text:
US v. Pfc. Manning is being conducted in de facto secrecy. For more information on the lack of public and press access to United States v. Pfc. Manning, visit the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed a petition requesting the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) "to order the Judge to grant the public and press access to the government's motion papers, the court's own orders, and transcripts of proceedings, none of which have been made public to date."
The Military District of Washington (MDW) would not allow media and legal observers covering the July 17, 2012 Article 39(a) Session in US v Pfc. Manning to use computers during the legal proceedings. This transcript was taken by hand from the public gallery of the Court room at Fort Meade, Maryland. It, therefore, may contain omissions or errors.
Judge: Army Col. Denise Lind
Prosecution: Major Ashden Fein, Captain Joe Morrow, Captain Angel Overgaard, Captain Hunter Whyte
Defense: Mr. David Coombs, Captain Joshua Tooman, Major Thomas Hurley
Prosecution has two soldiers - one of then is CWO2 Parra, the legal administrator - seated in the first row, behind the Government prosecution. At their feet are several 32 Liter clear plastic boxes containing manilla folders: Article 19, 1030xx, etc.
Judge Lind
Please be seated. This article 39(a) Session has been called to order...
Prosecution (Fein)
...all parties present... Staff Sergeant Hadaway (sp.) [acting as Court Reporter] is present.
The next portion concerns the Court's ruling on the Government motion to amend the protective order that was argued in open Court yesterday, July 16, 2012.
...Government provided Court with an order with a Government motion for a protective order...
...Defense proposed filing publicly...Article 39(a) Session...proposed filings... related to MRE 505(h) [MRE 505(h) "imposes a mandatory requirement on the defense to notify the government of any classified information that it 'reasonably expects to disclose,' or cause to be disclosed, in the defense case."]; RCM 701(g) [Military Judge's Regulation of Discovery. "Time, place, and manner. The military judge may, consistent with this rule, specify the time, place, and manner of making discovery and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just." ]; and RCM 806(d) [related to public trial]...Seattle Times v. Rhinehart...procedures for protective orders. ... Government provided MRE 505(g)(1) ["Notice of the defense's intention to disclose classified information."] and MRE 506(g) ["Government information other than classified information...Disclosure of government information to the defense. If the Government agrees to disclose government information to the defense subsequent to a claim of privilege under this rule, the military judge, at the request of the Government, shall enter an appropriate protective order to guard against the compromise of the information disclosed to the defense. The terms of any such protective order may include provisions"].
When Judge Lind reads her rulings she reads them very quickly, and it was difficult for the transcriber to catch many of the details.
...two classified information spillages...24 April [year?]...
1.) Defense will notify... [missed] Defense will provide original and redacted...[missed]
2.) [Missed but concerns objections by the Government.]
3.) ...portions of objections are under seal.
4.) Court is ... [missed] 2 weeks for motions, 2 weeks for response, 5 duty days for reply... [relates to Court calendar for filings.] ...five duty days after defense filings...paragraph 3(e)...10 duty days...3(b).
Court will grant motions for good cause.
5.) ...not disclosed...MRE 505 or MRE 506 without Court authorization...MRE 505(h)...
6.) Personal identifying information (PII) will be redacted from public information...
7.) ...all persons...first and last name...all names and positions will be redacted.
So ordered....
...appellate exhibit 212 was the protective order.
...[regarding] the defense [renewed] motion to dismiss Specifications 13 and 14 of Charge II for failure to state and offense...Government provided Martinelli (sp.) case law, which is appellate exhibit 216. [United. States v. Martinelli, 62 M.J. 52 (C.A.A.F. 2005)]
Defense has provided more info regarding a group of cases [related to 18 USC 1030 charges and the defense renewed motion to dismiss Specifications 13 and 14 of Charge II], Government has asked for more until tomorrow morning... Court will not rule on this...
Yesterday, we discussed instructions... ...then we will look at a Government motion to pre-admit documents [both] classified and unclassified...defense objected. Then we will discuss damage [on the merits].
Defense (Coombs)
Do you want to do questionnaire?
Parties have come to agreement on questionnaire...questions [for the panelists]. Appellate exhibit 211 is proposed questions on which there is disagreement. So, instructions, questionnaire, Government motion to pre-admit documents, damage on the merits.
Proceed with [oral arguments for defense and Government motions for instructions for] Specifications 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16 of Charge II [which concern 18 USC 641 stealing or converting US Government property].
Defense filings are appellate exhibit 167 and 199.
Appellate exhibit 187 [?], and Government instructions for all is appellate exhibit 159.
Any disagreement in the elements themselves?
Government's main objections were to steal, purloined, and converted...
Prosecution (Morrow)
Yes. I know where we are going. [Missed.]
Let's get the defense position.
The objection... ...instructions based on Matthew Bender Federal Jury Instructions based on Circuits. 23(a) - 2 lays out the elements defense relies on and phrasing for them and various circuit opinions for that.
I want to do elements before definitions.
...8th and 3rd Circuit instructions for...[missed]. Additional enclosure, US v Morison instructions for 18 USC 641 offenses, the Specifications related to the theft of classified information.
Morison constructions say wrongful and willful taking?
...federal jury instructions.
...knowingly and willfully under both elements?
They leave out temporary or permanently language.
I guess, what does the statute say itself? Statute doesn't have intent element. Where did Morissette place intent? [Transcriber noted that the Judge said Morissette, but since the Government cites US v. Morison previously, the transcriber takes pause. Both cases deal with 18 USC 641, Morissette in particular appears to match the Judge's question related to 'intent'. Similarly, US v. Morison appears correct in light of the Government's description that it is a case related to the theft of classified information. The transcriber wanted to bring this to the attention of readers, in an event there has been an inadvertent error on my part.]
It's 'knowing conversion' the 'knowing' piece...there is a mens rea, but not on the statute.
...conversion does not imply withholding property?
Conversion charged...has to infer with Government's right to control. Conversion must be substantial interference, where under common law, individual can reimburse. So, if the Government is going off of conversion to prove value. Has the accused substantially interfered with ownership rights for reimbursement?
...think it may be better [placed?] , where Government is placing it.
The way we pattern after federal pattern is conversion must give rise to substantial interference, would have to be a 'knowing' and 'intentional' act.
At least in Morison, and 11th Circuit pattern instructions for 641, 5th Circuit conversion.
Captain Morrow reads definition of conversion.
Noticed that each Circuit all over on 'knowing' conversion...looking at Supreme Court. Do you agree?
There is a deviation where they place emphasis. Morissette places emphasis on...[missed]. ...be substantial interference...wide agreement...element...wide agreement...deviation is how they word element. Defense would argue, defense explains what burden would be...element we lay out tracks those definitions.
Only disagreement? [Missed.]
That has to be a part of the Specification. I don't believe that is an element they have to prove... once they incorporate under Clause 3 [Clause 3 offenses involve noncapital crimes or offenses which violate Federal law].
Any other deviation in elements?
No, your Honor.
Let's move onto definitions.
Various circuits...Federal Jury Instructions, Matthew Bender and Company lays out definitions for stealing and conversion, but not for purloined. Defense thinks their [Government?] definitions [are not?] representative of law. Purloin...
Steal by stealth?
The word 'mere' will not be in my instructions.
Judge Lind reads the definition.
Where do we get the language 'seriously'?
23A4... [Missed.]
...has authority cites Morissette. Have we looked to see if they support wording?
No. I don't believe it has wording. I rely on Matthew Bender...of definitions and elements.
...'mere misuse not enough...' Editorializing?
Yes. Not all misappropriation is conversion...it has to substantially interfere, example stealing a car...return car.
Okay. Go up to first definition. 'money or property of the US' what is authority, that the Government has to prove?
Page four and page five.
641 property has value. Defense debated on 9th Circuit...intangible property. We decided not to, but the 9th Circuit still holds value...has to be a thing of value...Government has to prove for charge and for LIO [lesser included offenses]. ...some value...some proof.
[Judge Lind reads an unidentified text.] ...regarding intangible property.
That is why we could not bring motion forward.
That is what I am not sure about.
Fowler case [932 F. 2d 306 ]. Can be a thing of value, doesn't mean of value regarding intent. They have to provide has value, shouldn't be a huge burden.
Your Honor, Government proposes instruction number seven... Government information is a thing of value.
I would rather go through these. Go through defense and then go through Government. So, lets go back to thing of value. Number one. Authority?
US v. Fowler, US v Jeter, US v Girard
Lodged in response [10?]. Steal, purloined is [as] defense correctly cite Federal Jury Instructions, cite US v Morissette...not value, but use or benefit.
Where is the authority coming from regarding value?
Use and value coming back to conversion, even in Morissette...half a century ago combine steal and conversion...steal has a meaning in our manual.
Manual...use and benefit?
That is why you have steal, purloined, and conversion. We believe they are going under all three. Those are there.
Other than Bender, where is value?
Yes. I will provide that to the Court.
With conversion, definition 'would seriously' or 'interference'...
Where do you get 'seriously interfered'?
For steal and convert, draw from 5th Circuit Model Criminal Instructions and US v Morison. Missed were placed.
[Missed.] Where are your proposed instructions, Government?
Went in order of Specifications. For 641, Specification 4 of Charge II, included all. Same with 793...so you have the same definition.
You have the same for steal and convert? I looked at Morissette. There seems to be disconnect.
You are drawing that from Model...[missed].
What is the Government's objection for parsing out?
We don't have good cause. Would have to look at case law.
If you do that and find something please let me know. So, you have three definitions from defense...Matthew Bender in conversion... Look at intent instructions... Defense has 'intent' 'use and benefit of property' That is where I am. Two theories require and one that doesn't, so I am looking at how best to handle that. [Laughs.]
I believe the Morison Court addressed that. Alright that will be an issue as we go forward. 'Defense's 'knowing' and 'willful', does the Government have objections?
Specific. Doesn't object. No specific.
Both have 'willfully'...793(e) and 1030(a). So is the case law for 18 USC 641 unique?
641..what tracks. US v Morison. I believe that is where it comes from.
Yes. I believe so.
That is 'willfully'.
Defense? Matthew Bender? [Judge Lind reads Bender.]
At least 4th Circuit tracks that language.
Okay. Will use that for purposes of this Statute. Any objections regarding 'intent'?
Deprive Government use and benefit.
Matthew Bender and case law.
It doesn't include thieves market.
Where is the additional authority for the additional definition?
US v Morison, US v Oberhardt, US v. DiGilio [538 F.2d 972 (3d Cir. 1976)] It is in the transcript of Morison, the thieves market.
Does defense object to thieves market?
Must see evidence. In cases, the Government must establish that there is a thieves market and then establish [the value], then establish [missed]. ...much like mistake of fact.
I would like case.
Yes, your Honor.
'good order and discipline'...? [Missed.] LIO instructions proposed by defense. Government, any objections?
LIO instructions, less than $1000.00 [one thousand dollars]
Anything else regarding 641?
Both sides...Going to do instructions. Who has the lead for [18 USC] 793(e), Government?
No specific oral arguments. Included as enclosures. Transcript. US v Morison, US v Diaz, US v Regan use 2003, Model Federal Jury Instructions for 793. At the last Article 39(a) Session [the Court ruled on Defense Motion to Dismiss Specifications 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 15 of Charge II for vagueness. The Court ruled Specifications 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 15 of Charge II are not unconstitutionally vague.] Court asked for instructions used to define the elements and the definitions in previous 18 United States Code (USC) Section 793 cases to include US v. Squillacote US v. Truong Dinh Hung [Judge Lind also asked for others, but not clear from notes if Captain Morrow was reciting from her ruling].
Those things could not find them...but otherwise, we have objections to defense instructions.
Okay. Defense come up and then Government objection. Government instructions are appellate exhibit 159. Defense instructions for Specification 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, and 15 of Charge II [which related to 18 USC 793(e)] is appellate exhibit 166. Government response is 191. Defense reply is 200.
Elements. Any disagreement?
No. Just the order they were placed in.
Let's move onto definitions. 'Possession'.
One comment on Court instructions. We object to definition of espionage. He is not charged with espionage, but with transmitting Government information.
That is fine. It is in the Espionage Act.
Transmitting national defense information? Agree?
Two different [?] regarding instructions.
[Defense cites two cases. One from the 5th Circuit and the 10th Circuit. One of them is US v. (sounds like 'Sing'). I could not find or verify the cases from my notes.]
Objections. Appears glancing at both, our authority was BenchBook definition of 'possession'.
Let's look at the differences. Any meaningful distinction?
Unauthorized nature is main difference.
Government, object?
That language is found in Diaz, Morsion transcript...case involved a Government employee. Government asks the Court to use the Government's definition. Enclosure 1, page 194.
'Under circumstances or location contrary to law'?
If you say 'entitled to have it' will confirm [?]. He may have been entitled to have it...but not out of SCIF [Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility]. Defense 'possession' outside SCIF would be unauthorized. Don't believe there will be a problem outside.
No objections.
Any other objections to instructions by defense?
'The national defense' can parse by sentences...based on case law. I will go down [one by one].
"However' section. That sentence to 'the purpose of this section' is 4th Circuit in Morison, and in Rosen.
