text:
Spring 2010
SOC 308 • Punishment and Society
Unique | Days | Time | Location | Instructor |
46253 |
Aseltine |
Course Description
While much of deviance and crime theory is concerned with understanding why people are deviant or why they commit crimes, this course focuses on responses to deviance/crime, or punishment. Some of the major questions this course seeks to address are: Why do we punish? How do we think about punishment? How do we justify the use of punishment? What are the forces that shape punishment? What are the moral and practical considerations of specific punishment practices? This course will seek to answer these questions by considering four broad themes: sociological theories of punishment, orientations towards punishment (or punishment frameworks), debates surrounding the effectiveness and morality of specific punishment practices and the use of punishment in non-criminal contexts. The theoretical explanations for punishment that will be considered include Durkheim's discussion of punishment as a response to an offended "collective consciousness", Marxist explanations (e.g. Rushce & Kircheimer) that emphasize punishment as means of social control over the lower classes, and Foucault's discussion of the punishment as a an expression of power and knowledge that aims to discipline bodies. The course will also examine the frameworks that are used to think about punishment, for example, punishment as retribution (i.e., just deserts), punishment as deterrence, punishment as prevention, etc. Next, we will examine the effectiveness of, and the moral debates surrounding, specific punishment practices, including, the death penalty, castration for sex offenders and the use of prisons. Finally, we will expand our consideration of punishment beyond criminal contexts. Some topics for consideration include punishment within the family and punishment in schools.
Grading Policy
Essay 20%
Exams 70%
In class assignments and quizzes 10%
Course Reader available from the Co-Op


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 18, 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
Judge Lind
Please be seated. This article 39(a) Session has been called to order...
Prosecution (Fein)
...Captain Overgaard is absent. Captain Hunter Whyte is present...
...Court ruling on Government's motion to pre-admit evidence...[Court Ruling] on Defense Renewed Motion to Dismiss Specification 13 and 14 of Charge II...both sides submitted [target briefs on harm]...Government motion to preclude damage on the merits... [Maximum Punishment for] Lesser Included Offenses...prior to damage...RCM 802...
Anyone want to add anything?
Defense (Coombs)
Appellate exhibits 213 and 241 are additional filings. I will discuss before LIO [Lesser Included Offenses].
When Judge Lind reads her rulings she reads them very quickly, and it was difficult me to catch many details.
Court ruling on Government's Motion to Pre-admit Evidence. Appellate exhibit 160
The numbers below may refer to enclosure cumbers or exhibit numbers. The enclosures from appellate exhibit 160 were transferred to exhibit numbers, but the enclosure number does not necessarily correspond to the respective exhibit number. See the 17 July 2012 transcript, last argument at the end of day for more information on this ruling.
Prosecution argued that they were business records and machine generated.
Defense [missed].
1.) ....maintained, prior to [pre-existing]...6th Amendment...
2.) Testimony...use at a later trial...machine generated statements are not testimony... The fact that snapshot does not transform data into testimony.
3.) If Government show relevance, [then] they will be made as evidence.
Court ruling is appellate exhibit 216.
New filings. Which side will start?
Defense will start. Appellate exhibit 231 is additional research motion based on Court's question regarding 18 USC 641, [vis.] evaluation to prove a thieves market to prove valuation. [See the 17 July 2012 transcript, oral arguments for instructions for 18 USC 641 for more information.]
Government would have to establish their is a market, and then the value. Key cases [DiGilio 538 F.2d 972 (3d Cir. 1976)?] cited by the Government. [Coombs said cases, but I did not record or missed others. Government also cited on 17 July 2012 US v Morison and US v Oberhardt] that will be the requirement. Second that it has value.
Government requested instruction. Does not accidentally state law. Appellate exhibit 214 with regards to conversion [for] 18 USC 641 ...of [substantial?] interference, Collins case clearly indicates conversion implies substantial interference.
Thank you. The Court will take appellate exhibits 213 and 214 under advisement.
Pin cites also for 18 USC 793 that were at issue...Government said that defense misunderstood. [See the 17 July 2012 transcript, oral arguments for instructions for 18 USC 793(e)].
