons convicted of any class A, B, or C felony committed with an assault weapon shall be sentenced to eight (8) years, which sentence may not be suspended or reduced by the court. The sentence shall be in addition to and consecutive to any imprisonment imposed for the underlying felony.
- Any person convicted of carrying a firearm without a permit shall be fined not more than $1,000.00 or imprisoned for less than 1 year or both, noting that absent mitigating circumstances, the sentence may not be suspended or reduced by the Court.
- No person shall keep or store any loaded firearm on any premises under his control if he knows or reasonably should know that a person under 16 is likely to gain access without a parent's or guardian's permission, unless it is in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secured, is carried on the person or within close proximity, or is in a locked container.
See Also:
National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action
Connecticut Law About Firearms Law


text:
Economic Impact
Economic Impact
Baltimore County
Anne Arundel
Carroll County
WrestleMania 28 breaks economic impact record
By Arda Ocal
October 15, 2012
WrestleMania 28, which took place April 1 in Miami, broke the record for economic impact that WrestleMania has on the host city, WWE announced Monday. The annual pay-per-view event, which drew 78,363 to Sun Life Stadium, generated 102.7 million dollars in economic impact, shattering the previous record set by WrestleMania 27 in Atlanta by $40 million. According to WWE, 71 percent of fans that attended WrestleMania 28 were from outside the Miami area and stayed in the city an average of four nights.
Grand Prix road work costs still increasing
By Luke Broadwater and The Baltimore Sun
July 14, 2014
Nearly a year after the last race car whizzed down Baltimore's streets, the Grand Prix Indycar race is still costing the city money. On Wednesday, city officials are set to authorize a $485,000 payment to P. Flanigan & Sons Inc. for road work done in 2011 and 2012 for the Baltimore Grand Prix. The company's road work ended up being more expensive than anticipated, but city transporation officials didn't immediately bring the increased costs...
Wondering about the Grand Prix's economic impact? Keep wondering
By Julie Scharper, The Baltimore Sun
September 5, 2012
Wondering how many tickets were sold to this year's Grand Prix of Baltimore? Curious as to how the economic benefits of this city-subsidized event compare to last year's inaugural race? Well, you're going to have to just keep wondering. Race On, the organizers of this year's race, announced yesterday it will not release the number of tickets sold to the three day festival. Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's administration, which provided about $800,000 in city services to support the race and spent $7 million last year preparing downtown streets to serve as a race course, is not commissioning a study of the economic impact of this year's race. Last year's "study confirmed what we know is an undisputed fact and that is the event has a significant positive economic impact," her spokesman Ryan O'Doherty said.
How much did Baltimore spend on Grand Prix staffing?
By Luke Broadwater, The Baltimore Sun
October 25, 2013
During its three-year run, Baltimore's Grand Prix IndyCar race cost the city about $1.4 million in increased staffing, overtime and related expenses. City officials disclosed the staffing costs in response to a Maryland Public Information Act request filed by The Baltimore Sun. Related expenses include items such as feeding workers during the event and purchasing ear plugs for them. When a major event is held in Baltimore, the city has to pay overtime for police, transportation workers, firefighters, paramedics and others to handle the needs of thousands of people in one place.
Report points to city arts' economic impact
By Edward Gunts | firstname.lastname@example.com
February 28, 2010
A trio of annual Baltimore events - Artscape, the book festival and the New Year's celebration at the Inner Harbor - generated an estimated $36 million in economic benefits during the past year, according to the Baltimore Office of Promotion and the Arts. The estimate, to be released Monday, is part of a more sophisticated effort to attract additional corporate sponsors and justify continued public subsidies for the events. "The impact [of the three events], regionally, is huge," said Bill Gilmore, executive director of BOPA, a private, nonprofit organization that works exclusively for the city.
Sandy's economic impact on Baltimore area likely modest
By Jamie Smith Hopkins, The Baltimore Sun
November 4, 2012
General Motors' manufacturing plant in White Marsh lost about a day and a half to Cyclone Sandy. But it sustained no damage, missed no shipping deadlines and expected to quickly make up for lost time. Though that's just about the best-case scenario, it's not rare in the region. Despite the disruption of widespread shutdowns Monday and Tuesday, the Baltimore area missed the worst of Sandy's wallop. The overall economic impact should be modest as a result, economists say, even if for some businesses and residents it was anything but. "Economically, it doesn't mean much for the Baltimore area," said Richard Clinch, director of economic research for the University of Baltimore's Jacob France Institute.
Grand Prix's economic impact might never be known
By Julie Scharper, The Baltimore Sun
September 4, 2012
Baltimore residents might never know how much money the city's second Grand Prix race generated or how it affected local hotels, restaurants and other businesses. A spokesman for Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said Tuesday that the city would not commission an economic impact study of this year's Labor Day weekend event, as it did last year for the inaugural racing festival. City and racing officials also said they might not publicly reveal the number of spectators; last year 160,000 people attended over the three days.
Study: Arts had $388.2 million economic impact on Baltimore in 2010
By Tim Smith, The Baltimore Sun
June 8, 2012
Arts and culture activity in the city had a $388.2 million total economic impact in 2010, according to a study released Friday by the Baltimore Office of Promotion & The Arts. A previous version of the study, conducted every five years, found a $270 million impact in 2005. The study, Arts & Economic Prosperity IV, was conducted by the nonprofit Americans for the Arts. For 2010, it identifies about $266 million in total direct expenditures by nonprofit arts and culture organizations, and about $122 million in total direct expenditures by their audiences.
Study suggests less economic impact from Baltimore Grand Prix than predicted
By Jamie Smith Hopkins, The Baltimore Sun
November 4, 2011
City officials are calling the Baltimore Grand Prix an economic success, but a new study conducted for the city's tourism arm suggests that it funneled far less money to local businesses than race organizers predicted. The report for Visit Baltimore, released Friday, estimates that spectators from outside the Baltimore region, non-local vendors and race promoters spent almost $28 million in and near the city during the Labor Day weekend event. Baltimore Racing Development, the financially beleaguered race organizer, issued its own report last year that projected about $70 million in race-fueled spending.
'House of Cards' economic impact put at $140 million for Maryland
By David Zurawik and The Baltimore Sun
April 29, 2013
Gov. Martin O'Malley Monday announced something that had been widely known in Baltimore at least for the last two weeks: That the Netflix series "House of Cards" was back in town to film its second season. The White House Correspondents Dinner in Washington Saturday night opened with a spoof featuring Kevin Spacey that was filmed on the "House of Cards" set. And crew members have been working for the last two weeks inside the Baltimore Sun building on Calvert Street rebuilding the "House of Cards" newsroom set. But principal photography on the the second season officially started today, according to the Maryland Film Office.
House passes back pay bill for fed employees
By John Fritze, The Baltimore Sun
October 5, 2013
The House of Representatives approved a bipartisan bill Saturday to provide back pay to 800,000 furloughed federal employees when the government shutdown ends. If approved by the Senate, the proposal would limit the economic impact of the shutdown. That's particularly true in Maryland, where tens of thousands of federal workers have been furloughed since agencies closed on Tuesday. The House voted 407-0 to approve the measure. "Federal workers didn't cause this shutdown and they shouldn't be punished for it," said Rep. John Delaney, a Maryland Democrat who cosponsored the bill.
Panda Power Funds announces plans to build power plant in Brandywine
By Eileen Ambrose, The Baltimore Sun
August 19, 2013
Panda Power Funds, a private equity firm based in Dallas, said Monday that it plans to build and operate a power plant in Brandywine. The natural gas-fueled generating station will be able to supply power to about 859,000 homes in the Maryland-Washington area, the company said. Panda Power said the area's economy is expected to get a $1.2 billion shot in the arm during the construction and first decade of the 859-megawatt plant's operation. Gwen S. McCall, president and CEO of Prince George's County Economic Development Corp., said in a statement that the plant is expected to create up to 800 union construction jobs, 25 jobs to run the plant and 32 indirect jobs related to supporting the facility.
Visit Baltimore reports increase in convention bookings
By Chris Korman, The Baltimore Sun
August 14, 2013
Visit Baltimore announced increased sales Wednesday on the heels of news that Otakon, the largest convention held in the Inner Harbor in recent years, would relocate to D.C. in 2017. Visit Baltimore booked 477,764 room nights during fiscal year 2013 for future years, the third-highest total ever, the city's convention and visitors bureau said. It signed contracts for 35 "citywide" conventions, which have at least 1,200 attendees, during fiscal year 2013 according to the group's annual report and business plan.
Sports Business Lunch: What the All-Star Game would mean to Baltimore
By Chris Korman, The Baltimore Sun
July 16, 2013
Childs Walker took a look at the mysterious process used to pick the location of the Major League All-Star Game for Tuesday's paper. It's clear why the Orioles -- and those working in tourism and sports marketing in the city -- covet the chance to host the game in 2016. The last time it was here, in 1993, the game delivered an economic impact of $31.4 million , according to city estimates. In 2013 dollars, that's $50 million. (For comparison's sake, the Grand Prix of Baltimore had an economic impact of about $47 million two years ago and $42 million in 2012 .)
'VEEP' and 'Cards' bringing money, glam to our gritty city
By David Zurawik and The Baltimore Sun
May 3, 2013
Only three years ago, Baltimore and Maryland were all but out of the TV and film production business. After the glory years of "Homicide," "The Corner," "The Wire" and tens of millions of HBO dollars spent here on Maryland crews and materials, state funding for incentives had ended, and Hollywood had left Baltimore in its rear view mirror for what looked like good. But last Monday, Media Rights Capital and Netflix were back in town with stars like Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright and all those big, white Haddad's trucks to start filming season two of "House of Cards," a series that last year had an economic impact of $140 million on the area, according to the Maryland Film Office.
City seeking economic development consultant
By Steve Kilar, The Baltimore Sun
April 30, 2013
The Baltimore Development Corp., the city's economic development agency, is looking for an outside consultant to provide an analysis of the city's "economic development landscape," according to a request for applications issued Tuesday. The consultant is being asked to assess the city's "existing economic conditions, obstacles, opportunities for expansion, and strengths," as well as identify "priorities and options to move the City's economy forward" and figure out a way "to track the success of new initiatives in terms of job growth, investment, and economic impact," according to the request for proposals.
Ballpark's economic impact is uncertain It will depend on drawing power, expert predict.
By Jon Morgan and Jon Morgan,Staff Writer
April 1, 1992
Baltimore's new baseball stadium might advance downtown development and polish the state's international image. But the lasting economic impact on the region is tougher to estimate and will depend on the ability of Oriole Park at Camden Yards to keep fans coming back year after year.State officials predict the stadium will act as a magnet, luring fans from a wide area to spend money at attractions such as the Inner Harbor and National Aquarium. It also will add to the region's quality of life, helping to persuade businesses to move plants and offices here, the officials predict.
House passes back pay bill for fed employees
By John Fritze, The Baltimore Sun
October 5, 2013
The House of Representatives approved a bipartisan bill Saturday to provide back pay to 800,000 furloughed federal employees when the government shutdown ends. If approved by the Senate, the proposal would limit the economic impact of the shutdown. That's particularly true in Maryland, where tens of thousands of federal workers have been furloughed since agencies closed on Tuesday. The House voted 407-0 to approve the measure. "Federal workers didn't cause this shutdown and they shouldn't be punished for it," said Rep. John Delaney, a Maryland Democrat who cosponsored the bill.
'House of Cards' economic impact put at $140 million for Maryland
By David Zurawik and The Baltimore Sun
April 29, 2013
Gov. Martin O'Malley Monday announced something that had been widely known in Baltimore at least for the last two weeks: That the Netflix series "House of Cards" was back in town to film its second season. The White House Correspondents Dinner in Washington Saturday night opened with a spoof featuring Kevin Spacey that was filmed on the "House of Cards" set. And crew members have been working for the last two weeks inside the Baltimore Sun building on Calvert Street rebuilding the "House of Cards" newsroom set. But principal photography on the the second season officially started today, according to the Maryland Film Office.
Legal aid benefits all Marylanders
By Erek L. Barron
January 7, 2013
This just in: Maryland civil legal service programs not only benefit the poor but also save the state millions per year. Legal assistance to low-income Marylanders is a significant economic boost to the state and benefits more than just those receiving aid, according to a report just released by the Maryland Judiciary's Access to Justice Commission. Legal services mean a lot more than just helping people without means get access to the courts. For example, these services help low-income residents receive the government benefits to which they are entitled; prevent homelessness by avoiding eviction; and help protect against domestic violence.
Index by Keyword
Index by Date
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Clinical Guide > Common Complaints > Esophageal
January 2011
Esophageal problems in HIV-infected patients include difficulty swallowing (dysphagia) or midline retrosternal pain when swallowing (odynophagia). Pain may be diffuse throughout the esophagus or localized in specific areas.
Several conditions may cause esophageal problems. Of the infectious causes of dysphagia in HIV-infected patients, Candida is the most common (50-70%). Drug-induced dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), vomiting, and hiatal hernia also can cause esophagitis. Less commonly, esophageal cancer or another cause of stricture may produce symptoms. Neuromuscular or neurological causes may be seen in patients with advanced AIDS.
If untreated, esophageal problems may result in esophageal ulcers, scarring of the esophagus, dehydration, and weight loss.
The patient may complain of difficulty swallowing, a feeling of something being "stuck in the throat," retrosternal pain when eating, "hiccups," indigestion ("heartburn"), retrosternal burning, acid reflux, nausea, vomiting, or abdominal pain.
Include the following in the physical examination:
Common causes of esophageal problems are as follows:
Less-common causes of esophageal problems include:
Diagnosis often can be made on clinical grounds; in this case, empiric treatment may be initiated (see below). If the diagnosis is unclear, consider endoscopy or radiographic imaging (e.g., computed tomography or barium swallow).
If the patient has dysphagia, odynophagia, unexplained weight loss, GI bleeding, anemia, or atypical symptoms, refer promptly for GI evaluation and endoscopy, or other evaluation as suggested by symptoms.
Determine whether the patient is able to swallow pills before giving oral medications. If pills are not tolerated, the patient may need liquids or troches.
For patients with severe oral or esophageal pain, viscous lidocaine 1% 5-10 mL 2-4 times daily (with swallowing precautions) or Magic Mouthwash (viscous lidocaine 1%, tetracycline, diphenhydramine, and nystatin compounded 1:1:1:1) may be tried.
Other treatments may depend on the underlying cause:
Esophageal conditions that do not resolve with treatment require referral to a GI specialist for diagnostic endoscopy, with biopsy and brushing for histopathology and cultures as appropriate.
It is important that patients maintain adequate caloric intake, preferably with foods and liquids that can be swallowed easily. Nutritional supplements along with soft, bland, high-protein foods are recommended. Refer to a nutritionist as needed.
Caution: H2 blockers and PPIs interfere with the absorption of atazanavir and several other PIs. For atazanavir, specific dosing strategies are required, and some combinations are contraindicated. See atazanavir package insert for dosage recommendations.