Next two sentences of instruction, 'connection must not be a strained or arbitrary [one]' and 'the type of harm that disclosure of the information is likely to cause must be endangerment to "the environment of physical security which a functioning democracy requires."' is from the Supreme Court. Wilkinson in Morison and Justice Brennan in New York Times. ...Government correct remainder [Not clear what last sentence refers to, to transcriber.] The language is required for over breath...First Amendment...Government would turn 793 into 'States Secrets' statute. Defense provided a left and right boundary. Defense [gives] direct quotes from cases that we cite....Morison and New York Times
Everything else is what...Judge Wilkinson in Morison...should be [objective?].
Inform...'serious injury'...'prior restraint'?
Brennan can be used in criminal case. If press can publish...certainly if it comes to taking someone's liberty. Extent we err on caution, must be to the accused. The defense looks at what the Government is proposing and targeted harm. Government wants to make this solely on classification. Not all information is related to the national defense. Not all information can cause damage. These are majority and current opinions cited by defense.
Government, any objections?
Object to it in its entirety...reinvent wheel. We used different reply for 'however' language...wasn't in transcript. Rosen never went to trial.
...language...1071 in Morison case.
...not in instructions in case?
...[No.] In the case.
Morison says 'documents or the photographs...defense against military establishment and preparedness' It refers to the military and naval establishments and the related activities of national preparedness.'
That is in our instructions.
Language comes from Morison 1071; Dedeyan 39 to 40; Rosen 445 F. Supp. 2d 602, 622. Court asked important provisions.
There weren't instructions in that case.
'Closely held'...? 'What is not otherwise available to the public'...? Where?
In language of various cases cited. I believe Diaz...'in public realm' not 'injury to the US...' as long as there is legitimately or otherwise in the...leak information...that would no qualify. ...reason why 'closely held' to cure vagueness or unconstitutionality. [Missed.] Diaz talks about that...think Gorin...information has to be something the Government sought to protect.
...completely inaccurate...?
...Morison, Diaz, Regan... Doesn't have to be classified to be closely held. ...instructions, five actual cases...lawfully in public domain comes from [Dedeyan?].
Government has pled...information is classified in Specifications 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of Charge II. They have said it is classified. They must prove that it is classified.
'Closely held' different...?
To protect this from being a 'State Secrets' statute, Courts have avoided in 793 cases by instruction. When we are dealing with the military. This Court will be blazing a new path. Government has pled classified. Defense argues that if it is not classified, it should not fall under 793...and avoids over-breath.... If Government has not kept information...a container...we have a Specification of a video not classified. Government with targeted harm...regarding Original Classification Authorities impact [statements]...that same argument should apply when not classified. Under defense's view this is not information subject to a 793 charge.
Anything else regarding 'closely held'?
'To the injury of the United Stated'?
...instruction. Not all information can be used to the 'injury of the United States'. That would leave constitutional problems. If we don't reign in fanciful possibilities this is not a requirement at all if Original Classification Authorities make determinations. Diaz says you don't get free pass regarding classification. ...that has to be something 'note remote'. Dicta from case US v Lee, 4th Circuit...US v Chong, [9th Circuit]. Even Diaz supports that. Government does not have a free pass on damage issue. The Government has to show...cannot simply rely on what are very remote and vague possibilities of harm.
Government, objection?
Completely reinvents the wheel...
So, is it the line...'likelihood...must not to...' What is the objection to that line?
The fact that 'could cause is speculative'...that instruction has never been given in a 793 case.
'Could' is not speculative...spectrum of possibility. My car could be stolen...if I don't lock it...that doesn't mean it is going to happen. Anything could possibly happen. There has to be a limit to 'could'. One could agree that the information 'could cause damage' but think the odds are slim.
Anything else?
Morison survived vagueness and direct challenges.
'Willfully' and 'not entitled to receive it'?
'Voluntarily' and 'intentionally' again. The defense believes this is accurate based on Morison. US v. Lee...9th Circuit.
Diaz says you do not have to show bad purpose.
We propose exact language from Morison.
How does that square with Morison?
Wish Diaz was decided differently, but controlling law...that is [missed].
...Mens rea 793(e)...doesn't mean 'bad faith'...not 'conscious choice'...covered information...?
Defense would concur with that.
...not entirely happy with Morison, but don't think 'bad purpose' relates to that.
...this is going to motive. Court will ...'discredit and conduct'... Any other issues regarding 793(e)?
...craft instructions as a whole... [The Court now considers arguments for] instructions the 1030(a)(1) offenses.
Defense proposed instructions for the 1030(a)(1) offenses is appellate exhibit 165. [Other defense filings concerning instructions is appellate exhibit] 201. All Government proposed instructions are appellate exhibit 159.
Any response to...?
...appellate exhibit 189. Objecting in its entirety. Will be dealt with in 1030 motion. ...highlight specific issues on that, that were problematic.
Let's look at the Government proposed instructions which propose 18 USC 1030(a)(1)...getting that from...including Nosal and 1996 legislative history and fashion your instructions. Any issues with elements?
...recommending element it has proposed.
Yes. Elements and definitions.
..come from Matthew Bender...
...any in defense appellate exhibit?
Part of appellate exhibit 201. Court [majority?] in Matthew Bender...for 641 as well, differences within various Circuits.
Element...48-8...where knowledge exceeds authorized access...?
Based on charges...and theory...so, the issue here have to be instructed...'knowingly exceeded authorized access.'
Oppose, Government?
[They] oppose completely. ...9th Circuit and Model Instructions for 1030...incude "exceeded"... ...I can discuss why that is favorable to Government....
Looking at Federal Instructions...enclosure five...'knowingly exceeded access' proposed element no. 2. No quibble with element no. 2?
It is better if going one way or the other with elements.
Let's look at both. Prosecution [proposes] No. 1 'knowingly exceeded' and defense [proposes] 'access a computer with [?] but exceeded his authorized...'
That language that defense cites [is] Federal Jury Instructions, but case...direct statement...IRS database.
Where? Footnote 3 on page...
It is citing US v Czubinski page 40A-11 'exceeded authorized access'. The case they city supports John Rodriguez line of cases. Optional...language starts with alleged defender. My point is [it is] essentially [defective?].
Would agree with that. Unless they have another theory...it was authorized...Government premised [that theory] on Wget... Third iteration of 'exceed authorized...' provide members with guidance they need to understand the element.
Move to element no. 2.
It is hard to object to elements one by one, when they are suppose to work in concert.
There is no way, except one by one. That is actually an accurate...a person can't negligently do it.
...even in [Jury, this many refere to Federal Jury Model Instructions], Government, that is the element?
Those are based on the 9th Circuit Model Instructions.
So, you disagree with the second portion of defense element and combine the two?
Next element, defense?
'With the intent to use the information...'
...in Matthew Bender 40A-8
Where are they [Bender?] getting that?
...pre 1996 [legislative history].
No. That is post 1996.
Legislature very clear changing language.
[to defense] You need to find a case for me.
Yes, M'am.
Look at 14 and 15 specific intent?
'Willfully communicated'.
...against the US?
1030 is designed on Government charge to protect...
The support for that came from 1030 requirement.
Look at defense...next.
Defense come from Matthew Bender, verbatim.
Can I have [a copy] of the front page of all books, prosecution and defense?
Once I get back to the office.
Defense, statute defines exceeding authorized access...Government instructions contain statutory [language?]. Both sides argue statutory in it.
When defense puts in Nosal...
They don't change they reinterpret.
Key aspect is exceeding authorized access...tech or code based violation.
Parties on notice, you are going to use statutory definition.
We agree, your Honor.
Government objection? [Missed.] ...exceeding authority?
Objection on Czubinski under purpose regarding access. Not sure how you can use that, citing case favorable to Government theory. As for rest, we would have the same objection.
Understand. Government, no. 3 statutory definition?
Second sentence. Your ruling and Nosal are explained, define issue for whether there was a restriction on access. Then we commonly...[missed].
Didn't one...back with reply to Government?
No. 1030 motion we agree...goes to that. Government instruction, if it finds unauthorized software, it exceeds authorized access.
Understand. Move on. No. 4, 'reason to believe'.
Tracks language from 793 line of cases...because there has never been 1030(a)(1) in this sense, like appropriated way, because language is identical.
Yes. Again, this objection more accurately [?] this based on fact...so nature of information would be important and any actual harm. So, when Court talks about 'reason to believe' what was his training...so this instruction with this regard.
I don't...members are not in...I will probably be leaving those instructions generic.
Defense would use...other bench...being sensitive they won't want to say, 'These are things to consider.'
We can look at that later. I will probably include this.
Proposed instruction no. 5 from Government?
Part of the language, 'reason to believe' tracks 793 used in 1030, as you [ruled?] Chong; Diaz; Regan 793 or 794 cases, same identical statutory language in 1030(a)...
Object about 793(e) incorporating...?
'Knowingly' same for parties?
We provided same. Government is fine. Prefer to give more detail. 'Voluntarily' and 'intentionally' good instructions for 104.
Alright. Government realize going through the different instructions 641, 'willfulness'...793(e) and 1030(a) going back to Article 104 [aiding the enemy]. We had argument about intent...why should 'knowingly' be here and not 104.
[discussing actual knowledge?]...general intent in knowledge...knowledge is a general criminal intent.
[Missed.] [Missed.] [Missed.] ...not given statement of fact... [Missed.] ...'willfully'
Same from Morison.
So, same as 793(e). Diaz doesn't require had purpose?
...anything 793(e) and 1030(a)(1)?
793(e) and 1030(a)(1) should be defined.
...will find with Diaz. Government, I will probably not give.
We just tried to include a definition when someone is entitled to have information or not. Difficult to find case when someone is entitled to receive something.
Defense, you do not have a definition for intent?
Don't think it need to be defined?
No. 9? [Missed.]
...in statute?
1030(e)(12) 'person not entitled to receive it'
Defense, we haven't covered no. 3 and no. 4.
Matthew Bender...40A-6.
Am I confused?
Instruction 40A-6
Goes back to inaccurate statement of law pre 1996 [legislative history]...begins 'to intend to use such information against interest of the United States'. Because doesn't track statutory language...could be used against...and that is noted in our response to appellate exhibit 189.
Where is Bender getting, 'against the interests of the United States'?
42 USC, 1984 House of Representatives Report that was amended in 1996.
No. 4?
40A-7 'bad purpose' language again.
This definition of 'willfully', [is different] that the one we discussed and agreed upon. We have already discussed how 'willfully' is done previously and 'intentionally'.
'Willfully' means 'intentionally' and of... I am going to have to go to Diaz for this... Next...[missed]. Anything else regarding [Specifications] 13 and 14 [of Charge II]? Article 92 violations. Defense...BenchBook, anything additional, Government?
Just definition initial language...panel can refer to regulation.
Defense proposed instruction...take additional notice to regulations.
Defense have any objections to Government definition of terms on 27 and 28?
If i could get back to you on that. We just want BenchBook...assuming it is accurate, probably not.
...questionnaire [for panelists and alternate panelists]...
There was an administrative meeting with counsel in the Judge's chambers. Captain Overgaard went into chambers with Major Fein and lead civilian defense counsel Mr. David Coombs.
Major Fein's laptop computer has "UNCLASSIFIED" in enormous text as his screensaver.
...disputed questions from Court questionnaire [for panelists and alternate panelists]...will not allow members to commit prior to evidence...dispute...all defense questions.
Appellate exhibit 207 is defense questions for the [members]. Listed those 52 questions when I referred as numbered in appellate exhibit 211.
...[Sounds like Wa' deer] to inform themselves and formally challenge for cause RCM 912, to save time...in order to obtain information. We believe these questions do not state a theory of the case...basis for why.
Numbers one and two. Questions here for panel...non-commissioned officers are required to lead soldier, we believe case will bring out information that NCO did not supervise soldiers...to exercise for cause. If a participating member doesn't believe NCO chain of command and enforcing staff and taking immediate corrective steps...we would exercise preemptory challenge.
Prosecution (Overgaard)
'Do you now or have you ever had'...questions 'do you believe NCO chain' would be a different question.
More semantic...was defined to get more information...what areas do they [missed]...formulate on individuals.
1, 2, and 3 all generated toward same thing.
Not all military members have the same training. With proper leadership failure is not an option. Relevant...would explore on...
Question 3 goes to theory not eliciting information.
not going to allow 3, will allow one and two. Let's look at 4, 5, and 6.
Goes to this part of command responsibility for information assurance...important is members have information regarding security clearance. Get at panel members experience and preemptory challenge. Example if combat...
Any objection to 4, 5, and 6?
'Have you ever been deroged?' Government believes those questions about panel get more to theory [of the case].
4, 5, and 6 [give] theory of the case...'should' need to rephrase...not give an opinion on what should be done.
7 through 14, 15 through 21, 22 through 25, if the Court wanted to 7 through 25...
These are awfully personal.
If they didn't want...[sounds like Wa' deer] and challenges of cause, any members bias. We as the defense have one preemptory challenge. RCM(f)(m) and (f)(n) actual or implicit bias got at from getting here. What a person watches, what they read, individuals they believe have influence. A less effective manner would be to say, "Are you biased?" Recognizing that Convening Authority has unlimited challenges, the defense believes those are not overly personal...and would use that information to follow up with...
7, 8, 9, and 10?
Government objects to 7 through 13. Don't think these are relevant for the case.