Government, if you have pin cites, the Court would appreciate.
Prosecution (Morrow)
We did. It was starting with 'however' [language]...we will look again.
Thank you.
LIO [Lesser Included Offenses] maximum punishment. United States v. Ramsey, 40 MJ 71 argument we will reference. Appellate 215 is defense's additional submissions. During our argument, Court asked [about] 'contract violation' to support 18 USC 1030. Defense conceded that when you are looking at cases...find out what happened at trial...found filing from Drew case.
Defense position [US District] Judge George Wu [overturned] for failing to state an offense...took under advisement. When you go to earmark cite, the Government theory under intent...'motion for a judgment of acquittal.'
...intentionally violating the Terms of Service is a violation of [18 USC] 1030. So they say that violating the Terms of Service [TOS] in further of tort of emotional distress. So cyber [bullying?] another [identifier?].
Go to the next earmark ...Government ...at close of case a RCM 917 motion equivalent. November 23 and 26. Tried to dismiss in advance...to see what panel might do. Defense did an equivalent of an RCM 917 motion, go to introduction, marked as number two.
371, count one...count two 'emotional distress' ["by using interstate communication to obtain information from the computer in order to inflict emotional distress" 18 USC 1030(a)(2)(C)] ...using misdemeanor 18 USC 1030 to support federal offense and where you combine, it would be a felony.
Number three is earmarked. Defense motion to dismiss line eight "in light of jury...' Broad theory, theory breach of contractual...is a crime... Whether or not a violation of [18 USC] 1030.
So, when Judge Wu took under advisement...that is why...the rule is scienter requirement in furtherance could support felony of [18 USC] 1030. I think looking at it...misdemeanor.
Timeline proper purpose, example of theory no. 2. Supported for purpose and contractual.
For 29 [not clear from notes]... ...many of the civil cases were not considering criminal cases. Line of demarcation from 2008 and before...then line in the sand...we cannot allow civilian employers to dictate criminal...not your purpose...whether you exceeded...then that is Nosal. Once here, only a misdemeanor not time to confront if stated offense.
Judge Wu ruled not for vagueness. Judge Wu persuaded...no requirement for civilian employer. [Professor Orin] Kerr said if...nothing could restrict them...so when you look at it...[18 USC] 1030 cannot be dictated by contractual...took six months to consider in 9th Circuit...start to see cases pile up that it doesn't./
Yes. Court aware US v. Rauscher, not marked as an appellate exhibit.
On lesser included offenses on clause (2)?
If still Specification... If the... ...US v. Rauscher, Specification was defective...did not [ally?] terminal element. [Captain Morrow explains the case.]
Government maintains under Specification 13 and 14 [of Charge II, related to 18 USC 1030(a)(1) offenses]...if you rule under [18 USC] 1030...there is still an act to good order and discipline.
Captain Morrow, ...how shall I instruct on definition?
You could strike.
Exceeds authorized access could be stricken?
Hope you don't go that way. In regards to Drew, Courts have dealt with theory 1 and 2 the same way [See July 17,2012 transcript for "theory 1 and 2"]. Doesn't change that at all...still maintain in any event, Drew is not applicable. ...violation of contractual obligation, however, that [?] statute. Government...whether or not [18 USC] 1030...Wget has nothing to do with Acceptable Use Policy [AUP]. ...varied interpretations of statutes.
Mr. Coombs?
With regards to Rauscher...that is no [?] Article 134 offense all elements of Article 128. Terminal element was an Article 134 offense. On notice...even...during merits for Article 128 offenses. Rauscher is different. Court strikes [18 USC] 1030.
What about 1030 and LIO [Lesser Included Offenses]?
Eliminate [18 USC] 1030...[say instead] 'obtained and gave cables'... Then you would state a Article 134 offense... So, Wget. Yes. Would concede that would be possible Article 134 offense.
If I take clause out...concern not with [18 USC] 1030(a)(1), concern is portion without scienter requirement...straight clause (1) and (2).
For definition of 'exceeds authorized access'?