text:
16 Piece Melamine Dinnerware Set, Service for 4
Sturdy melamine construction is impact-resistant and chip-resistant, making it ideal for outdoor entertaining. Also great for kids! Top rack dishwasher safe. Not suitable for microwave use. BPA free. 16 piece dinnerware set, service for four, includes (4) each of melamine: 11 inch dinner plate, 9 inch salad plate, 18 ounce soup cereal bowl, and 18 ounce mug.


text:
Spend Matters Provider Directory
U.S. Lead Sponsors
U.K./Europe Lead Sponsors
U.S. Associate Sponsors
U.K./Europe Associate Sponsors
Lead Sponsors
- Cut Traveling Costs: UberX Gets You to the Chicago Airport for Less than a Taxi
- Beware Ariba's Patent Treasure Chest: An Arsenal of Intellectual Property (Part 1)
- Beware Ariba's Patent Treasure Chest: Sourcing and eProcurement (Part 2)
- Taulia Raises $27 Million, Valuing Company at 15X Trailing Revenue (Roughly)
- Supply Chain Cops (and Robbers): On Conflict Minerals Compliance in Secondary Industries
- "Ariba Doesn't Have Customers, It Has Prisoners"
- Extended Supply Chain Risk: Questions to Ask Suppliers About Their Supplier Management Practices : bitter and twisted said : Why even have 'tier 1' suppliers if you have to do their bloody job for them?...
- Extended Supply Chain Risk: Questions to Ask Suppliers About Their Supplier Management Practices : Mannu Lodha said : Are there automated tools that help with screening the suppliers while onboarding & verification...
- Managing Complexity – A Reevaluation of Energy Procurement Strategy : Ewa Lewandowska said : Great post, it is also important to mention an increasing importance of software which can help whic...
- Cut Traveling Costs: UberX Gets You to the Chicago Airport for Less than a Taxi : Bb said : Right better cars and drivers but uber pays the drivers less than a taxi, in their own cars!? That's...
- The Cost of Presidential Fundraisers in Chicago – When the Math Does Not Add Up : will wheat said : So what are concerned citizens to do? We have the same problem on Seattle and I positied with my cow...
Procurement Research
Our downloadable research explores areas and issues concerning all aspects of procurement.
Please select an interest to view available downloads.
Advanced Technology Analytics & Intelligence Application Strategies & Vendors B2B Networks and Infrastructure Best Practices Category Intelligence - Direct Category Intelligence - Indirect Category Management Commodity Risk Management Contract & Commercial Management Contract Management Customer/Demand Management Dashboards & Scorecards Direct Materials Sourcing eCatalogs Enterprise GRC Finance Collaboration Global Trade How-To Guide Invoicing & Payments Market Analysis Market Landscape Master Data Management P2P Performance Management Premium Research Primers Procurement Metrics and Benchmarking Procurement Organizational Models Procurement Services Procurement Services Landscape Procurement Strategy & Planning Procurement Systems & Architecure Procurement Transformation Procurement Value Contribution Provider Coverage Requisition/PO Management RFx/Auction Savings Tracking Services Procurement & Contingent Labor Sourcing Spend Visibility & Analysis Strategy Supplier Collaboration Supplier Enablement Supplier Information Management Supplier Management Systems Supplier Mananagement Supplier Performance Supplier Risk & Compliance Supply Chain Management Sustanability Talent Management Technology ROI Technology Value Topical Issues Total Cost Management Video Working Capital Management


text:
The Associated Press
ATLANTA — Health officials in Georgia are offering free HIV testing.
Thursday is National HIV Testing Day. The state Department of Public Health is teaming up with its national partner, Greater than AIDS, and health departments around the state to offer the free testing.
Georgians can get free HIV tests at select Walgreens pharmacies, county health departments and other Greater than AIDS partners on Thursday and, in some places, through the weekend.
Health officials say more than 1.1 million people in the U.S. are living with HIV, but 20 percent of them don't know it. Health officials say HIV testing is critical to stopping the spread of the virus. Georgia ranks sixth in the nation for the number of AIDS cases reported through the end of 2009.
Click here to subscribe to The Union-Recorder print edition. http://tinyurl.com/6qdm4oj
Click here to subscribe to The Union-Recorder e-edition. http://unionrecorder.cnhi.newsmemory.com/