I understand wanting background. I will allow 7 through 13.
No. 14, Government objects.
Not going to allow no. 9, too personal.
There are questions that we included: 'What newspapers do you read? What news shows do you watch?'
Since you don't have questions that you don't agree to, master list then pair down.
Question 14.
Government objects. Not useful. Argues theory.
Defense disagrees...'What members read?'
'Who is the author?'
'More books' depends on author and believe could be beneficial or harmful to defense, then we can determine bias under RCM 912(f)(n).
What do you mean by 'or any similar action'?
Regarding classified information primarily that or byline...not about recent books, for example Bob Woodward, whether actual press...
...Goes to theory of case.
That tells panel this is about classified information or other similar actions.
They already have it...this doesn't give away any theory...the Pretrial Publicity Order...they will already know...but to extent remote possibility...whether or not any question in this has influenced you. If trial counsel felt that anything was influencing, could explore that in [sounds like Wa' deer].
Can I see Pretrial Publicity Order. The defense motion is appellate exhibit 3.
Appellate exhibit 11 is the Pretrial Publicity Order.
Pretrial Publicity Order talks about classified information. I'll allow it. No. 15, what is the objection?
Same objection. Will not determine bias.
[to defense] Why are you asking?
You can draw observation...someone taking the time to write an editor. That might be a person to take deliberate [?] in...my one preemptory challenge. Likewise in no. 16, [if the individual] only reads for entertainment, may not be correct, gives me an impression of the person.
Captain Overgaard?
Makes them connect to one or other. We'll create additional questions and issues.
No. 16 puts people in a box, won't allow.
'Do you usually read any other...?'
You could say, 'or other'. How relevant is how much time they watch TV, except health?
Heavy voice in deliberation room...get some information about what they are going to do.
I won't allow 'number of hours'. Government, what about 18 through 21?
Typically, questions limited in RCM 912. Getting into personal habits...how useful to determine panel...towards creating new and additional information.
Defense, can understand 22 through 25. Go ahead and tell me why, beyond scope, in my opinion.
[Who do you ] admire, most or least...event...these are questions if you were sitting down, you could see these questions being asked. Easy ice breaker. I look at [sounds like Wa' deer], you are getting opportunity to establish, and there is a divergent [?] of practices allowed individual in [sounds like Wa' deer]. Others all driven by bench in military. We give judge tall blank check. So, my purpose, when I am here to talk to member, is to make certain determinations...tell me something about them. These questions get information that I find useful in order to find out what makes them tick and do individual [sounds like Wa' deer]. If they say, "Attila the Hun' I don't want far right in punishment.
Government, do you object to 22 through 25?
Same. Don't elicit [useful?] information.
You ask every question, not going to allow 22 through 25. What about 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 32?
Relate...my client was 22, was young individual. Certain general observation, rash judgement. Take positions because they want to make the world a better place. We have to wait until we are 21 to drink, 25 for car rental, [in light of] the responsibility they should be given.
Questions no. 26 through 36 are blatant arguments of the theories of the case.
I am not allowing them.
Let's look at 33 and 34, "If they ever signed a petition, attended a march? General background?'
No helpful information..protest. Argues theory of case. Someway...may do something in protest.
Allowing those.
...'psychiatric details in your family'..?
I will dial that one back.
Take away no. 35.
Government maintains not relevant and too personal.
Looking. Could change 'counseling treatment'.
Well, its very personal. I know you want to get close, but not that close.
Want to know if they have had exposure. First of all, they don't have to answer, but we ask questions that are uncomfortable in individual [sounds like Wa' deer].
Everything before if, is a bridge to far. Government?
Argues theory of case...wants to discuss on individual...
Question no. 35 and 36?
Everyone knows someone who has had emotional problems. 37? 'televised'?
News accounts. Court TV or otherwise.
Not allowing no. 37. Now no. 38?
No. 38 through 41 get at information from members...our challenges for cause and one preemptory. [My client] did not grow up in idyllic...they will hear that if we get to sentencing, important to hear how we can exercise preemptory challenge et cetera.
Having trouble with no. 38.
No. 38...experience they might have. Are they members of a service organization? We [in the armed services] also volunteer a lot...that are positive. If they volunteer time and money...
It is very broad.
Yes. Follow up. might tie to community outreach, could get to...
General question. 'Where do you volunteer?' Get at what...
If you re-phrase I will allow.
For remaining, the Government doesn't understand.
Let's look at 39 first.
'Friend...use fire department or emergency medical care...?' Getting information to use for preemptory challenge or cause.
Don't see how it determines partiality.
Ask no. 40, and not 39. Now, question 41 and 42.
No. 41 question block just considers...
...No. 41 is out, theory. No. 42?
[Coombs said at one point that defense would be hard pressed to not find someone who hasn't heard about WikiLeaks.] Public comments, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff McMullen and Obama regarding my client, say he broke the law...Clinton regarding nature of leaks...her mission and job...all these statements are going to go to the individual. [Sounds like Wa' deer] soft way of getting to any of that. Defense thinks one of the challenges is finding someone should have known better than to throw statements out that were very prejudicial, and purposely so. And, stuff members were aware of. Members and President Obama, do not have...[missed].
'Do you believe...?' Those questions are better for individual.
I will allow. No. 43?
Prior experience. Challenge for cause. Prior experience about how things should be done.
We already asked, don't seem necessary.
Will allow. No. 44?
Hesitancy. One of the issues is that my client is gay and did serve..DADT...now lifted. The pressures of DADT and what he had to endure is important. Asking if they oppose gay marriage, but also crystalizes 'open minded' nature...of someone who may be gay.
We included nine questions about homosexuals. Number 122 through 130. We already included these.
...slight changes to 124...
...which could get you to no. 44.
No. 44 through 55. Gender identity disorder...will be an issue in case and sentencing...follow up deal with whether member has exposure... He suffered...testimony will come out and open for people to see. They sent him home to give him reprieve. His unit knew. Mental Health diagnosing him with gender identity disorder.
Just from SM4, it was SM5, impermissibly conveying facts of the case, then form opinion.
I agree these are theory. I will allow, "Will you allow...?' about gender identity disorder...
So, 'Are you familiar with gender identity disorder, if yes, how?'
If they have familiarity, 'how' will get you... [Missed.]
Does assume that we have asked that question before. 'Have you ever deployed?'
Just a follow up on how they characterize it.
No. 51 and 52. What is 52 about? Learn general fact...use preemptory challenge or challenge for cause.
No. 52, what is your concern, Government?
How would it get to...?
Using [?] RCM 912, whatever they would write during group...may or may not through individual.
I will allow no. 53.
No. 53 and following page...
Let's skip no. 53 for now.
Only other is no. 54, and then all things below 1(a)...defense, and 1(b)...Government.
Standard questions by group [sounds like Wa' deer]. Let's not put in, and my understanding...a question should go in, but just form of the question. looking at these no. 53 doesn't seem necessary.
Additional guidance seen, judge gives on sentencing...inelastic...
This is a pretrial. Far in advance. Members mindset more confused at that time, not going to allow no. 53. Will allow something about sentencing. Government?
Government doesn't think it is necessary. [Soldiers in the gallery behind prosecution laugh.]
'Do you know about this case?' 1(b)...'WikiLeaks also involved in this case, yes or no?
Like Government better, far more generic.
No. 2. Not allowing 2(a) or (b). Theory of the case. 3(a) or (b) theory of the case questions.
In summary. Allowed: 1 and 2, 7 and 8, 10,11, 12 to 15, 18 to 21, 33, 34, 38 as revised 'Do you do volunteer work?', 40, 42, 43, 51, 1(b), and that is it with one or two questions about sentencing.
Can we go back to no. 46. That was the rephrased one, 'Are you familiar with gender identity disorder?'
[4 to 6?] rephrase?
'Have you any experience with classification?' Only other no. 16 'or other'.
Any additional questions...get rid of cumulative...you are asking every...just one question in each...member.
At some point in the days discussions the Government asserted that there were two alleged classification spillages in the trial. The defense disagreed.
...Government motion to pre-admit is appellate exhibit 160. Defense?
Appellate exhibit 184.
Appellate exhibit 184 is the defense response. Government?
...classified...appellate exhibit 178.
going to do un-classified...then recess then he can bring classified motion...then TV cameras can focus on me...will be focused on someone else.
For judicial argument do oral now...and then address questions.
Un-classified...what portions are you looking to admit?
Enclosures 1 through 9, 11, 14, and 15.
1 through 9, 11, 14, and 15. What does defense not object to?
Defense (Tooman)
8, 9, 11, 12, and 13.
1 through 7, don't object?
Nor 14 or 15.
Can I have those enclosures and go ahead to mark...know exhibit?
I believe we are starting at 1.
Separate? [off to the side with Clerk] Mark as 1 thru...
Major Fein was reading emails during this portion of the Court proceedings.
[Missed] ...10
14 and 15. Enclosures 1 to 7, and 14 and 15.
Government motion to pre-admit.
For purposes...does either side want to remove as enclosures and moving to...
Disputed 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13.
And, 10, but Government can get rid of three of those.
I said, we would not pre-admit 10, 12, and 13.
Merely evidentiary for motion.
What is left?
8, 9, and 11.
What is 8?
Information Assurance Screenshot from Army Training, User Profile, and another Screenshot of Accused's User Account dated 31 October 2009.
Where is it from?
90211 [bates?, in transcriber notes I wrote "ates"] stations attached. Army CID AIR explains where information is coming from.
[looks quizzically at Captain Overgaard]
Just for exclosures 8 or 9.
Just say...pulls information as requested by Army CID? That is for 8 and 9.
From different places, different contracting organizations.
What are they?
Joint Access Movement Record. Tracks people's movement while deployed. Have scanned ID card.
So, this data is maintained by Willco Tech? So, records...to enclosure no. 10...the contractor provided online Information Assurance to Army CID on 21 January 2011.
Looks to be correct.
So, how is this record...how is it maintained...when?
Record is a screenshot of whatever information is recorded in the database?
...for database?
[AECOM? Is this NETCOM?] database, a consulting company. Background that is no. 9. [AECOM? NETCOM?] consulting maintains Information Awareness Training.
So, what is the Government's argument for admissibility?
Both are admissible and relevant, attested to, neither are here-say. They are computer generated. RCM 810(c) and RCM 801(a) '...statement...' RCM 801(b) '...person...' Computer cannot make a statement, neither of them are here-say.
Both have been certified by a custodian. How were they maintained and generated?
They are admissible on face as business records and we can have expert for panel...but they are self-authentication.
Not business records. ...they are machine generated data, three factors...whether or not was record created because of law enforcement. Both 8 and 9 fall within those factors.
Data is maintained by businesses in furtherance of mission? If a police officer goes and asks them to...that is testimony because a police officer asks for it?
Yes. Pfc. Manning said this on this dat...has data in some other format...that data is kept in probably chronological synthesizes...like the cover sheet in urine analysis. this isn't raw data. It is a synthesis. Mr. Shatski (sp.) saying wants a screenshot. They don't have a screenshot.
Isn't this just a summary? Example...
That is why we are [?] out. What is the purpose? ...that purpose. This wasn't pre-existing. This is post-referral...din't exist until trial counsel...
But database did...so, it is a query? If you are relying on ranking factor, it would be testimonial... Here where I am having difficulty...ranking document...weren't created in view to appellant to trial now is extrapolating from pre-existing database is testimony...?
No. Testimonial and not testimonial here-say...more instructional...
How does it get into the database?
When user completes...reports...then any super administrator...enter what they want and print it.
[reads] Attestation 'at or near...people with knowledge...' defense says made at behest of detective, makes...on machine, now extrapolated?
Government says this is contained...query to say at or time of occurrence...you can log in at any time...created in a database when user actually completed activity.
They could have at any time...but they didn't...Government concede when was this report created...at the time it was requested.
...[pre-existing] data to create...
How is it not machine generated data?
[ATRRS?] isn't creating these reports...they would have to go in and create it. They don't synthesize unless someone asks...prosecutors who are going to trial.
...with an eye for trial.
Underlying data created when user was using computer. Defense would fail...ranking...'Was the statement made in response to law enforcement?' [reads other ranking] 'computer generated' .. Number three, '...current purpose for eliciting...' created 5 September 2008, completion Department of Defense Information... October 2009...
...said not a business record?
Format changes...like urine analysis...bunch of numbers then cover with a memo...there is raw data...who is certifying is the person who created the report.
So, if a business maintains a database on who is taking training...makes not a business record because only pulling particular fields?
[Regarding] no. 11, what is the objection?
Joint Asset Movement Records are like toll records.
Maintained by?
Same objection?
Yes. You are correct...these are reports...give me everyone who took test.
It is pre-existing.
Reliability? Three months gap as to reliability towards last few pages. Chronological back in May 2010, back towards October ["_____"? ] 28 2009. no activity January 21, 2010. Would question. Unreliable.
We would request...on cross examination [could] ask why there would be a gap.
Three month leave. He took a leave, but not for three months.
You have telephone number. Other people could go back for other [data] than [?]...[if you find a problem] bring that to the Court's attention. If I admit something, can always un-admit. Anything else? 8, 9, [11? or 13?].
Argument the same with respect to those?
So documents, logs, computer generated logs.
Making same argument...detective asked to pull data from...
...pre-existing logs.
Any need to go into particulars...argument is the same.