If you followed that line you could support a [18 USC] 1030. Provision not because of requirements, has to equally...in Nosal...[18 USC] 1030(a)(1)... Let's not worry about other provisions. In statute must be consistent. If Congress wanted they could clearly indicate otherwise.
Clause (3) theory...remaining portion of...?
As long as you...[?]...like adding Wget, just eliminate unauthorized access. Defense would have to concede that would be an Article 134 offense.
Specification 13 and 14 of Charge II?
What appellate exhibit?
Appellate exhibit 217, email on Rauscher.
Now [let's] discuss Specification 1 of Charge II.
The Court ruled...should be more clear...charged offenses of clause (1) and (2) as alternated theory...subsets of category...panel can accept clause (1) or (2)..for 18 USC 1030. We won't know until trial...[example?] lesser mens rea. [Missed.]
[Court Ruling on Government and Defense Motions for Instructions for Lesser Included Offenses (LIO) on 8 June 2012. See Court Ruling, "Specifications 13 and 14 of Charge II 18 United States Code (USC) Section 1030(a)(1) clause (1) and (2) of Article 134 UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice], the parties agree that this is LIO." See also oral arguments for Government and Defense Motions for Instructions for Lesser Included Offenses (LIO) took place on 7 June 2012.]
...[18 USC] 1030 and ["791" but am not sure if that is correct, since Manning is charged with 793(e)].
...by exceptions...my ruling may not have. I ruled no subsets of 641 and 793(e).
Only if they find by exceptions?
...hard part of LIO for [18 USC] 1030.
Correct. LIO's for [18 USC] 1030 only exist...scratching out language from statute. There was one subset to [18 USC] 641, [i.e.] lesser than $1000.
Court Ruling on Government and Defense Motions for Instructions for Lesser Included Offenses (LIO) on 8 June 2012. See "The Court will instruct on property with value less than $1000 for Specifications 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16 of Charge II" which are 18 USC 641 offenses.]
I think everyone agrees, maximum would be same [as?] offense.
Start with Specification 1 of Charge II.
[Specification 1 of Charge II is "In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, wrongfully and wantonly cause to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the United States government, having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy, such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."]
Government requests the Court find maximum punishment for Specification 1 of Charge II:
[Explains rational. Missed.]
Do we have that in a case?
No. Closely related... Government position RCM 1003, turn to federal law. 18 USC 793 is an analogous statute...
If definition is directly analogous...?
Courts look at [?]. Same misconduct. Same mens rea...for Specification 1 of Charge II.
...793 'wanton' and 'willfulness'...? 793 maximum punishment?
10 years.
...remaining elements of 793(f)?
Appellate exhibit 193 is the Government proposed instructions for 793(e), page 2. [Reads 793(f)] 'possession relating to national defense' (1) 'possession' (2) [Missed] (3) 'gross negligence'
Government relies on [?] heavily, has Government [considered] US v. Beaty...?
How do you read it?
...possession of child pornography. So... [missed].
As charged, Specification 1 of Charge II, can it be charged under federal statute?
The way it is written...prosecution...not punishable. As conduct underline includes men rea is punishable under [18 USC] 793...also [18 USC] 793(f)...also be [18 USC] 793(d).
"In that Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, U.S. Army, did, at or near Contingency Operating Station Hammer, Iraq, between on or about 1 November 2009 and on or about 27 May 2010, wrongfully and wantonly cause to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the United States government..." How under [18 USC] 793(d) and (f)?
Could be [18 USC 793](e) as well. Mens rea 'wanton for [18 USC 793](d) or [18 USC 793](f) is subsumed.
What about actus rea?
Same as disclosing. Only distinction is intelligence and national defense information. [As a rule?] intelligence encompasses a lot.
What about (e) on [18 USC] 793?
Government [believes?] 'reason to believe could cause damage' is acting 'wantonly'...could cause damage.
Okay. So, not an element?
Government [believes?] obviously not a statute but 'wanton' mens rea...not actually in actual statute.
[Reads from statute.]
In Beaty the information possessed not punished...maximum punishment. Specification punished what 'appeared' to be child pornography, but statute did not.