text:
The King Philip School Committee approved superintendent Elizabeth Zielinski's recommended budget for the fiscal year 2014 Monday.
The recommendations are a 2.5 percent over a level services budget, which would itself be 8.1 percent higher than 2013's budget.
The entire recommended budget is $28.1 million, which would include the level services budget, be 10.6 percent higher than last year's budget. A level services budget would be $27.5 million.
School committee chair Patrick Francomano said that the committee has no illusions about the probability of the recommendations.
"I think there is certainly the understanding that approval of this budget as presented by the superintendent is for all practical purposes a placeholder," he said. "In the event, that there is a significant improvement in the economic forecasts that we will have the ability to reach the recommendations, but I think that the reality is that we all understand the towns are not in the position to absorb this kind of increase."
The recommendations included an increase in teachers at the high school to allievate class sizes, which are now averaged at 34 students in each classroom that was designed to hold 28.
"What you need to understand the request are not very high in the sky requests, they are practical requests," Zeilinski said. "There's not things that are really outlandish at all."
One of the problems with class size at this point is that there was a 20-percent increase in enrollment a few years ago at the middle school and that is now transferring to the high school.
The board agreed that while they are not expecting many of their requests from the three towns, the trend is starting to show and could really start hurting the students more than anything.
"I do feel like there s an increasing sense of urgency," said committee member Michael Gee. "There's nothing in between that's not level service. We have voted 10-percent increases in the past and come back with 2 to 3-percent."
Francomano agreed, saying that such cutting is not sustainable.
"You can't sustain these kind of cuts over time without significantly impacting the quality of education," he said.


text:
August 1, 2014
PRESTONSBURG, Ky. (WSAZ) – A 52-year-old man has been found dead in his residence and investigators say it appears to be a homicide.
Kentucky State Police say the victim is Timothy Austin of Prestonsburg.
Coroner Greg Nelson tells WSAZ.com says he was called to the residence on Hibiscus Drive just after noon on Tuesday.
State Police and Nelson can't say at this time how or when Austin died.
Autopsy results are pending.
They have also released no other information on the case.
Keep clicking on WSAZ.com for the latest information.


text:
At A Glance: As basic as they come, this pedestal-sized media cabinet still packs the quality and storage space you need to house your media collection. This dual-function DVD cabinet can easily be used as a plant or speaker stand. Works well as a pair for symmetry.
Materials:MDF with Metal Hardware
Dimensions:38.5" h x 16" w x 13.5" dComes with 10 adjustable shelves.
CapacityHolds up to 144 DVDs or 336 CDs.Max Weight Capacity: 100 lbs
Assembly Required?Yes.


text:
Budget Accommodation Europe England London Budget Hotels Blair Victoria & Tudor Inn
Welcome to Blair Victoria offering comfortable budget accommodation in Central London. The hotel is conveniently situated, close to Victoria Underground, Railway and Coach Stations.
British Airways Terminal and Gatwick Express are both at Victoria.
... more
Private Rooms From US$110 Photos Description Map
A preferred London discount Hotel; Blair Victoria offers quality and cheap accommodation in London.
Welcome to Blair Victoria offering comfortable budget accommodation in Central London. The hotel is conveniently situated, close to Victoria Underground, Railway and Coach Stations.
British Airways Terminal and Gatwick Express are both at Victoria. London's top tourist attractions such as Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament are all within walking distance.
While there are several hotels near Victoria Station, few if any match the exquisite hospitality and best value for money as is offered by the Blair Victoria & the Tudor Inn. Its strategic location of being close to the Victoria station London makes it a perfect hotel in Central London for both business and pleasure. Blair Victoria & Tudor Inn eagerly waits to serve you with their best hospitality.
Our friendly and well-trained staff ensures that you are looked after with only the highest level of service. Our rooms are of an excellent standard, spacious and elegant and have balconies. These good values, comfortable and cozy rooms are furnished in a classical style. They have a phone and color satellite TV. The bathrooms are also equipped with all mod cons, as well as a handy hair drier.
We are open all year round and offer the ideal solution for guests who expect quality, practicality, courtesy and good value
60 attractive en suite bedrooms (shower & Toilet)
- All rooms furnished to high standards
- Friendly staff
- Open all year, 24 hours reception
- Tariff includes Continental Breakfast and tax
- Special rates for groups - free accommodation for leader with 20pax + group
- Car parking close by - discounted rates for our residents
By Train: British Railway provides Continental Services connecting with the Cross-Channel Ferries.
By Bus: London Underground and Bus Network provide services throughout the Capital as well as convenient access to all other mainline stations.
Victoria Coach Station: coaches travel to all parts of the British Island and many of the cities of Europe.
By car: M25 - Junction, follow A2 to Central London, through to the A202. At Vauxhall Bridge turn left into Warwick Way, we are No. 78
78-84 Warwick Way
Click here to enlarge map
Have you stayed here? Write a review
* The Customer Satisfaction score is based on a combination of ratings from Travellerspoint and external websites. The score of 70% for this property is based on ratings provided by 12 guests.
Loading ...


text:
Joe Strauss does some reporting on Troy Glaus's rehab. The story brings what I would consider to be good news and disheartening news. To begin with, Glaus will rehab in Phoenix with Keith Coker, who directly supervised his 2004 rehab from shoulder surgery. To put it another way, he is escaping the St. Louis Cardinal National League Baseball Club medical staff.
A few paragraphs down in the piece, Strauss offers us some anonymous projections as to a potential return date for our injured third baseman:
Glaus will remain in Phoenix until he is ready to fully participate in baseball-related activities. He will then return to the team's spring training headquarters when ready to play. Glaus will also likely require an extended rehab assignment with a minor-league affiliate.
Though Glaus did not offer a specific timetable, club sources have indicated it is unlikely he would be activated before June.
Glaus emphasized his shifting rehab should not be construed as an indictment of treatment he has received since entering camp Feb. 17.
"The course of action we took was not as quick as everybody hoped. That was it," Glaus said. "It has nothing to do with an indictment of anybody or any group."
Forgive us, Troy, for we are a fickle fanbase with a long and sordid recent history when it comes to shoulder injuries (ahem, Rolen and Mulder). Essentially, the length of time Glaus is expected to miss has doubled, from one month to two. David Freese, your time is now.
Bernie blogs late last night/early this mornin' that Glaus will be re-evaluated in June and possibly have a four-week rehab stint in the bus leagues. This puts the target return date at the All-Star break. But, Bernie goes beyond that:
Just assume he's done and won't play at all in 2009. Does that sound harsh? Sure it does. But I suggest this so you don't torment yourselves into believing Glaus will be back by a certain date. Brace for the worst, and if Glaus comes back, then it's a nice bonus. Then you can celebrate the good news. But it would be foolish to circle a date on the calendar and expect Glaus to trot out and take his customary spot at 3B on a specific day. How many times will we be fooled by this organization's silly, wildly optimistic injury prognostications? When Glaus had the shoulder surgery, we were assured he'd be ready a couple of weeks into April — if not sooner…and team management was annoyed by any media suggestions to the contrary. Ah, but then the Cardinals told us that Glaus would be return in May. Now the forecast has zoomed right past June; they're talking about Glaus being back by the All-Star Game break. (Read El Diablo's report here.) Please. The Cardinals are going down Mulder Road again, and I for one refuse to follow.
After that less-than-rosy assessment from Bernie, it seems that we all have a much greater rooting interest in St. Louisan David Freese...