text:
The Psychology Lounge
Planning your studies
Includes a list of frequently asked questions that will guide you through the process of planning your studies in Psychology as Deakin University.
Psychology Student Resources
Information for current students, including psychology registration, student advisors, activities, psychology links, and more.
Deakin University Psychological Society
Information about the Deakin University Psychology Society (DUPS) - a student group that aims to connect psychology students at Deakin.
Information Sessions
Undergraduate Courses
H344 Bachelor of Psychological Sciences
H345 Bachelor of Psychology (Honours)
Information sessions for H344 and H345 will be run at the following times across the following campuses:
Burwood (Melbourne) Campus
Tuesday 27 January 2015, 1:00pm
Building hc, Level 2, Lecture Theatre 13, Room hc2.005
Waurn Ponds (Geelong) Campus
Thursday 29 January 2015, 1:00pm
Building DD (Reach Building), Level 2, Room DD2.204
Warrnambool Campus
Wednesday 28 January 2015, 1:00pm
Building G, Level 1, Percy Baxter Lecture Theatre, Room G1.01
4th Year Courses
Burwood (Melbourne) Campus
Date: Wednesday, 25 February 2015
Time: 10:00 - 11:50
Room: HD3.008-HD3.009
Geelong Waterfront Campus
Date: Thursday, 26 February 2015
Time: 11:00 - 12:50
Room: D2.194
Postgraduate Courses
H750 Master of Psychology (Clinical)
H951 Doctor of Psychology (Clinical)
H952 Doctor of Psychology (Forensic)
H953 Doctor of Psychology (Health)
Courses: H750, H951, H952, H953
Date: Thursday 12 February 2015*
Venue: Level 2, Building BC, Burwood Corporate Centre, Melbourne Burwood Campus
*Date, time, sessions TBC
H752 Master of Psychology (Industrial and Organisational)
Course: H752
Date: Friday 20th February 2015
Venue: Burwood Corporate Centre - East 2
Time: TBC