I am reading Beaty [I did not not the entire quote, I believe it was "Because Appellant's offense is (1) not listed in the MCM, (2) not included in or closely related to any other..."] Is there a custom of service in this case?
If you honor is not inclined to find under [18 USC] 793...under...
...the offense not analogous, no element of general custom of service would provide maximum punishment.
Look at [missed]...RCM 1003(c)...[US v Levins?]
Correct. No punitive article...the Government presumably...the 'evil' underlined in Specification in other federal [statute?].
That is correct.
The Court could not look to similar 'evil' in federal statute...'causing intelligence to be published on the Internet.'
In light of...? [Missed.]
Subject to your questions.
I think I just asked them.
Court concession that 'customs of service' Article 92 [Failure to obey order or regulation], [Army Regulation] 380-5...has other requirements and regulations...duty.
Look at RCM 1003...look to Part IV. See if there are others closely related. There are one of two possibile outcomes...RCM 1003...Ramsey case [40 MJ 71 (CMA 1994)?]...judge should just make up maximum punishment...logic made sense.
RCM 1003 clear mandate. First, look at Part IV. Closely related offenses...then one with least maximum punishment. 'Customs of service'...this is [Army Regulation] 380-5. We would say why [Army Regulation] 380-5 is closely related offense.
Two prongs: 'closely related' then 'customs of service'.
Look at closely related. Go with least maximum. Same RCM 1003(?)(2). Look outside to code or 'custom of service'. 793 is not appropriate...you have a 'custom of service'. Look to Article 134 4-112, various customs of service for Article 92 [Failure to obey order or regulation], [Army Regulation] 380-5 is 'custom' regarding intelligence.
(1) Article 92 [Failure to obey order or regulation], [Army Regulation] 380-5. If Court believed because of additional requirement...then look to 'codes and customs of service'. Court should follow [Levins?]. The Court should follow, 2 years maximum. 10 years maximum the Government is asking, then go to 2 years maximum. Reject the Government's request, if in fact [18 USC] 793 will apply to Specification 1 of charge II.
What other information...covers every [?] by 793, if I took Specification 1 of Charge II?
Rule 29 [Motion for Judgement of Acquittal?] and [?] would grant motion...and we know this is a made up offense. Not all wrongs can be addressed by UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice], Article 134 is for that. But, when you do that in mens or actus rea...So, [18 USC] 793 would not... ...find this to be a sufficient indictment.
Courts...[missed] to similarities?
Similarities...[to] give more detail the idea is stating other offenses..look at that too. RCM 1003 lays straight forward process...basis consistent with RCM 1003. Ramsey trying to do same thing for offense. He believed that 'lesser' needed to mean 'lesser'. CMA [Court of Military Appeals] said they understood, but that deviated from RCM 1003. Here I would say this offense is a [Army Regulation] 380-5 violation...'causing to be published on the Internet'...[is a] creation of the Government. So, if that is a problem...Army Regulation 380-5, 'custom of service', 2 year maximum.
...just talking...taking under advisement.
When Captain Morrow gives an oral argument he whispers. So, I did my best to transcribe him.
Government wants...under 'closely related' does not mean to the effect 'punish'. ...compromise.
What other...?
Article 92 is closely related, and is a subset of intelligence. Just because a subset doesn't mean that it is a subset...that it...[missed].
...[18 USC] 793. This conduct not punishable. [18 USC] 793(e) and Article 92...now you are telling...not the case.
Government argument...[regarding] closely related... [Missed.]
Specification 1 of Charge II, profferer 18 USC 793 (a), (e), or (f)...?
...having a ten year maximum...specification and conduct [relates to] intelligence...knowingly accessible to enemy...[Government request] not egregious.
Do on equitable [missed]...?
...trying to apply test, the law is giving me.
Beaty is controlling if offense...you can consider other federal statutes...does.
[argues Levins]
[reads footnote no. 7] ...comfortably rely on [Levins?] ?
Yes. Under third [?]...both closely [related offense under Uniform Code of Military Justice?]...but still 'disclosure' is the same 'evil'.
Closely related goes to offense in Manual [for Court Martial]?