text:
Alt+left-arrow to return from a link
Full-text: September 14 2004
Protest zones: "No War for Oil" (October 24 2002)
Criminal No. 3:03-309-22
|United States of America
|Brett A. Bursey,
This matter is before the court on Brett A. Bursey's appeal of his conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1)(ii). That conviction followed a bench trial conducted by United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant whose decision is set forth in an Order and Verdict entered January 6, 2004 (hereinafter "Verdict"). For the reasons set forth below, the conviction is affirmed.
Bursey raises two primary arguments on appeal. Bursey first asserts that the trial judge erred by finding that Bursey was, at the time of his arrest, within a "restricted" area within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1752. This argument has two subparts. First, Bursey argues that the area was not restricted as required by the statute because there was no form of physical demarcation of the boundaries of the restricted area. Second, he argues that the area was not truly "restricted" at the time of his arrest because others were allowed to be in the area.
Bursey also argues that the trial judge erred by finding that Bursey possessed the requisite specific intent to violate the statute. This argument focuses on Bursey's understanding that he could not be prosecuted for state law trespass, the particular crime for which he was initially arrested.
Bursey has also alluded to several constitutional concerns. These concerns are before the court only to the extent they relate to the proper construction to be given the statute under which Bursey was convicted. Bursey does not, however, challenge the Magistrate Judge's finding that there {p.2} was no evidence of selective prosecution. 1 Neither does Bursey challenge the Magistrate Judge's finding that it was reasonable to restrict the area in which Bursey was located at the time of his arrest, making concerns as to the outer boundaries of the area irrelevant. 2 In addition, while some of Bursey's arguments suggest concerns with the placement of what has been described alternately as a "free speech" or a "demonstration" zone, the constitutionality of that zone is not at issue in this appeal. See generally Bl(a)ck Tea Society v. City of Boston {47kb.html, 84kb.pdf}, 2004 WL 1700115 (1st Cir. 2004) {378 F.3d 8} (affirming denial of injunction against substantial but content-neutral limitations on demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention).
Standard of Review
The legal conclusions of the trial judge, including his interpretation of the statute and related regulation are reviewed de novo. E.g., United States v. Williams {41kb.pdf, 41kb.pdf}, 364 F.3d 556, 558 (4th Cir. 2004). Other aspects of the conviction are, by contrast, reviewed under a sufficiency of the evidence standard. United States v. Pasquantino {155kb.pdf}, 336 F.3d 321, 332 (4th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Under this {p.3} standard, the appellate court determines "whether there is substantial evidence in the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to support the conviction." Id. "In determining whether the evidence in the record is substantial," the appellate court examines "whether there is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (also noting that "reversal on grounds of insufficient evidence is confined to cases where the prosecution's failure is clear").
Statement of Facts 3
On October 24, 2003, the President of the United States visited Columbia, South Carolina for a political rally being held in a hanger at the Columbia airport. Verdict at 1-2. See also Record at 1-27. 4 Prior to the President's arrival, the Secret Service defined a "restricted area" around the hanger where the rally would be held. Record 1-13 (testimony of Secret Service Special Agent Cohen). See also Record at 1-51 (Cohen indicating that although there was no written diagram of the area restricted, he and other law enforcement officers involved in planning security walked "every inch of it" during the week before the President's arrival and "it was pretty defined" — also stating that "on the day of the [President's] visit, my police counterpart takes his police assets and posts them based on what we talked about and gives them their verbal instructions").
The restricted area extended approximately 100 yards on either side of the hanger and approximately one-half mile away from the hanger. Record 1-84 (colloquy with court) & 1-100 {p.4} (testimony of Airport Chief of Police Blackmon). See also Record at 1-18 (Cohen). 5 The boundaries of the area were not, however, marked by any physical barriers or signs. Verdict at 6-7.
According to Cohen, the Secret Service agent in charge of securing the site, the restrictions were in effect from 7:30 in the morning until the President's departure. Record 1-27 (Cohen). Vehicles were, however, permitted to traverse the roads though the restricted area until shortly before the President's anticipated noon arrival. Verdict at 3 & 7; Record at 1-22 (Cohen). Pedestrians were, likewise, allowed to pass through the area until shortly before the President's arrival. Id. Record at 1-49 (Cohen stating "the restrictions don't mean people can't pass through [the] restricted area"). Nonetheless, vehicles were not allowed to stop or remain in the area.
Pedestrians were allowed to remain in the area only if they were or appeared to be ticket holders. 6 Verdict at 3 & 7. These individuals were all directed to a line awaiting entry to the hanger. Numerous individuals were present in this line as roughly 7000 tickets had been freely distributed by the rally's sponsor, the Republican Party of South Carolina. Record at 2-44 & 2-49 to 2-50.
Once the President's plane landed and before he arrived at the hanger, the restricted area was "shut down," meaning that it was cleared except for law enforcement and related security personnel, {p.5} all of whom wore lapel pins issued by the Secret Service. Verdict at 3; Record at 1-23 & 1-31 (Cohen). This clearing extended to passing vehicle traffic, traversing pedestrians and presumed ticket holders waiting in line. 7 Record at 1-22 & 1-29 to 1-31 (Cohen). The area was again cleared at the time of the President's departure. Verdict at 3. See also Record at 1-22 to 1-23 (Cohen). 8 See also Verdict at 2 (noting that, following the rally, "the President left the airport by motorcade to attend to other matters in the Columbia area").
Secret Service Agent Cohen testified that the Secret Service considered the presumed ticket holders who were waiting in line to be part of the general public. Record at 1-64 (Cohen). After waiting in line, the ticket holders presented their tickets to the hosting group or Presidential staff and then were screened through a metal detector by the Secret Service before entering the hanger area. Id. & Record at 1-87 (Cohen).
Prior to the time the area was cleared for the President's arrival, Brett Bursey arrived by car. Record 2-207. Bursey came to the event for the purpose of protesting certain of the President's policies. Verdict at 2. He had previously announced these intentions to Major Weaver of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division when he called to inquire regarding any planned "demonstration {p.6} area." 9 Bursey also carried signs which, likewise, signaled his intent. Record at 2-200 & 2-207 to 2-209 (Bursey). Upon arrival, Bursey walked over to a grassy area near the hanger, carrying a number of signs as well as a megaphone. Record 1-120 (Secret Service Agent Abel); 2-207 to 209 (Bursey).
After stopping on one side of a road intersection near the hanger, Bursey was approached by law enforcement officers who advised Bursey that he could not remain where he was because he was in a restricted area. 10 After being provided this information, Bursey crossed the street diagonally to the far corner of the same intersection. Verdict at 4. Law enforcement officers advised Bursey that this side of the intersection was also restricted. Id. One of the two officers, Secret Service Special Agent Abel, advised Bursey that he had several choices: (1) go home; (2) get in line if he had a ticket; (3) go to the designated demonstration area; or (4) suffer the consequences and be arrested. Abel 1-159. See also Record at 1-188 to 1-189 (Abel testifying that she advised Bursey: "If he wanted to demonstrate, he needed to go to the demonstration area. If he wanted to go in the event, he needed to get in line. But he couldn't just hang out in that area."). See also Record at 2-212 to 2-213 (Bursey testimony that Abel was "strident about her insistence that I couldn't be there, I had {p.7} to go to the free speech zone" but also stating that no police officer in the group advised him where that zone was located). 11
Several other individuals joined Bursey after he crossed the intersection. These individuals were also told that they could not remain in the area and would have to go to the demonstration area. 12 Record at 2-61 (Sergeant James Campbell, Airport Police). See also Record at 2-212 to 13 (Bursey to same effect).
At some point after Bursey crossed the intersection to his second location, he pointed out to Agent Abel that there were individuals waiting in line who were closer to the hanger than he was. {p.8} Bursey asked why he could not remain where he was without risking arrest when there were others standing even closer to the hanger. Record 1-173 to 74 (Abel). Abel responded that those individuals had tickets to the rally. Id. 13 Bursey continued his refusal to leave.
Secret Service Agent Abel then contacted the Airport Police and asked that they remove Bursey from the area. Record at 1-183. Airport Police Sergeant Campbell responded and advised Bursey "to leave the area, he was trespassing." Record at 2-62 (Campbell). Bursey, being aware of a prior South Carolina Supreme Court decision dismissing a trespassing charge against a demonstrator on airport property based on the public nature of the property and specific language of the trespass statute, believed that he could not be charged with trespassing. 14 Record at 2-216 to 17 (Bursey).
Bursey continued his refusal to leave and was arrested for "trespass after notice" by Sergeant Campbell of the Airport Police. Record at 2-62. The trespass charges were dismissed when the Airport Police realized that the charge was defective because the property was public property not subject to South Carolina's trespass statute. Record 2-66 (Campbell). 15 Federal charges were brought, over four months after the incident, pursuant to the federal statute under which Bursey was ultimately convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1)(ii). See Information. {p.9}
Bursey testified that he was not aware of the existence of the law under which he was ultimately convicted: for entering or remaining in a federally restricted area. Record at 2-220 (Bursey). He also testified that he was not aware that the area was federally restricted. Id. 16
Bursey was convicted of violation 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1)(ii) which reads as follows:
§ 1752. Temporary residences and offices of the President and others
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons—
(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in
* * *
(ii) any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting,
in violation of the regulations governing ingress or egress thereto[.]
18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1)(ii).
The regulations governing ingress or egress limit access to various categories of individuals, none of which could apply to Bursey. The only possible category to which he could have belonged was that of "invitee" which did not apply because he did not have a ticket. The relevant regulation reads as follows:
§ 408.3 Rules governing access.
(a) For the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1752 (84 Stat. 1891, 96 Stat. 1451), ingress or egress to or from ... any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted areas of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the United States Secret Service is or will be visiting is authorized only for the following persons:
(1) Invitees: Persons invited by or having appointments with the protectee, the protectee's family, or members of the protectee's staff; {p.10}
* * *
(b) Authorized persons must possess and display identification documents issued by or satisfactory to the United States Secret Service.
(c) Unauthorized entry is prohibited.
(d) The term "protectee" as used in this rule includes the President and any other person receiving protection from the United States Secret Service as provided by law.
31 C.F.R. § 408.3 {2002: 3kb.txt, 24kb.pdf; current rule: 3kb.txt, 24kb.pdf}.
Posting or cordoning off of restricted area.
Bursey asserts that the trial court erred in finding that he was in a restricted area at the time of his arrest because the boundaries of the area were not physically marked. This argument presumes that such physical manifestation of the boundaries is required to establish that an area was "posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted" as that phrase is used in the statute.
In arguing for such an interpretation, Bursey rests on two canons of construction. First, he relies on the rule that penal statutes must be strictly construed. See United States v. Eppinette, 365, 367 (4th Cir. 1973). Second, he relies on the canon of ejusdem generis, which is that "where general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words." Washington State Dept. of Social and Health Services v. Guardianship Estate of Danny Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 384 {288kb.pdf} (2003) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Thus, he argues that the "general term 'otherwise restricted' must be construed to embrace only physical indicia similar in nature to 'posted' or 'cordoned off.'" Appellant's opening brief at 8.
This allegation of error fails, even applying these cannons of construction as Bursey argues they should be applied, because the meaning of the terms "posted" and "cordoned" are not nearly so narrow as Bursey suggests. Post, for instance, has numerous definitions encompassing both the posting of physical boundaries or notices and the posting of a sentry or guard including: "to publish, {p.11} announce, or advertise by or as if by use of a placard"; "to forbid (property) to trespassers under penalty of legal prosecution by notices placed along the boundaries"; "the place at which a soldier is stationed"; "a sentry's beat or station"; and "to station in a given place «guards were [post]ed at the doors»." Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary at 909 (10th Ed. 1997) (emphasis added). Cordon, likewise, encompasses both the use of physical barriers and the use of personnel including the following definitions: "a line of troops or of military posts enclosing an area to prevent passage"; "a line of persons or objects around a person or place «a [cordon] of police»"; and "to form a protective or restrictive cordon around — usu[ally] used with off." Id. at 257 (emphasis in original). Thus, Bursey's argument ignores the more basic canon of construction that words in statutes are generally to be given their "ordinary, contemporary, and common meaning." Scott v. United States {69kb.pdf}, 328 F.3d 132, 138-39 (4th Cir. 2003). As explained in Scott:
When interpreting a statute, the goal is always to ascertain and implement the intent of Congress. The first step in this process is to determine whether the statutory language has a plain and unambiguous meaning. If the statute is unambiguous and if the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent, our inquiry ends there.
When examining statutory language, [the courts] generally give words their ordinary, contemporary, and common meaning. The Supreme Court has explained that "[t]he plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined by reference to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole."
Scott {69kb.pdf}, 328 F.3d at 138-39 (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997).
Bursey's argument also fails to recognize that the word "otherwise" suggests, at the least, a different means of accomplishing the same result. "Otherwise" is defined as: "something or anything else: something to the contrary"; "in a different way or manner"; and, simply, as "different." Id. at 823-24. 17 {p.12}
This citation (Id. at 823-24) is, I believe, to Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th Ed. 1997), cited above on this page 11. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines three forms of the word "otherwise," verbatim, respectively, as a pronoun, adverb, adjective. –CJHjr
The purpose of the requirements for cordoning or posting in the statute now at issue is clearly to give notice that one is entering or within a restricted area. See S. Rep. No. 91-1252, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 9 (1970) ("It is anticipated that the Secret Service will make every effort, consistent with Presidential security, to make such restricted areas known to the public (i.e. by posting or cordoning off)." — emphasis added). See also id. at 8 (stating concern that public needs a "rational way of predicting whether one's activities were actually violating the law or not"). 18 In light of this purpose and the context of the statute, the court concludes that the phrase "otherwise restricted" suggests use of a different means to achieve the same purpose of giving notice that one is entering or within a restricted area. See generally Norfolk and Western Ry. Co. v. American Train Dispatchers Ass'n, 499 U.S. 117, 129 (1991) (principle of ejusdem generis "does not control ... when the whole context dictates a different conclusion"); Scott {69kb.pdf}, 328 F.3d at 139 (noting requirement to consider "the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole" — quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997)).
This court concludes that the purpose of the statute and context in which the terms are used support rather than undermine giving the terms, "posted" and "cordoned off," their normal broad meanings. Likewise, these considerations support construing the term "otherwise restricted" to include other means of giving notice that an individual is entering or within a restricted area. {p.13}
While Bursey may not have had notice of the precise limits of the restricted area, the evidence is overwhelming that the location where he insisted on remaining was, in fact, designated as a restricted area and was "posted" or "cordoned off" within the meaning of the statute. 19 It is undisputed that Bursey was personally advised that he was within a restricted area, although he claims some lack of understanding of the purpose of the restrictions or by whom they were imposed. There is also undisputed evidence that Bursey was repeatedly instructed to leave by multiple law enforcement officers and repeatedly refused. Testimony from prosecution witnesses puts these repeated requests as covering a period of over twenty minutes and indicates that Bursey was told that one of the persons giving the instructions was a Secret Service Agent. Thus, the conclusion that Bursey willfully remained within a restricted area is well supported by the evidence.
The evidence also clearly supports the conclusion that, regardless of whether the outer limits of the restricted area were reasonable, it was wholly reasonable to restrict the area where the events at issue occurred. There is, moreover, only minimal evidence that Bursey made any effort to move in the direction of the outer boundaries (that being his minimal movement across the intersection from his initial stopping point), and no evidence (at least none that the trial court was required to accept), that Bursey made any genuine effort to remove himself from the restricted area. 20 Under {p.14} these circumstances, Bursey cannot argue that the restricted area was not properly designated as required by the statute under which he was convicted or was somehow excessive in scope. 21 It is, in this regard, significant that Bursey was convicted not of improperly entering the restricted area, but of remaining within it. Verdict at 4 (finding "beyond a reasonable doubt that [Bursey] knowingly remained in this restricted area" — emphasis added). 22
Level of Restriction.
Bursey's second argument is that, even the area was "restricted" in some sense, it was not adequately restricted at the time he was told to leave because others were allowed to traverse the area. Ticket holders (or persons presumed to be ticket holders) were, as Bursey suggests, allowed to remain in the restricted area, at least up until shortly before the President's arrival. Likewise, vehicles were allowed to traverse the area during this time. {p.15}
The evidence, however, is virtually undisputed that the presumed ticket holders were directed to a particular area (along a fence) to wait in line. Record at 1-18 to 1-20 (Cohen). 23 Indeed, it was Bursey's failure to move to the ticket holder line that first drew attention to him. 24 Thus, while not "shut down" at the time Bursey was first approached, the area was clearly subject to restrictions, that is, to limitations and controls. As the Magistrate Judge noted, the evidence shows that Bursey was the only person who insisted on ignoring these restrictions after being advised of them. See Verdict at 11 (unchallenged finding that there was "no evidence to show that any other person, either supporting the President or opposing his policies, entered and remained in the restricted area with no ticket and no intention of attending the rally, and then refused to leave the restricted area when so instructed").
There is nothing in the statute to suggest that the Secret Service can only control an area through an absolute prohibition on entry. Such an argument equates "restricted" with "shut down" which is not only contrary to the flexibility suggested by the statute but defies common sense as it would require the Secret Service to impose draconian measures (such as closing off all traffic along this route to the airport for an extended period of time) in order to provide any protection within a given area. See Verdict at 7 ("Both foot and vehicular traffic by necessity had to travel through this area for people to come to the event, and it was also necessary to keep the area open for travel to and {p.16} from the airport itself."). In any case, the need for an interim period in which access to an area is controlled and limited is imminently logical. 25 Bursey's reliance on this argument also ignores the evidence that, at the time of his arrest, the area had, in fact, been shut down. 26
Specific intent.
Bursey's final argument is that he lacked the required specific intent to violate the statute because he did not know that his conduct was unlawful. In this regard, he argues that the oral {p.17} warnings and directions he was given were vague and "insufficient to supply the knowledge that his conduct was unlawful." Appellant's opening brief at 16. This argument ignores significant trial testimony some of which is set forth in Bursey's statement of facts. Additional factual support for the conclusion that Bursey "willfully and knowingly ... remain[ed] in [a] posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area ...where the President [would] be temporarily visiting" is set forth below.
First, it is beyond dispute that Bursey was aware the President was visiting the area. This was, in fact, his reason for being present as he intended to protest the President's policies. See, e.g., Record at 1-123 (Abel testimony that when first approached Bursey stated that he was there to "demonstrate" or to "exercise his freedom of speech" or words to that effect). It is also beyond dispute that Bursey was repeatedly-advised that "he was in a secure or restricted area and that he would need to leave." Record at 1-198 (Baker). See also Record at 1-124 (Abel-stating that she "explained to him that this was a restricted area, and that he could not stay there").
While Bursey denied being advised that Abel was a Secret Service Agent, she testified that she did so inform him. Record at 1-123. To the extent such knowledge may be required, Bursey's own testimony confirms that he understood the restrictions would be established by the Secret Service. 27 {p.18}
Abel also testified that she advised Bursey of the designated demonstration area and advised him where it was located. Id. According to Abel, Bursey responded that he was aware of the demonstration area's location, that it was too far away to be effective, and that he did not want to go there. Record at 1-124. See also Record at 1-126 (Abel indicating that when others arrived to join Bursey she "explained the same thing to them about the demonstration area"); Record at 1-203 (Baker-same). Also according to Abel, Bursey never indicated a desire to go to the demonstration area through their long encounter, even when the others who joined him left, but instead indicated a preference for being arrested. 28
Bursey's own testimony also supports the conclusion that he did not misunderstand the nature of the restrictions but took a calculated risk in challenging them, as he had successfully done in prior situations. 29 Indeed, Bursey's counsel argued at trial that his defense was that he believed the {p.19} government was merely bluffing and that he had a right to rely on that belief due to these prior encounters:
The Court: [A]re you telling me his defense is that he didn't think that he was knowingly in a restricted area and would be arrested if he didn't leave because he had been told that before and hadn't been arrested, so he had a right not to believe them when they told him that this time?
Mr. Pitts: That's exactly right, Judge. Because that's the bluff that they do. That's their bluff that's been occurring....
Record at 2-184.
Ultimately, Agent Abel requested that an airport police officer be summoned to remove Bursey when he would not leave voluntarily. 30 The airport police officer arrived and was advised by Abel that the area was now completely shut down and that Bursey refused to leave. Record at 1-131. The airport police officer, Campbell, advised Bursey that he was going to be arrested and did, in fact, arrest him on a charge of "trespass after notice." Record at 1-132 (Abel). 31
The trial court found that Bursey
both willfully and knowingly remained in th[e] restricted area after he had been instructed to leave. The testimony and evidence shows that the Defendant was {p.20} initially in a grassy area near the sidewalk located right next to the hanger and right next to the area where the President's motorcade would pull up.... When the Defendant was advised that he could not remain in that location, he proceeded to cross Airport Boulevard diagonally to the far corner of the intersection across from the hanger. ... The evidence ... establishes that the Defendant was again advised that he could not remain in that location and would have to leave the area, and that he refused to do so.
Verdict at 4. In light of the above evidence, this court concludes that there was more than sufficient evidence to support these conclusions and to establish that Bursey had the requisite specific intent to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1)(ii).
For the reasons set forth above, this court finds no error and affirms Appellant's conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1)(ii).
It is so ordered.
Cameron McGowan Currie
United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
September 13, 2004
(Rev. 8/82)
Criminal No. 3:03cr0309 (01)
|United States of America
|Brett A. Bursey
Appeal from Magistrate Judge Decision
Decision by Court. This action came to hearing before the Court, The Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie, United States District Judge, presiding. In accordance with the written opinion of this Court filed September 14, 2004, the Court affirms the Magistrate Judge's decision as set forth in an Order and Verdict entered January 6, 2004.
It is so ordered and adjudged that the conviction of the defendant, Brett A. Bursey, entered on January 6, 2004 is affirmed.
Larry W. Propes, Clerk
{Rebecca A. Willis}
Deputy Clerk
Columbia, South Carolina
September 14, 2004
Each footnote appears entirely on the same page with its text reference, except where an embedded page number marks a carryover to the foot of the next page (n.17, n.20). –CJHjr
1 The Magistrate Judge found that the evidence did not "support Defendant's claim that the only reason he was charged ... was because he was protesting against the President." In reaching this conclusion, the Magistrate Judge observed that there "was no evidence ... that any other persons, either supporting the President or opposing him, were allowed to remain in the area around the hanger for the purpose of demonstrating, pro or con, upon the President's arrival." Verdict at 6. See also Verdict at 11 (finding "no evidence ... that any other person, either supporting the President or opposing his policies, entered and remained in the restricted area with no ticket and no intention of attending the rally, and then refused to leave the restricted area when so instructed" — emphasis in original).
2 The Magistrate Judge found that, at the time Bursey was first advised that he was in a restricted area and would have to leave, Bursey was "literally within a few yards from where the President's automobile would be parked." Verdict at 4. The Magistrate Judge also found that while Bursey moved from his initial stopping place after being told he would have to leave the area, he only moved diagonally across the intersection. Id. Thus, Bursey "remained in close proximity to the hanger, as well as being on the corner of the intersection where the President's automobile would have to exit the parking lot and make a slow u-turn." Id. The Magistrate Judge also found that Bursey was "again advised that he could not remain in that location and would have to leave the area, and that he refused to do so." Id.
3 This statement of facts is taken predominantly from Bursey's opening brief which states that the facts are as "found by the trial court, testimony of government witnesses, or uncontroverted testimony of defense witnesses in the record." Appellant's opening brief n.1. Additional citations to supporting portions of the record beyond those cited by Bursey are indicated by "see also" cites. Other evidence before the trial court which differs from or extends beyond the facts as recited by Bursey is addressed in footnotes to this section or in later sections of this opinion.
4 References to the trial transcript are set forth by volume and page number, e.g. "Record 1-27."
5 Secret Service Agent Cohen described the restricted area as follows: "The restricted area went from along Airport Boulevard up to the next intersection ... about 100 yards up Lexington Avenue ..., basically to the mouth of the [college] parking lot entrance ... [continuing] down Airport Boulevard all the way to 302, which was the motorcade route, primary and emergency." Record at 1-18.
6 At one point, Cohen testified that tickets were checked when individuals came into the area as well as when they reached the metal detectors. Record at 1-63 to 64 (indicating uncertainty as to the precise location where they were first checked, although it was "in the vicinity of Airport Boulevard and Lexington"). This checking was not, however, done by law enforcement. Record at 1-66. Other testimony, including from Cohen, suggests that any ticket checking was random or consisted only of asking individuals if they had tickets. The Magistrate Judge made no specific finding as to this point. For purposes of this order, therefore, the court assumes that persons in line were merely presumed ticket holders and, therefore, not necessarily "invitees" within the meaning of the relevant regulations. See infra Discussion.
7 Rather than actually being removed from the area, the individuals who were still waiting in line were moved around the opposite side of the building to where they would not have line of sight of the President's arrival.
8 Secret Service Agent Cohen testified that, up until shortly before the President's arrival, security allowed vehicles to "pass through" but not to stay in the area. However, "right when the President is about to arrive, we shut down all access, even to Airport Boulevard, in this case, to all traffic and all foot traffic." This applied also to individuals with tickets because they were "in our secure or restricted area, but they [were] not screened until they c[a]me to the building." Record at 1-22. The area would be shut down for two reasons. First, "it was [the] emergency egress upon arrival, and [the] primary egress ... for the motorcade route when we departed. And also it was in close proximity to the arrival area, close enough that someone standing there that was unscreened could cause harm." Record at 1-23.
9 There is some dispute in the record as to what occurred in the conversation. Bursey testified that he called Weaver and was told that someone would get back with him but that no one ever did. Bursey conceded that he did not follow up to determine where the "demonstration area" was located. Record at 2-234-35 (indicating that Bursey did not follow up because he expected someone from SLED to get back with him). Lieutenant Baker testified that she understood that Bursey was told to call her but that he did not. Record at 1-235 (this testimony was brought out on cross examination and no challenge was made to its foundation). For purposes of this appeal, the dispute is of no significance beyond showing that law enforcement was aware that Bursey planned to demonstrate and that Bursey was aware that access to areas around the hanger would be restricted.
10 The recitation of facts in Appellant Bursey's brief is quite limited on the communications which occurred at this point. Testimony regarding the encounter was, however, extensive and revealed a sharp dispute between Appellant and the government witnesses as to what Bursey was told and as to what comments he made to law enforcement. See infra at Discussion, Specific Intent (discussing testimony of Abel and Baker).
11 When asked if he was saying that there was "no one out there that day [who] could direct you to where ... the designated area was," Bursey gave the following qualified response:
"I think the record reflects that there were multiple places, multiple sets of directions and confusion. And the answer to your question is, yes, I don't believe there was anyone out there that could have competently directed me to an area in which I could have expressed my free speech adequately."
Record at 2-243 (emphasis added). He also testified that "no police officer gave me that instruction." Record at 2-244 (the query was, however, limited in this manner — emphasis added). Other defense witnesses present during the latter part of Bursey's encounter with law enforcement also denied being advised where the demonstration area was located. E.g., Record at 2-154 (Sanders); Record at 2-141 (Rogers). By contrast, both Abel and Baker testified that they directed Bursey to the demonstration area. Record at 1-123 & 1-198 (Abel) & 1-204 (Baker).
12 The demonstration area was established by local law enforcement personnel at Airport Boulevard and 302. Record at 1-25 to 26. According to Cohen's description of the restricted area, this would either be within or at the very edge of the restricted area and along the President's motorcade route. While established by local authorities, the demonstration area was subject to Secret Service approval. Record at 1-25 (Cohen stating "we discussed it with the police and they had told us that this would be the designated demonstration area and asked us if it was a problem for us being there, and we said no"). Bursey, however, testified that none of the law enforcement officers at the site told him where the demonstration site was located and further indicated that he was not aware of the location. Record at 2-213. Nonetheless, he indicated that he gave signs to a fellow demonstrator when she left so that she "could take them to the free speech zone." Id. Thus, he does not suggest that he could not have determined the location which was, in fact, only a short distance away. Moreover, the officers on the scene testified that Bursey indicated that they told him where the demonstration area was located but Bursey told them "he did not want to go there." Record at 1-123 (Abel) & 1-204 (Baker).
13 While not discussed in Bursey's recitation of the facts, there is substantial evidence that the area was cleared even of the presumed ticket holders prior to the time of Bursey's arrest. See, e.g., Record at 1-174 (Abel noting that even the individuals with tickets were required to move once the area was "shut down"); Record at 1-29 to 1-30 (Cohen discussing measures taken to keep even ticket holders out of the area where they would have a line of sight to the President's arrival when it appeared the President might arrive before all of the ticket holders could be cleared through the metal detector and moved into the hanger).
14 The case to which Bursey refers is apparently State v. Hanapole, 178 S.E.2d 247 (S.C. 1970).
15 The decisions to effect Bursey's removal through his arrest and to charge him with trespass were made by the Airport Police, not the Secret Service. Record at 1-131 to 1-132 (Abel) & 2-63 (Campbell).
16 Bursey's claim of ignorance contrasts with his own testimony regarding his extensive prior dealings with the Secret Service and local law enforcement at similar events. See infra Discussion, Specific Intent (discussing additional testimony).
17 The case of United States v. Headspeth, 852 F.2d 753 (4th Cir. 1988), on which Appellant relies, requires no contrary result. Indeed, the case has been overruled in part, although arguably not as to the precise point for which Appellant cites it in this appeal: the narrow construction of the term {p.12} "otherwise" in defining crimes which might support sentencing-enhancement. See Taylor v. U.S., 495 U.S. 575, 579-584 (1990) (resolving split in the circuits regarding proper construction of sentencing statute's reference to meaning of "burglary").
18 In this case, for instance, had Bursey been arrested upon entry to the area and prior to personal warning, he might well be able to argue that his arrest (and conviction) was improper. The relevant argument, however, would go to the combined effect of the need for some form of demarcation (physical or through personnel) and the requirement that any violation of the restricted area be "willful."
19 Although the large restricted area was not marked by physical barriers, security officers were posted on the perimeter and as rovers within the restricted area. Record at 1-27 (Cohen stating that beginning roughly five hours before the President's arrival "we posted the perimeter with the police and the secure area with our agents as well"); Record at 1-43 to 44 (Cohen indicating that they sometimes use bike racks and sometimes "have people standing there to demark your area" and, in this case, used bike racks only in one area on the tarmac side of the hanger). Secret Service Agent Cohen testified that an individual would be able to determine where the restricted area was because they "put the police and the agents out." Record at 1-19 to 20 (also indicating that an officer or agent would have been posted at the end of each of the areas described).
20 See generally Verdict at 7-8 ("the issue ... is not whether the outer boundaries of this restricted area were unreasonable. The Defendant was not at the outer boundaries, or even close to those boundaries") & Verdict at 9 ("This is not to say that the Secret Service's power to restrict the area around the President is absolute. Nor are protestors required to go to designated demonstration {p.14} areas, as long as they do not otherwise remain in a properly restricted area. ... Hence, if the Defendant had chosen to keep moving further and further away from the hanger, and if he had still been arrested, not at the location where he was, but at a much further distance from the hanger, he would have had a stronger case that the Government's actions were unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. Again, however, that is not what happened in this case. The Defendant effectively sealed his own fate when he chose to make his principled stand in a location manifestly reasonable for the Secret Service to secure.")
21 In light of these conclusions, the court does not reach the question of whether the Secret Service may refuse to provide notice of the outer boundaries of an area on request. This question raises competing concerns relating to security (given testimony that providing notice of the boundaries may raise security concerns) and the rights of individuals to traverse or remain in any area which is not restricted.
22 On reply, Bursey argues that the oral notice he was given that he was in a restricted area was inadequate because he was not "told that the area had been designated a restricted area by the United States Secret Service." Reply at 2. This argument assumes a requirement of notice that is not suggested by the statutory language. In any case, Bursey was neither unaware of the reason for the restriction (protection of the President) nor of the active involvement of the Secret Service in enforcing the restrictions. See infra Discussion, Specific Intent (discussing Bursey's significant prior actions relating to such restricted areas).
23 The security forces on site assumed that individuals arriving in the area were coming to the event unless there was something unusual to alert them to the contrary such as the individuals not getting in line or indicating they did not have a ticket. Record at 1-21.
24 Agent Abel first noticed Bursey standing near the intersection of Lexington and Airport Boulevard, within the restricted area. Record at 1-120. Bursey had "a bunch of signs underneath his arm" as well as "a megaphone in the other hand" and was "standing by himself." Record at 1-120 to 1-121. Other individuals within the area were either in line or walking down Lexington Avenue. Record at 1-121. Bursey appeared "out of place" because other "people were not congregating in that area, they were only there to cross that intersection and get in line." Record at 1-122.
25 Bursey has not challenged the trial court's conclusion, which with this court, in any case, agrees, that the possibility that Bursey could have been screened where he stood does not require the Secret Service to accommodate his preferences. As the trial court noted:
The Defendant is not an island, with rights unto himself not shared by others. If the Defendant had a constitutional right to stand in that location, and the Secret Service did not have the power and authority to require him to move, then the Service similarly would not have had the power and authority to move other citizens who also wanted to stay in that location.
Verdict at 9, n.2. This rationale, of course, applies to the whole of the restricted area. That is, if the Secret Service could not restrict non-invitees (and invitees for that matter) from remaining in this part of the restricted area, they could not restrict them from any other part of the restricted area.
26 At the point Able sought out a local law enforcement officer to remove Bursey due to his repeated refusals, the area was "restricted to everybody except law enforcement." Record at 1-126. See also Record at 1-131 (Abel testimony that she advised Sergeant Campbell that Bursey "was in a restricted area and now it had been completely shut down") & Record at 1-205 to 1-206 (Baker testimony that, at the time of the arrest, "the [ticket holders] had actually been moved out of the area" and that they had been moved so "they did not have a line of sight"); Record at 1-207 (Baker testimony that President arrived within two to ten minutes after Bursey's arrest); Record at 1-255 (Baker) explaining that line was cut and moved out of the line of sight because "[w]hen the President is coming in ... you can't have anybody ... where they can see him. It's a security issue, it's for his protection.") Once the area was restricted to this level and prior to his arrest, Abel testified that she told Bursey:
Look around you, there is nobody else here. ... Don't you understand, it's completely closed off now. ... I don't care if you are a little girl with a bunch of flowers to give the President, I would make you leave, because at this point this entire area is closed except for Secret Service and law enforcement.
Record at 1-128.
27 Bursey testified that he was aware that the Secret Service was responsible for establishing restricted areas for such events. Indeed, he stated a personal view that the Secret Service influenced or required the placement of demonstration areas at inconvenient or ineffective locations and generally preempted local law enforcement in regard to the restricted areas. Record at 2-202 (Bursey explaining, as to two prior events, that "local police told me that the Secret Service had basically preempted the security arrangements and that they had established free speech zones for us to go to."); Record at 2-235 (Bursey explaining his failure to follow up with SLED by stating: "I had more reason than not to believe that at that event, October, when the President came to town, that the circumstances would be similar to his prior visits, where it doesn't matter what you discuss with the local police or the state police, the Secret Service comes in and preempts it. ... I didn't see any need or that it would be productive to discuss the issue with local police once the Secret Service had preempted control of the event.").
28 At the point the other individuals arrived, Abel had been conversing with Bursey for ten to fifteen minutes. Record at 1-127 (Abel); Record at 1-199 (Baker testimony re extended exchange). After being advised that they would have to leave or be arrested, the other individuals made some calls on cell phones, not giving their answer right away, while Bursey gave the immediate response: "Arrest me." Record at 1-129 (Abel). After about five minutes, the other individuals departed but Bursey remained. Record at 1-130 (Abel); Record at 1-203 (Baker). A member of local law enforcement (other than Baker) was also present by this time telling Bursey the same things. Record at 1-130 to 31 (Abel).
29 Bursey testified that he had achieved at least some prior successes in having the demonstration areas moved either by protesting the location after arriving at the site or by simply refusing to move. Record at 2-226 (discussing event in Charleston in which he was threatened with arrest for refusing to leave a restricted area "[a]nd the arguments went back and forth to a point that we had ... probably 40 or 50 people there. And the police decided that they would move the free speech zone."); Record 2-227 (indicating that as a result of these prior encounters "I thought that calmer rational minds would prevail and that I could work something out with the local authorities to allow us to be somewhere we felt was an effective venue for our expressing our freedom of speech"); Record 2-212 (Bursey indicating that during the encounter with Baker and Abel "I was reflecting on the fact that we had just been through similar scenarios in two different cities where they told us the same thing, and that we basically found a place that we felt was out of the way to accommodate their concerns and ours, and they left us there."). As to the date in question he testified: "I had every reason to believe I would not be arrested based on the past conduct of the Secret Service and local police during President Bush's visits." Record at 2-215.
30 Abel explained the decision to have the local officer make the arrest as follows:
That's just something that we usually do. It facilitates the whole process if a local law enforcement handles it as opposed to us. It's their jurisdiction. That way if the locals are handling the arrest, then we won't be coming to South Carolina to testify and fill out paperwork.
Record at 1-132.
31 Bursey also testified to a remark by Sergeant Campbell that, if accepted as true by the trial court, would have raised serious concerns about the reason for the arrest. That is, Bursey testified that Sergeant Campbell indicated the reason for the arrest was the content of his sign. Record at 2-250. There is, however, no evidence that any of the other law enforcement officers present either made statements or took action which suggested such a motivation.
Source: Photocopy of a duplicate original (the court's file copy), scanned to pdf.
By CJHjr: Converted to text (OCR: FineReader 7.0), formatted (xhtml/css), links, text {in braces}, highlighting, added paragraphing (for ease of reading) marked with this trailing paragraph symbol: ¶ .
See also "Other Secret Service protest zone cases" on the docket-sheet page. Brett Bursey
Commentary: Jonathan M. Katz, "Thou Dost Protest Too Much: An old law turns protesters into threats against the president." (Slate, Sept. 21 2004). "[H]undreds of protesters are being rounded up at presidential visits all over the country, making Bursey the 56-year-old canary in a demonstrators' coal mine."
Commentary: G. Jeffrey MacDonald, "A close eye — and tight grip — on campaign protesters" (Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 27 2004). "President Bush was about to arrive at a rally. A couple wearing T-shirts with anti-Bush slogans were sitting just feet from the stage. Charleston, W. Va., police working with the US Secret Service had a quick decision to make.
What ensued that July 4 was either a prudent choice in high-risk times or a blatant violation of free-speech rights. Police arrested the two for wearing the T-shirts and refusing to relocate to an area for protesters."
Rank v. Jenkins: Jeffery Rank and Nicole Rank v. Gregory J. Jenkins (Deputy Assistant to the President of the United States and Director of the White House Office of Presidential Advance), W. Ralph Basham (Director of the United States Secret Service}, and John Does 1-2 and 3-4, filed Sept. 14 2004 (S.D.W.Va., No. 04-CV-997). See also American Civil Liberties Union (New York City), "Secret Service and White House Charged with Violating Free Speech Rights in ACLU Lawsuit" (September 14 2004). –CJHjr
This document is not copyrighted and may be freely copied.
Charles Judson Harwood Jr.
Posted Sept. 22 2004. Updated Nov. 1 2008.
Visitors (all pages, from Feb. 10 2008):