subset: commoncrawl


text:
50 Years of Mischief: The Triumph and Trashing of the Civil Rights Act »
By Jonathan Bean | Wednesday June 25, 2014 at 5:25 PM PST | Comments Off
The Civil Rights Act was not a perfect law—no law is perfect–but it did embody two principles of the long civil rights movement: First, the individual (not the group) is the measure of justice. Secondly, nondiscrimination is mandatory for the government and worth pursuing in our private lives. If policymakers had enforced the Civil Rights Act in good faith, time might have eroded the tendency to view others as members of a group, rather than as individuals.
Tags: Affirmative Action, Discrimination, Employment, History, Inequality


text:
Seller/Servicer Resources
Originate & Underwrite
Complete loan origination with us, at the quote and underwriting stages.
Purchase and Deliver
Complete final delivery and sell us the loan.
Investor Reporting
Report loan and bond data to us in the accounting, payoff, and wire request processes.
Asset Management
Monitor and report on loans to effectively manage asset performance.
Legal Document Resources
Legal Documents
Obtain and execute our loan documents for the use of Seller/Servicers, counsel and borrowers.
Guide Resources
Multifamily Seller/Servicer Guide
Access our Guide forms used in Selling and Servicing processes, along with our Guide Bulletin archive.
Multifamily TipCast
Monty Childs, Targeted Affordable Housing Production Director, explains how preservation financing works to keep rents affordable for lower-income families. Watch Video
Multifamily Legal FYI
Legal FYI helps simplify the legalese in subjects ranging from recycled borrowers, Reverse 1031 Exchanges and to other topics you encounter throughout the quote and underwriting process. Read the latest issue today created by our Legal department.
- Limited Partner and Non-Managing Member Transfer Rider
December, 2014 - Direct Purchase of Tax-Exempt Loans
October, 2014 - Delaware Statutory Trusts
August, 2014 - Property Improvement Alterations
July, 2014


text:
Australia Mandates Microsoft's Office Open XML
Re:Compression must default to .zip (317 comments)
Chrome it up: an MSI installer and Group Policy support out of the box.
Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)
We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!
Re:Compression must default to .zip (317 comments)
Chrome it up: an MSI installer and Group Policy support out of the box.
Re:It's official (78 comments)
So is 50 million really a lot? two weeks ago Gartner said Nokia sold 29.5 million (symbian) smartphones during the third quarter of the year (for a 36.6 percent share of the worldwide market). So how long will it take for the Nokia to sell that 50 million symbian^3 phones. Could that happen during the next 6-9 months? And how long is Nokia really looking forward to be selling Symbian^3 phones? I take that 50 million being a semi-hidden statement indicating a drastic reduction of the strategic importance of the symbian platform.
That prediction was made when they were going to be making Symbian^4 phones. Now they're merging the S^4 features into future S^3 releases, I would expect it to be revised steadily upward. As for now, Nokia are still selling a large number of Symbian^1 phones, and they will be included in the count.
Re:Mobile: The Gathering (78 comments)
Or, look at it this way: Symbian device sales were up 61% year-on-year in Q3 2010, and 320,000 people per day chose a Symbian smartphone in Q3 2010.
Market share isn't everything - look no further than Apple. The market as a whole is clearly growing - in Symbian's case, the lower hardware requirements mean the smartphone experience is being pushed down the market to what would previously have been considered "feature phones".
Pick the right tool for the right job. Symbian was designed from the word go to run on battery-powered devices. UNIX and Linux were not, and consequently power management is largely bolted on. Given the same battery, Symbian will run a phone for longer than iOS or Android. The tradeoff to this is that you must write your code in a very esoteric way. That is not what the "app console" market wants today, which is why Nokia brought Qt to Symbian.
Re:It's official (78 comments)
Speaking as someone who is directly affected by this situation, and as the owner of a Nokia phone, this is a great thing for the Symbian platform. My N8 runs Symbian^3, which reviewers have unanimously summarised as "great hardware, undercooked software". Instead of this phone becoming outdated in 6 months when S^4 comes out (it was very unlikely that S^3 to S^4 upgrades would have been possible), it will now receive all the S^4 enhancements in future firmware updates. Nokia have publicly stated on many occasions that they expect to sell over 50 million Symbian^3 devices.
Also, instead of a different touch UI on top of Symbian, and a different touch UI on top of MeeGo, everything will now be Qt Quick. This is much better news for developers.
The Symbian platform is not dead, by any means; the mobile landscape is currently such that there were not enough manufacturers to support Symbian's success as a cross-vendor platform. If anyone is interested in hiring some great developers/build/test people in London, drop me a message.
Re:So how is Symbian free software? (78 comments)
A partial summary of one of the freedoms of Free Software is "anyone to whom you give a binary, you must also give the source" (and various rights as permitted by the license you choose).
The Symbian Foundation makes available two relevant things at present:
The former can be taken by anyone at present; at worst, they will be forking the platform on a dead codeline. Nokia, the primary code contributor to the Symbian platform and owner of most of the copyrights to the code, will continue developing Symbian in their own repositories. Some points of note:
The PDKs are the only Symbian binaries that we (the Symbian Foundation) have released. Each PDK includes the source that was used to build it. Therefore, the obligation to the EPL is met, and anyone can get those PDKs - either off our web site, while we're still around to host it, or by ordering it from the Foundation after Jan 2011, as per our announcement. At present there is a click-through license to which you must agree to to download a PDK, but, at least for the parts under the EPL, you can do what you wish with that PDK subject to that license.
So, as far as the Foundation is concerned, Symbian is, and remains, free software. We are under no obligation to give you the source if we stop giving you the binaries.
Other people also distribute it, chief amongst them Nokia, in the way of phones. (Nokia also note that they are on track to sell >50 million S^3 devices - that is a lot of distribution. Don't think this platform is going away.) The product ships with a notice saying it is built from open source code, and I can confirm that if you send an e-mail to Nokia, they will post you a DVD-R with the "Nokia N8 OSS Code" on it. It's similar to what we distribute, but not identical, as they have made internal changes. So, as far as Nokia are concerned, Symbian is free software.
There are lots of reasons for and against buying any device, but don't use the excuse that the platform is no longer free. Once the genie is out of the bottle, that's it. The bottle was very deliberately uncorked.
Re:Who marketed the name Symbian? Nokia? (423 comments)
Symbian Ltd. was folded into Nokia. Some of its assets, staff, and copyright, were transferred to the Symbian Foundation, a newly created and independent company, by Nokia.
(A marketing company came up with the name.)
Re:The FAQ warns about software patents... (189 comments)
Unfortunately, the Symbian Foundation doesn't own any patents, so can't give them away to everyone. Certain patents are owned by SF member companies.
Membership of the Symbian Foundation costs a flat $1500 USD (+ VAT) per year, which grants your company access to the patents contributed by other members. The Eclipse Public License grants patent rights to software and software combinations only; the member patent policy additionally grants patent rights for software-hardware combinations. It's a drop-in-the-bucket cost for anyone making a device.
There is a copy of the patent policy available, for the lawyery type.
Re:Article already out of date (347 comments)
A smart phone is, by definition, a cellular device. It doesn't need to be said.
Re:Article already out of date (347 comments)
Oh please, stop trolling!
Nokia (NYSE: NOK) said it remains strongly committed to the Symbian operating system for its future smartphones.
The company was responding to a report in the German version of the Financial Times which said the world's largest handset maker was thinking of moving away from Symbian because it was too "cumbersome." The report, which relied on unnamed sources close to Nokia, said the handset maker was more interested in its Maemo platform for future smartphones.
"We remain strongly committed to our current open OS software strategy for cellular devices, which is based on the world-leading Symbian OS," Nokia said in a statement.
Re:Article already out of date (347 comments)
They are the ones making the bulk of the contributions to Symbian^3 and Symbian^4, so I would assume that they have at least a passing interest in the platform.
Re:Article already out of date (347 comments)
Sorry, that's complete crap; the Symbian roadmap has been public for months: almost 8 months since that blog post alone.
Re:Where's Mine? (1721 comments)
I have every intention of ending world hunger. Do I get a prize, too?
If it seemed like you were 60% towards that goal, and giving you the Nobel Peace Prize would push you over the hump and give you the political capital to get you much nearer to 100%, they would probably give it to you.
Re:What? (1721 comments)
Read Robert Naiman's opinion, including the tale of Desmond Tutu winning in '84:
The Nobel Committee gave South African Bishop Desmond Tutu the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his leadership of efforts to abolish apartheid in South Africa. Apartheid wasn't fully abolished in South Africa until 1994. The committee could have waited until after apartheid was abolished to say, "Well done!" But the point of the award was to help bring down apartheid by strengthening Bishop Tutu's efforts. In particular, everyone knew that it was going to be much harder for the apartheid regime to crack down on Tutu after the Nobel Committee wrapped him in its protective cloak of world praise.
Re:Who is to blame? (259 comments)
Re:...but does it run Linux? (327 comments)
No, you do not have a
Re:Must be app-store approved... (327 comments)
Re:XOR to iPhone SDK? (327 comments)
It compiles to native code. It just allows you to use C# to do it.
No it doesn't. (327 comments)
MonoTouch is not a runtime or an "app", it's a library with which you compile your own apps. It's ahead-of-time compiled, so you end up with a binary that runs on the iPhone.
It opens up iPhone development for millions of
If you're not interested, that's great, move along.
Re:This is mainly a Tax Strategy (344 comments)
They want to see open source software running on Windows, and want to see IIS as the web server of record, not Apache.
The non-MS participators (with the somewhat odd, but welcome, exception of Monty Widenius) appear to be mostly from a
Doesn't mean that the software you run on Windows/IIS is any less Free, however. And you can still run it on Mono.
Re:Great pitch (307 comments)
The fourth iteration (Maemo Fremantle) has a UI built on Hildon/GTK+; the fifth (Maemo Harmattan), a UI built on Qt. I've read 4Q 2010 or 1Q 2011, so app developers have to consider whether or not to use the community-supported Qt API on the existing device, which will become "the" OS in 2011, or build something on GTK+, Maemo/Nokia-supported now, which will become community-supported in Harmattan.