[I noted 'ditto', which means either Morrow said 'ditto' or repeated the Judge's question as a statement, 'closely related goes to offense in Manual.'
...reads into the different standard...with respect...at odds with text of RCM 1003 and Levins.
We are not saying not 'closely related'... the 'evil' is not accounting for mens rea. Court could considermens rea...
...but see [missed]?
I mean in contrast.
So, if I read Beaty look for maximum...? [Missed.] ...if I read Beaty, once you go beyond...to require charge conduct [do you] have every element?
[Missed, but mentions Levins]
Missed one or two statements, because Captain Morrow was whispering.
...had a brief RCM 802...[concerning] LIO [Lesser Included Offenses] litigation for Specification 1 of Charge II. ...three theories of offenses... ...USC [United States Code] and Article 134...accept out clause (3)...straight clause (1) and (2).
[We know from the verbatim ruling I took on 8 June 2012 that the Court ruled "Specification 1 of Charge II clauses (1) and (2) of Charge II Article 134 UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]. Similarly an Article 92 offense is not a lesser included offense of the Article 134 offenses described in Specification 1 of Charge II. The actions alleged in Specifications 1 of Charge II would not be included in a failure to obey a lawful general regulation, and that prescription defines the scope of the elements for that offense. MCM [Manual for Court Martial] Part IV, paragraph 60 b. While the actions alleged wrongfully and wantonly publishing Government intelligence on the Internet could result in a violation of a lawful general regulation, they do not necessarily include such a violation. A violation of a lawful general regulation alone would not necessarily constitute an offense as described in Specification 1 of Charge II. See Jones 68 MJ 471; [?] Bonner 70 MJ 3 defining assault consummated by a battery as a lesser included offense of [?] sexual contact because both offenses required offensive contact. The second element of the proposed LIO, Article 92 (1) the accused had a duty to obey a lawful general regulation is not a lesser included element of clauses (1) and (2) of Article 134. Prejudice to the good order and discipline and service discrediting conduct is not required if the accused had a duty to obey a lawful general regulation. Based on the elements as charged it is not impossible to prove a clause (1) and (2) violation of Article 134 without also proving a violation of a lawful general order. Defense request for a lesser included offense instruction for Specification 1 of Charge II is denied."]
We know from the verbatim ruling I took on 8 June 2012 that the Court ruled "Specification 1 of Charge II clauses (1) and (2) of Charge II Article 134 UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]. Similarly an Article 92 offense is not a lesser included offense of the Article 134 offenses described in Specification 1 of Charge II. The actions alleged in Specifications 1 of Charge II would not be included in a failure to obey a lawful general regulation, and that prescription defines the scope of the elements for that offense. MCM [Manual for Court Martial] Part IV, paragraph 60 b.
While the actions alleged wrongfully and wantonly publishing Government intelligence on the Internet could result in a violation of a lawful general regulation, they do not necessarily include such a violation. A violation of a lawful general regulation alone would not necessarily constitute an offense as described in Specification 1 of Charge II. See Jones 68 MJ 471; [?] Bonner 70 MJ 3 defining assault consummated by a battery as a lesser included offense of [?] sexual contact because both offenses required offensive contact.
The second element of the proposed LIO, Article 92 (1) the accused had a duty to obey a lawful general regulation is not a lesser included element of clauses (1) and (2) of Article 134. Prejudice to the good order and discipline and service discrediting conduct is not required if the accused had a duty to obey a lawful general regulation. Based on the elements as charged it is not impossible to prove a clause (1) and (2) violation of Article 134 without also proving a violation of a lawful general order. Defense request for a lesser included offense instruction for Specification 1 of Charge II is denied."]
Other issues? Parties have until 16 hundred hours, and then recess.
No, your Honor.
Government do your want to argue remaining lesser included offenses maximum punishment? Start with Specifications concerning 18 USC 641 and Article 134 [Charge II]
Clause (1) and (2) of punitive article, theft of intangible property...
...close to larceny?
No. CAAF [Court of Appelas for the Armed Forces] and US v. Leonard. If the act not punishable under punitive Article, not closely related.