text:
Yesterday, probably yesterday, who knows with exams being the way they are, a few people expressed some interest in reading my fiction. What follows is an excerpt, the prologue from my novel Enchanted Forest, INC. It is Terry Pratchett-esque fantasy/humor/adventure/snark. There comes a point when a yipping dog has to be put outside or locked in …
Tag Archive: Writing
May 09 2013
Enchanted Forest, INC. – Novel Excerpt
Sep 05 2012
New Co-Blogger: Kate Donovan
Exciting news! Kate Donovan, known for her writing at Teen Skepchick, Friendly Atheist, and other places, is going to be joining me here as my co-blogger. JT Eberhard accidentally announced this early, so I'm going to post it without her official blurb or anything because I AM NOT PATIENT. I've been somewhat slack on keeping …
May 02 2011
Interview with "Supernumerary" Producer Alexandra Creswick
Supernumerary, a film that showed recently at the Newport Beach Festival and garnered a great review on TFD News, is a 26 minute long short that was produced by an old friend of mine from High School, Alexandra Creswick. Though I call her Alex, but IMDB tells me it's Alexandra… 1. A brief description of …
Dec 29 2010
Eddie Kritzer: Holiday Edition, ad nauseum
Man, it's gotten to the point where I don't even understand what he's trying to say anymore. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/23/nation/la-na-blogger-suits-20100823 Dearest Ashley, Action's bring consequences, you dont live in a vacum, and I gave you some good advise. You put yourself in this position, and I looked at imdBPro.com and saw no (added) credits for you You're …
Dec 28 2010
Eddie Kritzer: Holiday Edition: Operation Gross Out, ctd
I should note that the reason I post all of this is to A) keep a record and B) warn others off ever getting in touch with this guy. I have noticed that the majority of his written abuse has been directed at women, and it's almost always sexual in nature. I'm not sure why …
Dec 27 2010
Eddie Kritzer: Holiday Edition, ctd
No update on the Kritz would be complete without a creepy email littered with bad grammar from the jerk himself. Dearest Ashley, I haven't heard from you in so long I was concerned that you lost your job editing, but then i checked IMDbPro.com http://imdb.com/name/nm1736719/ and saw you had no credits at all. Not surprising; …
Dec 13 2010
Dearth of Posting
I do try to update this regularly, and even with quality content when I can manage it. I've just started a new job and I had to work today, which is Sunday, for about 8 hours. And I have to get up early, which means I can't stay up late, which is when I do …
Nov 23 2010
I did it! I'm a Winner!
Finished: 50137 words 12 chapters 252 pages 73% of the way through the month 100% of the way through the word count 0 words to 50k Remaining to finish novel: ~41398 words 10 chapters ~205 pages 55% Complete to estimated length Projected finish date: Dec 10