text:
Welcome International Customers
We're excited to share our jewelry collection with you!
Just choose your country and currency to personalize your shopping experience.
We're excited to share our jewelry collection with you!
Just choose your country and currency to personalize your shopping experience.
Item#: 778634
Blushing, rosy and oh-so-romantic, this sparkling 12.00 ct. t.w. morganite tennis bracelet is finely crafted of pale pink ovals displayed in a flirty, glamorous stream. 18kt rose gold over sterling silver bracelet.
Our 100%
Width: | 3/16 inch |
Metal: | 18kt 18KT: Karat (abbreviated kt or K) is a unit that indicates the purity of gold in the metal. 18kt is 75% gold. In Europe, 18K yellow gold is most favored and used in jewelry. Gold Over Sterling STERLING SILVER: Also known as "Standard Silver," sterling silver is silver alloyed with other metals to increase the hardness and durability. Generally, sterling is 92.5% silver and 7.5% other metals. Some sterling silver jewelry is plated with 14kt-18kt gold and referred to as "vermeil," or "gold over sterling." Silver |
Finish: | Polished POLISHED: A buffed-out finish used to produce a mirror-like shine. |
Clasp: | Box |
Safety: | Double DOUBLE: A bale that has two loops to slide a chain through. Latch DOUBLE LATCH: A safety mechanism that secures the clasp of a bracelet or necklace using two safety latches. |
Stone 1: | Morganite MORGANITE: Named after the great American tycoon and gem collector J. P. Morgan, morganite's soft pink to peach shades add blushing beauty to jewelry designs. This rare gemstone is surprisingly affordable and brings an undeniable charm to rings, necklaces, bracelets and earrings. (Color: Pink, Quantity: 30, Shape & Cutting Style: Oval OVAL: An elliptical shape that resembles an egg. Fancy, Weight: 12.00 ct. t.w., Size: 6X4 mm) |
All weights and measures are approximate.
You May Also Like
Learn More About: Double Latch Safety Sterling Silver Polished Finish Double Bale Morganite
out of


text:
Sirote & Permutt's dedication to education
John Cooper is the CEO of Sirote & Permutt. Updated July 17, 2014 Here at Sirote & Permutt, we fully realize the value and importance of a quality education. It is one of the fundamental commitments of our Sirote Supports initiative, which provides support to programs that strengthen the community and positively impact the areas of health,Read More


text:
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
Results 1 to 2 of 2
Thread: XML Child Tag rename
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 11
- Thanks
- 3
- Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
XML Child Tag rename
i have done many different way to rename Child TAG to allow
here is example
Code:<root> <parent> <child>bar</child> <price>20</price> <author> dunno</author> </parent> </root>
i know it sound wrong code but i have different many way
Code:$dita = new DOMDocument; $dita->Load("book.xml"); $ditaList=$dita->getElementsByTagName("book")->item($id); $tagToReplace=$ditaList->getElementsByTagName("author")->item($id); $ditaList->replaceChild($tagToReplace);
my aim is change on outputclass XML like
Code:<?xml version="1.0"?> <root> <parent> <child outputclass="internal" >bar</child> <price outputclass="internal >20</price> <author outputclass= "external"> dunno</author> </parent> </root>
or prefer use
PHP (or XML) code call the "control file (can be an ASCII text file or an XML file)" , and then the PHP code does the processing logic on the desired DITA files based on the info in the control file.
- Join Date
- Sep 2002
- Location
- Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
- Posts
- 16,994
- Thanks
- 4
- Thanked 2,662 Times in 2,631 Posts
You're usage of replacechild is incorrect. ReplaceChild requires two parameters, the new and the old nodes.
However, I don't see where you're actually needing to do this. The difference between the two blocks of xml code only indicate changes in attributes. You can fetch a domNodeList from the getElementsByTagName method (it won't work on book though, since you don't have a book element), iterate through the list or fetch a single item (I assume that $id is for this purpose, but I don't see it defined anywhere), and use the createAttribute method on DomDocument, and append this to the desired DOMNode(s).
Been gone for a few months, and haven't programmed in that long of a time. Meh, I'll wing it ;)PHP Code:
header('HTTP/1.1 420 Enhance Your Calm');


text:
Unigine Heaven Benchmark
Version and / or Patch Used: 2.5
Developer Homepage: http://www.unigine.com
Product Homepage: http://unigine.com/press-releases/091022-heaven_benchmark//
New benchmark grants the power to unleash the DirectX 11 potential in the gift wrapping of impressively towering graphics capabilities. It reveals the enchanting magic of floating islands with a tiny village hidden in the cloudy skies. With the interactive mode emerging experience of exploring the intricate world is ensured within reach. Through its advanced renderer, Unigine is one of the first to set precedence in showcasing the art assets with tessellation, bringing compelling visual finesse, utilizing the technology to the full extend and exhibiting the possibilities of enriching 3D gaming.
Moving along to Heaven we can see even at the stock clocked the HD 7950 performance is very strong under this tessellation heavy benchmark with it pulling out the win against both NVIDIA offerings.


text:
Our colleague Catherine Hollander reports (for members):
The banking industry has its first super PAC, but it's not what you think. Friends of Traditional Banking may be registered with the Federal Election Commission as a so-called independent expenditure-only PAC, or super PAC, but it doesn't plan to act like one. In fact, it would much rather not be lumped in with all the others.
The group sees itself as an information provider rather than a cash cow for a cause. "It is technically a super PAC, but it's not going to operate like a super PAC," said Chuck Stones, president of the Kansas Bankers Association and a member of the group's advisory council.
Its plan is to solicit non-binding pledges from supporters to back the candidates the group later recommends. The super PAC will research and identify candidates that are both friendly to traditional banking interests and participating in winnable races, and send the pledges their names along with a link so they can contribute directly to those campaigns. "We will not collect your money," the group says on its website. It hopes to influence just a handful of races in a big way through many small donations. ...
Howard Headlee, president of the Utah Bankers Association and the group's treasurer, acknowledges that although it won't handle candidate contributions, the group will have to raise some money for education and outreach to further its cause. Some will come from state trade associations; the rest, from direct contributions. But Matt Packard, the super PAC's chairman and president and CEO of Utah-based Central Bank, says there are no plans to raise money for more traditional super PAC expenditures, such as television ads.


text:
Monday, October 22
AT&T Park
Attendance: 43,056
San Francisco, CA (Sports Network) - The San Francisco Giants finally won their first winner-take-all Game 7 to capture the National League pennant and advance to the 108th edition of the World Series.
The convincing 9-0 victory over the St. Louis Cardinals completed another series comeback and sealed the Giants' second trip to the Fall Classic in three years, where they will face the AL champion Detroit Tigers.
The 2010 World Series champs became the seventh team to win a best-of-seven League Championship Series after trailing 3-1, and also joined the 1985 Royals as the only teams to win six elimination games during one postseason.
San Francisco was also 0-5 in winner-take-all Game 7s coming in.
Giants ace Matt Cain (2-2) scattered five hits and one walk over 5 2/3 scoreless innings and even drove in a run, while fellow 16-game winner Kyle Lohse was chased in the third frame.
Hunter Pence drove in a pair with a fortunate broken-bat double during a five- run third inning, and fellow midseason acquisition Marco Scutaro capped his MVP performance with his sixth multi-hit game of the series.
Scutaro, after going 3-for-4, batted .500 (14-for-28) with six runs scored and four RBI despite suffering a strained left hip when Cardinals outfielder Matt Holliday took out the second baseman with a vicious slide in Game 2.
"We played with more heart and more determination than any club I've seen," Giants manager Bruce Bochy said during the trophy presentation. "They didn't want to go home."
Lohse (2-1) was charged with five runs on six hits, and the usually- opportunistic Cardinals went 0-for-11 with runners in scoring position and stranded 12 baserunners.
The Cardinals, the NL's second wild card team, had won seven straight playoff games when facing elimination, including a Game 7 win over the Texas Rangers to win their 11th World Series title last year and a Game 5 thriller over the Washington Nationals earlier this month after they trailed by six runs.
But Monday's deficit proved too much, as the Giants managed 14 hits throughout their lineup to win going away.
"It wasn't how we scripted to finish, but it was certainly a great run," said first-year Cardinals manager Mike Matheny, whose club was outscored, 20-1, in the final three games. "They got hot, and we didn't,"
Lohse worked out of trouble to get the better of Cain in Game 3, but the right-hander couldn't duplicate his performance in the clincher.
Angel Pagan opened the home first with a single, moved to third on a textbook hit-and-run base hit by Scutaro and scored on Pablo Sandoval's RBI groundout.
Cain stranded a runner in scoring position in the first inning, then left two on in the second by striking out Pete Kozma and retiring Lohse, whose soft liner to short was grabbed by a leaping Brandon Crawford.
With two outs and Gregor Blanco on second in the bottom half, Cain did what his counterpart couldn't -- drive in a run with a base hit up the middle.
A five-spot in the third gave the NL West champs a comfortable cushion.
Scutaro started the onslaught with a single, Sandoval doubled down the left- field line and Buster Posey worked a walk to end Lohse's outing.
Joe Kelly came in from the bullpen and broke Pence's bat with a fastball, but after the ball caromed off the handle, it was redirected at the barrel and fooled Kozma on it's way up the middle. Scutaro and Sandoval scored on the hit, and Posey came around when Jon Jay bobbled the ball in center field.
A single by Brandon Belt and a walk loaded the bags again, and Pence beat Kozma's throw home after Crawford grounded to short. A run-scoring fielder's choice off the bat of Pagan made it 7-0.
Cain was pulled after 102 pitches with two on and two outs in the sixth, and Jeremy Affeldt retired Daniel Descalso to keep the Cardinals off the board.
Blanco scored the eighth run on pinch-hitter Aubrey Huff's double-play ball in the seventh inning, and Belt crushed a solo homer over the right-field wall in the eighth.
The bullpen finished off San Francisco's second shutout of the series.
Affeldt, Santiago Casilla and Javier Lopez combined for nine outs behind Cain, and with heavy rain coming down with two outs in the ninth inning, Sergio Romo got Holliday to pop out, appropriately, to Scutaro to end things.
"I've spent a lot of years in the big leagues and never had the opportunity to play in the World Series. ... It's unbelievable," said Scutaro.
Scutaro and the Giants have one day to celebrate before hosting Game 1 on Wednesday. The Tigers completed their ALCS sweep of the New York Yankees last Thursday.
Gary Darling
Chris Guccione
Bill Miller
Greg Gibson