Show me the language in US v. Leonard. [Missed.] Look at page 4 of 6. Westlaw, bottom: "We observe that the 'closely related' language in RC 1003(c)(1)(B)(ii) refers to offenses that are closely related to offenses listed in the MCM..."
I misspoke. You are correct.
Look at larceny. Closely related?
No. Information. Stealing...is not subject to Article 121 [Larceny and wrongful appropriation] for intangible property.
What does closely relate?
Government could not find, meaning...[so they went] under federal, same mens rea and actus rea. We argue not punishable, not closely related to [Article 121 [Larceny and wrongful appropriation]. If stolen not punishable under [Article 121 [Larceny and wrongful appropriation] not closely related.
Case law...intangible property not applicable to [Article 121 Larceny and wrongful appropriation]. Maximum punishment for [18 USC] 641 should be applicable.
Only issue with your argument is that is 'step 2'...here, RCM 1003(c)(1)(B)(i) described an offense can be 'equally closely related' looking more broadly.
[That reads in the Manual for Court Martials RCM 1003(c)(1)(B)(i) "...(B) Offenses not listed Part IV. (i) Included or related offenses. For an offense not listed in Part IV of this Manual which is included in or closely related to an offense listed therein the maximum punishment shall be that of the offense listed; however if an offense not listed is included in a listed offense, and is closely related to another or is equally closely related to two or more listed offenses, the maximum punishment shall be the same as the least severe of the listed offenses."]
Yes, M'am. For larceny...when information...subject to converted...when information is intangible.
I understand he cannot be charged, but why not closely related? Seems like (i)(2) under that section. You don't get to federal code unless not 'closely related' to offense in Manual...in Leonard child pornography not found.
Article 121 and [18 USC] 641 more applicable on position [it was] stolen. Completely falls outside and the case law supporting that. If there is men reas...'closely related'. But when information is not within Article 121, Government argues, we do not [believe]. [It is] not related.
Any case law to support that?
Any case law where sentencing judge...?
I believe their is case law in this area is on appeal. [laughs] If I find Article 121 for [18 USC] 641...are CIDNE database, [etc.] military property?
Specification 6 of Charge II?
Specification 8? SOUTHCOM database?
Specification 12? NetCentric database?
Not military property.
Specification 16? [United States Forces - Iraq Microsoft Outlook / Share Point Exchange Server global address list] ?
Yes, M'am. [It is] military property.
Assuming that I do not find 'closely related'?
Maximum should be [18 USC] 641 analogous, conduct and mens rea are the same.
Same for [18 USC] 793(e) and [18 USC] 1030(a)(1)?
We would argue [same as 18 USC 793], 10 years.
[18 USC] 1030? Closely related in Articles?
Federal analogous?
You asked both parties, what is most... Specification 1 of Charge II prosecute...what would they prosecute...only applies if you rule is not in RCM or Article and look to USC. And, if Court consider Court of Military Appeals, there are a couple of federal cases that proscribe 'evil' as Specification 1 of Charge II. ...statutes that use 'evil'.
Statutes would be?
Most analogous...these statutes are not Specification 1 of Charge II, but in determining maximum punishment. Most analogous 50 USC 783.
Which section?
Section (a)
[That reads "(a) Communication of classified information by Government officer or employee It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or of any corporation the stock of which is owned in whole or in major part by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to communicate in any manner or by any means, to any other person whom such officer or employee knows or has reason to believe to be an agent or representative of any foreign government, any information of a kind which shall have been classified by the President (or by the head of any such department, agency, or corporation with the approval of the President) as affecting the security of the United States, knowing or having reason to know that such information has been so classified, unless such officer or employee shall have been specifically authorized by the President, or by the head of the department, agency, or corporation by which this officer or employee is employed, to make such disclosure of such information."]
[That reads "(a) Communication of classified information by Government officer or employee
It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or of any corporation the stock of which is owned in whole or in major part by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to communicate in any manner or by any means, to any other person whom such officer or employee knows or has reason to believe to be an agent or representative of any foreign government, any information of a kind which shall have been classified by the President (or by the head of any such department, agency, or corporation with the approval of the President) as affecting the security of the United States, knowing or having reason to know that such information has been so classified, unless such officer or employee shall have been specifically authorized by the President, or by the head of the department, agency, or corporation by which this officer or employee is employed, to make such disclosure of such information."]