text:
|Monday, 07 February 2011 04:48
Yearly membership is an incredible value at just $20 per year for the entire family. When you consider all the benefits of membership and discounts from participating local merchants, you will wonder why you aren't yet a member! Click on the link below to print your form and get your membership for only $20!
Membership has its priveledges! What a year we have planned for 2011! You won't want to miss all the exciting activities including the Poker Ride, Group Camping (2 this year), Vet Clinics, Christmas Party, and much more! Join now and get your membership for 2011 for just $20 and start saving money at local merchants right away.
Click on the membership form link below, fill it out and mail it to the address on the form. We look forward to a great year and hope you join us! See you on the trails...
|Last Updated on Monday, 08 April 2013 18:07


text:
In the HUB:
- All postings (i.e.: advertisements, for sale/rent notices, posters, etc) must be stamped, dated, and approved by a professional staff member within the Administrative Offices of the Hartman Union.
- Guidelines include: postings should be free of obscenities, racist/sexist language, and should not promote alcohol consumption.
- A maximum of five (5) postings may be displayed for up to two (2) weeks from the date they are initially approved. All postings will be removed after the two week "stale date" or after the event, whichever comes first.
- Postings may be placed only on approved bulletin boards. These bulletin boards are designated as "general campus events" boards. Bulletin boards located above the mail suites are also for general postings, unless otherwise noted.
- Postings placed in unapproved locations will be removed.
- Postings not properly approved will be removed.
- No postings are permitted on exteriors, windows or doors of the Hartman Union Building.
Other Campus Buildings:
- Post on approved departmental/building bulletin boards and/or approved areas. For specific locations, check with individual office departments or see the section for "Posting On Campus."