text:
Ajmo Ana Savic!
View Single Post
Mar 28th, 2012, 10:07 PM
last lap
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 520
Re: Ajmo Ana Savic!
Not, not. It was a question that was doing you to them. Ana does not appear in the list of income of ITF 10000 Hvar. The 25000 Civitavecchia has not been publized
Do you know if nowadays Ana already has sponsor?
last lap
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by last lap
View Blog


text:
Jay-Z, DJ AM Rock Hollywood Landmark the Palladium
He's got 99 problems, but crowd-pleasing ain't one.
Jay-Z, along with backer Live Nation, helped reincarnate historic venue the Hollywood Palladium with Adam "DJ AM" Goldstein last night in Los Angeles.
Beyoncé's husband performed a dozen-plus tracks for a crowd of die-hard fans, and was joined for one by Southern-supreme guest rapper T.I.
The venue, once-home to staple acts like Madonna, the Rolling Stones and Frank Sinatra, was wall-to-wall with celebrity supporters.
Among the attendees: a shear-sheathed Hayden Panettiere, Nicky Hilton and David Katzenberg (entertaining former Jessica Simpson assistant Cacee Cobb and Donald Faison with a bottle of Grey Goose), Eve, Will.I.Am., Sanaa Lathan and the Foo Fighters' Dave Grohl.
Ever the entertainer, Jay got political then emotional.
"Who here's voting for [Barack] Obama?" he asked to thunderous cheers, before paying homage to his house DJ Goldstein.
Before his few tracks (mixed continuously), AM spoke to the crowd, asking for a "big shout out to Travis Barker."
Seems as though Jay loves a miracle, and who could resist the opportunity to reintroduce Hollywood?


text:
My name is Ricardo and Im a brazillian magician. MJM has the BEST customer service you will find. They reply all kind of questions/e-mails very fast,...Read More ->
Normally it takes about a month for a package from US to Singapore (Asia)! THIS TOOK LIKE 4 DAYS! NO FREAKIN JOKE! AMAZING! its excellent and cheap...Read More ->


text:
Dr. Rosemary S. Keskinen, MD
Dermatology, Chagrin Falls Family Health Center Chagrin Falls
- 551 Washington St
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 - 1 Office Location
- (440) 893-9393
Dr. Rosemary S. Keskinen graduated from the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in 1978. She works in Chagrin Falls, OH and specializes in Dermatology. Dr. Keskinen is affiliated with Hillcrest Hospital and Cleveland Clinic. She speaks Chinese and English.
Gender: Female
Years in Practice: 37 Years
Languages Spoken: Chinese, English
Medical School: Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine
Graduation Date: 1978
Hospital Affiliations: Hillcrest Hospital, Cleveland Clinic
Specialties: Dermatology


text:
Deborah: I have just emailed you directly a report of the known descendants of Jonas & Almira(Stone)Tower. I hope this is helpful information. John W. Tower, Sr. Executive Secretary Tower Genealogical Society, Inc. Notify Administrator about this message?
Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate |
© 2007 The Generations Network |


text:
Coming Soon, Shorter Video Games
Re:Something seems really off here... (637 comments)
It's not all about quality, but also whether the game appeals to your interests. Baldur's Gate and Planescape Torment were awesome games in terms of entertainment value, yet only a few people i know have actually finished them, because they had no interest in the story or real life events kept them from continuing and they never picked it up again.
I wonder how the percentages are regarding to books. I doubt more than 15% of otherwise avid readers who started reading Ulysses by James Choice finished it, yet i don't see the call for shorter books.
I think, TFA is yet another story of how beancounters and other people in the gaming business with no ties to it except for the money, are trying to change the world of gaming to their likings. I wish, they'd all get a seat on the B-Ark and took their consoles and "Jump-to-Conclusion-Mats" with them.


text:
Narrow your search
Want to sit for 15 hours? Boeing's new 787-9 claims better passenger comfort over extremely long-haul routes. Here's what it's like on one of the longest you can take.
Under the guise of "sharing," companies like Airbnb and Uber are cashing in. While they're providing services beloved by many, their impact is also causing reverberations on the ground
This year's Detroit auto show featured two welcome revivals, the new Ford GT and Acura NSX, along with a slew of potent new launches.
The games industry continues to boom while other sectors of the economy sputter, according to a new report from the Entertainment Software Association.
Big data provided by business intelligence app Sikka says that economic performance can be predicted by dental hygiene. And we're headed for a downturn.
Citroen modifies its C4 Cactus model with a new, hybrid drivetrain and aerodynamic features to achieve 2-liters of fuel usage per 100 kilometers.
A diesel engine option adds decent fuel economy to the Jeep Grand Cherokee's impressive roster of capabilities.
In a surprise move, Sprint counters its industry brethren by saying the FCC's plan won't prevent it from further investing in its broadband network.
The peer-to-peer vacation-rental company says it would use its scale to deflect harm policy makers might throw at other firms.
Facebook-sponsored study claims the company added $227 billion to the global economy last year.