The elements. Employee of the US did communicate...[in any manner or by any means, to any other person whom such officer or employee knows or has reason to believe to be an agent or representative of any] foreign government, that info is classified, has been so classified.
...publishing on the Internet? You have 'wanton'. This statute is 'knowing', and not 'wanton'. How are they the same act?
Element of Specification 1 of Charge II, 'knowledge' that is accessible to enemy, not direct...captured within recipient of foreign government...does prescribe the same 'willfulness' and 'wanton'.
Difference from publishing on the Internet. Is the Government contention that giving information to a person who is an agent of foreign government and publishing on the Internet accessible to enemy, the same thing. [Or "Is there difference b/w publishing on Internet accessible to enemy & giving classified info to foreign agent?"] is accessible to the enemy?
We would argue that it is. We want to reference that. Just to highlight seriousness. Other statutes:
Will take these under advisement. [Missed.]
...struck out clause (3), [not exactly clear from my notes, presumably Coombs said leaving] (1) and (2)...military property and value.
Are you aware of case where finder of fact has fractured at clause (3) and found Article...?
RCM 1003 Ramsey only new case dealing...
Blazing new paths?
Yes, your Honor. If you charge under Article 121, then clearly Article 134 says not larceny type offense, so closely related to that offense, Article 121 is the offense if they chose to strike clause (3). In fact, if they strike clause (3), we would say Article 121 is the offense.
[18 USC] 793 and [18 USC] 1030 track closely. AR [Army Regulation] 380-5, if not closely related or custom of service.
Why custom of service?
Look at drafters intent. You chose one with lower maximum punishments, that that same type of belief shouldn't also apply...because the drafters don't envision all possible scenarios. There is an offense, we haven't laid out maximum punishment.
Parker v. Levy [417 U.S. 733 (1974)] to err on side of benefit of accused. I have two options, between a code or custom of service. I think that tips to AR [Army Regulation] 380-5.
Additional statutes by governing opinion?
Parties have to adjust arguments...grasped offenses at the eleventh hour. Different mens rea...publishing on Internet, then enemy. I think the actus rea is completely different.
...not related to mens rea...in that [?]...would need to provision...to the custom of service...is the area the Court should go.
[Government interrupts to correct an error in their previous argument.] Government just...argument...punitive...[said] Leonard. It was Tenney [60 M.J. 838] case actually...case included in the maximum.
Can you repeat?
Leonard case...[should be] Tenney [60 M.J. 838] case. If not punishable, then it is not related.
Defense will look at case and [missed].
Court Ruling on Defense Renewed Motion to Dismiss Specifications 13 and 14 of Charge II for Failure to State Offense. Judge Lind reads her rulings very quickly, and so I did my best to transcribe as much as possible by hand.
On 8 June ...exceeded authorized access...
1.) The military [?]. The charge in the specification is sufficient if it (1) contains the element of the offense charged will fairly inform the accused of the charge against which he must defend.
2.) Enables the accused to plead an acquittal or conviction in a bar of future prosecution for the same offense. "In reviewing the adequacy of the specification, the analysis is limited to the language as it appears in the specification, which must expressly allege the elements of the offense, or do so by necessary implication." United States v. King,71 MJ 50, Footnote 2 (CAAF [Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces] 2012) quoting United States v. Fosler 70 MJ 225, 229 CAAF [Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces], 2011; United States v. Fleig, 16 CMA [Court of Military Appeals] 444-445 (1966) looking within the confines of the specification.
The motion to dismiss for failure to state and offense is the challenge to the adequacy of the specification in [?] the specification alleges either expressly or by implication every element of the offense so as to give the accused notice and protection against double jeopardy. United States v. Amazaki 67 MJ 666, 669-670 (ACCA [Army Court of Criminal Appeals] 2009) quoting United States v. Crafter 64 MJ 209, 211 CAAF [Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces], 2006.