text:
'A beautiful and entertaining play gym; my baby girl loves it! When I lay her down in the gym she squeals ...'
Very busy mum - London
'This toy has so many different colours, shapes and te'
Gem - Glasgow
'A good product.'
Andrew Thornalley - Norfolk
'fast delivery as always'
marta - london
'Lovely features that are interesting for babies hands'
Benita - Cornwall
'My little boy is 5 months old and can't quite sit up unaided yet but I help him sit up when he plays with...'
TracyB - Stoke-On-Trent
'I bought this for my daughters 1st birthday and she loves it. She is now racing around and will hopefully...'
Emma - Stevenage, Hertfordshire
'I was disappointed in the 'lack' of features initially. There is a mirror and four buttons to press: left...'
Happy mummy - Wales
'Suitable from 3 Months+'
Kiddicare Staff Expert - Peterborough, Cambs
'Lovely product sturdy construction wish id bought one of these to begin with! Love it'
Katieloughnane - Chester
'Purchased this after my 8mth old played with it at a friends. The raised back means she can push the...'
p - notts
'Fantastic product both my youngest daughters have loved this and my youngest plays on it every day she...'
Stace - County Durham
'Wanted a walker for my daughter and saw this. I like it because even when she doesn't need it for support...'
Mum of 2 - Lincolnshire, UK
'love this its cute and my grandaughter loves it'
foxylady - berkshire
'This interactive toy features printed fabrics based on original Eric Carle art and an exclusive Very...'
Kiddicare Staff Expert - Peterborough
'My 8 month old loves this, she has started to pull herself up and loves to stand at the table and play for...'
Claire - Chepstow
'The Very Hungry Caterpillar Buggy Buddy is great for keeping your little one amused when out and about...'
Kiddicare Staff Expert - Peterborough
'My 18 week old daughter loves this toy; she can touch the sea creatures when she is lying on her playmat...'
Belleboo - Portmahomack
'Very bright and great fun! My son loves this'
Mumofmany - East Midlands
'my baby just loves to stare at the diffe'
mumofone - Essex
'My 2 month old baby loves this product, and really enjoys interacting with the toys and playing the music...'
Kiki - Fife
'This ball is super. It is exactly the right size and very bright and entertaining. My five and a half...'
dianata - Essex
'Great book for young baby, my daughter loves to try and get page to squeek. Great price'
AJ - Glasgow
'Great product, well worth the money. Dropped and banged together by my 5month old plenty of times and no...'
The Dyers - Saddleworth
'Lots of fun, my two boys love it. Good sturdy product. Great value too.'
lucyalana - Rotherham
'great toy at a bargain price'
Daddy - Suffolk
'This product is for use on a highchair table to keep babies amused while feeding. It has a lot of...'
SRJ - Bedfordshir
'Keeps my 6month old amused- great to watch her try'
Laura - Glasgow


text:
Although the United States' economic woes remain the most commonly discussed since the great collapse of 2008, the U.S. Is far from the only country experiencing tough times. Here we take a look at how the U.S. stacks up against many other countries in a variety of different debt-related categories, as well as how the debt was accumulated in the first place. Some of the results may surprise you.
Click to Enlarge


text:
Update 8:51p
Unofficial results in Treasurer's Race: Hersam wins defeating challenger Corbet; 1478 - 1430.
Update 8:30pm
With just the absentee results available: Hersam leads Corbet, 65 - 54.
Absentee votes total: 125.
Update 4:45pm
As of 4pm, the number of votes cast in New Canaan stood at 1,831.
George Cody, the Democratic Town Registrar, said that while voter turnout is still light, he does expect it to pick-up this evening. He also said that the process is going smoothly.
When asked what brought them out to vote today, New Canaan residents entering and leaving the NCHS and Saxe poll locations said: they were doing their "civic duty," it's "the right thing to do," and "I always vote."
One voter said she found the Treasurer's race, "very interesting," and that she might not have voted this year were it not for that contest.
Original Story
As of noon, 959 New Canaan voters had cast their ballots in this year's election.
A slate of candidates that was largely determined at the party caucuses might explain low voter turnout on this sunny fall morning at the polls.
, who is running unopposed for First Selectman, said he had been greeting voters at the polls since 7:30am. Noting the large turnout at the he said, "I think people figure they voted in July."
, is the contest between , the Democratic challenger and Republican incumbent Treasurer . Corbet was on-hand outside NCHS to greet voters this morning as well. Hersam who has held the position since 1965 has rarely faced an opponent.
, , when asked what she thought about the outcome of the Treasurer's race said, "This is just a hard one to read."
About who might benefit from low turnout, she said it was tough to say. Apy said that her Committee members had worked over the last week to encourage voters to participate. Using high and low-tech methods, they have sent emails, made phone calls and knocked on doors. She said she was encouraged by the voter response to their solicitations.
Polls will be open until 8pm tonight. Districts 1 and 2 vote at the high school with District 3 at Saxe Middle School.