text:
~~~~~~~~Welcome to a new exciting year with DAEYC!~~~~~~~~
Join Dallas Association for the Education of Young Children(DAEYC) and make a difference in the lives of children and families. Founded in 1969, DAEYC has led the way toward excellence in high-quality early care and education in the Dallas area. Our members include teachers, administrators, parents, educators, and policy members. We are committed to bringing high-quality early care and education to all young children. Become a member of DAEYC to support high-quality early care and education programs that lay the foundation for academic success and adult achievement.
We are committed to promoting professional development and evidence-based best practices in early childhood education. At DAEYC, we recognize the early years set children up for all future educational success, and we are committed to furthering our mission.
We are the Dallas Affiliate Chapter of the Texas Association for the Education of Young Children (TAEYC) and the National Association of Education of Young Children (NAEYC). We invite your participation and membership in our organization! Prerna Richards and Nancy Beaver, Co-Presidents
DAEYC Mission Statement
Dedicated to
Advocacy, Accreditation, and
Excellence in Education for
Children & Early Childhood Professionals
Our own Prerna Richards, Co-President, Dallas AEYC is featured in the most recent NAEYC Member Spotlight!
Member Spotlight: Prerna Richards
"I value NAEYC and my membership. Over the years, attending the Annual Conferences and serving as Co-President of the Dallas AEYC has really prepared me professionally. I am constantly using the resources available, such as TORCH, to help the staff and myself."
Prerna Richards, Program Director, Mi Escuelita Preschool in Dallas, TX. NAEYC member since 1994.
Congratulations, Prerna!
January 29, 2015 University Park United Methodist Church 4024 Caruth Blvd. Dallas, TX 75225 6:30 pm – 7:00 pm Dinner 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm Program Meeting
To View past events Click here
Join NAEYC | Contact Us
Copyright @ 2001 - Dallas Association for the Education of Young Children | email@example.com 3544 E. Emporium Circle Mesquite, TX 75150 | (972) 699-0420


text:
Drying agents such as calamine lotion may help relieve the
The fats that our bodies can burn most easily are the ones that have medium-length chains of carbons, as I discussed in "The Best... Read more »
Dr. Joseph Keenan retired as a Professor of Family Medicine at the University of Minnesota. He holds a joint professorship in the... Read more »
Do you ever get the sensation of itching all over your body? I had it so bad last week that I could barely sleep. I kept waking up to... Read more »
While not everyone with psoriasis has itching, most do - some studies show around 80 percent of those with psoriasis suffer from itching... Read more »
One of the most frequent topics we get questions about at HealthCentral is breast itching. This is not surprising because it is a... Read more »


text:
Zalicus Reports Top Line Phase 2b Trial Results With Synavive In Rheumatoid Arthritis
Zalicus Inc. (NASDAQ: ZLCS), a biopharmaceutical company that discovers and develops novel treatments for patients suffering from pain and immuno-inflammatory diseases, today announced top line results from its randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 2b clinical trial of Synavive® in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
The Phase 2b trial demonstrated that patients treated with Synavive achieved a statistically significant improvement in signs and symptoms of moderate to severe RA compared to placebo, as measured by Disease Activity Score (DAS28-CRP), after 12 weeks of treatment, which represents a -0.9 change from baseline for Synavive (approximately 17% improvement) compared to a -0.5 change from baseline for placebo (approximately 10% improvement), but missed the key secondary endpoint of demonstrating a meaningful clinical benefit, assessed by DAS28-CRP, compared to prednisolone 2.7mg, the active glucocorticoid component in Synavive.
"In the absence of a clinically meaningful benefit with Synavive compared to its active glucocorticoid component, Zalicus will discontinue further clinical development with Synavive. These results are not only disappointing to Zalicus, but also to the many steroid-dependent patients who are seeking a safer treatment alternative," said Mark H.N. Corrigan, MD, CEO of Zalicus. "Going forward we will focus our resources and efforts on advancing the clinical development of our ion channel programs including Z160, our first-in-class treatment for neuropathic pain which recently advanced into the first of two Phase 2a clinical trials, and Z944, our novel, oral, T-type calcium channel blocker which is completing multiple Phase 1 studies and if successful will advance into Phase 2 development in the first half of 2013."
Study Design and Objectives
The Phase 2b clinical trial titled SYNERGY (SYNavivE for Reducing siGns and sYmptoms of rheumatoid arthritis trial), was a 12-week, five-arm, global, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Synavive as a treatment for the signs and symptoms of RA in subjects with moderate to severe disease. All study subjects remained on stable dose DMARD therapy (e.g., methotrexate) in the six weeks leading up to and during study participation. The trial enrolled 259 subjects and was conducted in approximately 50 centers throughout the United States, Europe and Latin America. The primary objective of the trial was to evaluate Synavive efficacy compared to placebo, while key additional secondary objectives included evaluating the efficacy of Synavive compared to its individual components (2.7mg of Prednisolone and 360mg of Dipyramidamole) as well as how Synavive performed in comparison to 5mg of Prednisone, a commonly-prescribed low-dose glucocorticoid. To learn more about the SYNERGY trial please visit www.clinicaltrials.gov. About Zalicus Zalicus Inc. (Nasdaq: ZLCS) is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers and develops novel treatments for patients suffering from pain and immuno-inflammatory diseases. Zalicus has a portfolio of proprietary clinical-stage product candidates targeting pain and immuno-inflammatory diseases, including Z160 and Z944, and have entered into multiple revenue-generating collaborations with large pharmaceutical companies relating to other products, product candidates and drug discovery technologies. Zalicus applies its expertise in the discovery and development of selective ion channel modulators and its combination high throughput screening capabilities to discover innovative therapeutics for itself and its collaborators in the areas of pain, inflammation, oncology and infectious disease. To learn more about Zalicus, please visit www.zalicus.com. Forward-Looking Statement This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 concerning Zalicus, its product candidates Synavive, Z160 and Z944, their potential and its other business plans. These forward-looking statements about future expectations, plans, objectives and prospects of Zalicus may be identified by words like "believe," "expect," "may," "will," "should," "seek," "plan" or "could" and similar expressions and involve significant risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including risks related to the clinical development of Zalicus's product candidates, the unproven nature of the Zalicus cHTS drug discovery technology, the Company's ability to obtain additional financing or funding for its research and development and those other risks that can be found in the "Risk Factors" section of Zalicus' annual report on Form 10-K on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the other reports that Zalicus periodically files with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Actual results may differ materially from those Zalicus contemplated by these forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements reflect management's current views and Zalicus does not undertake to update any of these forward-looking statements to reflect a change in its views or events or circumstances that occur after the date of this release except as required by law.Check Out Our Best Services for Investors
Action Alerts PLUS
Jim Cramer and Stephanie Link reveal their investment tactics while giving advanced notice before every trade.
Product Features:
- $2.5+ million portfolio
- Large-cap and dividend focus
- Intraday trade alerts from Cramer
Quant Ratings
Access the tool that DOMINATES the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500.
Product Features:
- Buy, hold, or sell recommendations for over 4,300 stocks
- Unlimited research reports on your favorite stocks
- A custom stock screener
Stocks Under $10
Jim Cramer's protégé, David Peltier, uncovers low dollar stocks with extraordinary upside potential that are flying under Wall Street's radar.
Product Features:
- Model portfolio
- Stocks trading below $10
- Intraday trade alerts
Check Out Our Best Services for Investors
Dividend Stock Advisor
Jim Cramer's protégé, David Peltier, identifies the best of breed dividend stocks that will pay a reliable AND significant income stream.
Product Features:
- Diversified model portfolio of dividend stocks
- Updates with exact steps to take - BUY, HOLD, SELL
Trifecta Stocks
Every recommendation goes through 3 layers of intense scrutinyquantitative, fundamental and technical analysisto maximize profit potential and minimize risk.
Product Features:
- Model Portfolio
- Intra Day Trade alerts
- Access to Quant Ratings
Options Profits
Our options trading pros provide over 100 monthly option trading ideas and strategies to help you become a well-seasoned trader.
Product Features:
- Actionable options commentary and news
- Real-time trading community


text:
QA Analyst
Hi! I've been a Rioter for almost two years now, and this is by far the strangest interaction I've had with the fans. I'm flattered, impressed, and terrified. At the start of April, I was seen in a photo in the "Urf Memorial Service" thread. You might recognize me as the 'epic neckbeard' who was weeping profusely. I know that a few people made some comments on this, and one individual went ahead and posted this image here: http://imgur.com/abwXw However, today at Riot HQ, we received a package addressed to "The Crying Beard". At first, no one knew who should claim it. However, after the 20th person asked if I was "The Crying Beard", I assumed it must be me. (Note, the beard has only gotten larger and more neckly in the last 2 months). I went to claim the package. The contents were.... unnerving. After first confirming there were no explosives, white powder or other suspicious contents, I found something I could not believe. Addressed to "The Crying Beard", no other markings, no return address, no note or explanation of any kind. Will the sender of this mysterious package come forth? If you can properly identify the contents of the package, I would like to speak with you. Privately.
Senior Member
idk where he is srry
Mother of god.
Insanity Cow
if you look really closely you'll see that the picture is photoshopped
Nice beard.
.... Is posting what the contents are against forum rules? I would assume it's just a handkerchief or something XD
That is pretty **** funny.
da fuq
This sounds like a whodunnit mystery novel.
Lvl 8 Psyduck
Am I the only one who thought of "the Beard" meme?


text:
Badr Hari facing a possible 10 year prison sentence
View Single Post
ESB Addict
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 3,521
vCash: 500
Re: Badr Hari facing a possible 10 year prison sentence
The guys a nasty piece of work, always has been. You could see it in the ring asnd there have alwasy been stories outside the ring of his chaos. From him going on the run a few years ago to his pitiful displays of arrogance & lack of sportsmanship in the ring. Total lack of respect for his opponents and the K-1 banner that gave him s****om and riches.
I won't miss the blown up bully! What goes around comes around....
Here's the great article form the same website from a few months ago that lays it all out:
In the modern kickboxing landscape, no figure throws as large a shadow as Badr Hari. The Moroccan fighter is a 2 time K-1 Grand Prix finalist, a former It's Showtime Heavyweight champion, and has been a consensus top 5 fighter for years. But those accolades only tell half the story.
Because Badr Hari is also the "bad boy" of kickboxing. From his backstage altercation with Peter Graham, to his disqualification loses to Remy Bonjasky and Hesdy Gerges, Hari has developed a reputation as a volatile loose cannon. Now, that reputation has finally caught up with him.
As I write this, Badr Hari sits in a Dutch prison cell, serving 90 days in solitary confinement. His crime is one we have reported on previously, but the details are worth repeating. On July 9, Hari attended a party at the Amsterdam ArenA. Also at the party was Dutch millionaire businessman Koen Everink. At some point in the night, Everink was assaulted in his VIP box, badly beaten, with his ankle shattered to the point that he may never fully walk again.
Hari's name was quickly implicated in the case, though his exact involvement was unclear. After a period of police investigation that included Hari leaving the country and subsequently being named the prime suspect, the K-1 fighter came forward and admitted his guilt. According to Hari, yes, he had been directly involved in the attack and had struck Everink. With that admission of guilt, Hari was jailed, where he now awaits a court date.
But the story is far from over. Once Hari was behind bars, accusations started to fly. A number of others, including a noted Amsterdam nightclub owner, stepped forward, stating that they too had been assaulted by Hari in the past, and had been afraid to speak up at the time for fear of further damages.
Now, Hari's lawyer has stated that the fighter is interested in moving past these legal issues, and so has confessed his guilt in a number of other incidents. These will likely lead to four more charges, meaning he is currently looking at charges in at least five separate cases,
including an arson case committed against a pregnant woman
that may involve noted Dutch mob figure Gwenette Martha.
Despite these confessions, Hari looks to be fighting some of the charges. Lawyer Benedicte Ficq stated that Hari should not be convicted of attempted manslaughter in the Everink case because, "[h]e gave a blow with the top of his hand, not with a fist. He disassociates himself from what happened afterwards."
What does this all mean for Hari's future? We can't know for sure just yet, but it has the potential to be very bad. The Dutch legal system tends towards leniency, but Hari's violent history and multiple charges can't be overlooked. He has the potential to be in prison for quite some time, and it's entirely possible we won't see him fight again.
Hari's legal troubles here are likely to not only severely damage his own career, but also the entire sport of kickboxing in The Netherlands. Even before these incidents, the sport was developing a negative stigma, particularly in Amsterdam, where there was a strong criminal element at their shows. The Netherlands are viewed as one of the homes of modern kickboxing, and have been a hotbed for kickboxing action for years, particularly from the It's Showtime organization. But last year, Amsterdam Mayor Eberhard van der Laan went on a public crusade against the sport, stating that because of the criminal element it brought, it was not welcome. This prompted It's Showtime to leave Amsterdam as its primary home.
Now, with an international star of Hari's stature involved in these criminal charges, the reputation of the sport is sure to take a blow in the court of public opinion - one that could seriously damage the future prospects of any kickboxing promoter looking to run in Amsterdam.
The story on Badr Hari is yet to come to an end, but this is certainly a major chapter. We've seen great things in the ring from Hari, yet underneath, there was always a strong undercurrent of barely controlled violence. And it seems that violence was not as controlled as we thought.
What we're seeing now is perhaps the real truth of Hari - that, despite his talents in the ring, he is, quite simply, a criminal outside the ring. It's just a shame that so many people had to get hurt before that truth was revealed.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by boranbkk


text:
Orrechiette with Caramelized Onions, Sugar Snap Peas, and Ricotta Cheese Reviews
Bon Appétit | June 2009
reviews & comments (31)
It's missing something, but I can't figure out what it needs. I added lots of salt and pepper and some crushed red pepper...but it still needs something.
okay, this was a lot of work and it was just ok. Do noty waste your money on the large ricotta, the 8 ounce container is way more than enough!!
My family loved it...I used all of the onions as I had read reviews and some said the recipe was bland...ours was wonderful! I might try adding pancetta next time!
I found that the amount of lemon peel really overwhelmed the dish - and I LOVE food that is cooked with lemon.
My family really liked this recipe. But there is room for error. I don't think the recipe as written provides enough time to really caramelize the onions. Truly caramelized onions take at least twice as long, if not longer, to develop a wonderfully sweet, complex taste. Try looking up another recipe for caramelized onions, and you will love this!
I would not say this was disgusting but overall it lacked flavor. I added some anchovies and fresh ground pepper which livened this dish up a bit but I probably will not make this one again.
I agree this awful I even poured some tomatoe sauce over it to try and make it taste good. Mine went in garbage as well.
I was disappointed with this recipe. The sugar snaps didn't seem to fit well with the dish -- I suspect that asparagus would've been better. It was rather bland, too, so I added some lemon juice and grated parmesan and asiago to the pasta just before serving. It helped, but it was still pretty bland. I think prosciutto might have been a nice addition, as it needed something salty or a sharper flavor to improve the recipe.