2.) ...power to dismiss RCM 907(b)(1)
3.) CFAA [Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]...[ruling on 8 June 2012]
...language of Specification 13 and 14 [of Charge II] 'fairly inform'...US v. King [at 51?]. Specification 13 and 14, alleged unauthorized access...under classified information, not limited to code based violation. ...manner and use not mutually [exclusive?]...after formal presentation of evidence...
3.) ...1996 [legislative history] also evidence not limited to code breaking as amended...breaks into with authorization or insider...it is the use not...Senate Report 104 [Page six of 104-357? See oral arguments on 16 July 2012]...
4.) ...US v Drew upheld felony...(c)(2)(b)(2) on vagueness challenge...scienter element to be in furtherance overcame constitutional challenge...Drew held misdemeanor conviction...US v. Rodriguez 638...
5.) ...18 June 2012 found language...applied rule of lenity...[ruled would use] narrow interpretation on access not use.
Denied. I will instruct according to 8 June 2012 [ruling?].
...targeted portion of whether actual harm or damage [should be allowed] on merits. Acts done after to prove prior too...
Appellate exhibit 158 is the prosecution's target brief on harm. Appellate exhibit 164 is the defenses targeted brief on harm.
Actual harm or damage not an actual element. If it was an element, the Government would have to prove it. That is not an element.
I agree that actual damage not about elements.
Defense is proffering to test the decision making to test, he had 'reason to believe...' To test the damage is after the fact...and any damage occurs afterwards...they should be able to...Diaz and [Steele?] address this...
...were not classified...accused acted openly. But, not using information that did not exist, except for action of the accused. So, that is why it is not relevant on the merits. Just read from statement of fact...instruction from BenchBook" 'if the accused was ignorant...' Burden on prosecution to prove...for mistake of fact...time of offense and active.
Let's go through offenses. Specification of Charge I.
...for either one same issue.
But there is not a 'reasonableness' prong?
Still measures under both instructions at time of offense.
Just want to understand Government's position on statement of fact.
[Regarding Charge II?] ...lack of harm inform accused...then bolster that his knowledge was 'reasonable'...so defense should be precluded [from introducing harm on the merits?]. So, should the Government.
Impeaching witness. They should impeach, but based off of scope.
Government doesn't need [information?] to be classified...but for information that is classified, what is the information...then will offer same or different to explain how the information is held. All of that testimony should be impeached...if they are using opinion about harm...if it 'could' cause harm it is confidential and SECRET...so again would be able to cross examine, just not as to whether damage to national security did occur.
Defense proffers reason for admission for following: '(1) Injury of the US or advantage of any foreign nation' ?
What is our position? Not relevant. Impossible for accused to know if...accused to know if... [Missed.] These charges are not meant to [?]
All Specifications are either to hold accused accountable of theft and disclosure under those crimes and are complete at offense or transmission. If the Court adopts defense [argument]...the offense hasn't occurred until the damage is known.
..up until they got...
Specification of Charge I, Article 104.
I think actual damage is whether the information 'could be used'.
So, it goes back to someone's testimony. Does not prohibit as to which it could not cause harm...tomorrow these 'could' cause harm...if someone 'could' [?] didn't happen, entire federal structure and laws to non-disclosure compromise authority it 'could' cause harm.
More onto cross-examination of OCA [Original Classification Authorities]. What is the position, OCA classified this, 'I thought it could cause damage'...challenge wisdom?
OCA portion talks about what information went into decision making...they can be cross examined on general...Vice Admiral...defense could impeach...base of their training...so they have that... Defense make assumptions...is that they have anything to do with damage assessments or any evidence of damage or lack thereof...whether was properly classified and national defense information.
The burden is to prove the one element...is that the Executive Order...is that it 'could cause' harm.
Diaz great example to pinpoint. Diaz at page 133 held classified does satisfy mens rea. Classification alone determines if it is national defense information. That goes to his background, training... ACCA [Army Court of Criminal Appeals] did same as [Steele?]. All other evidence and classified...the 'knowledge' and closely held. Not strict liability of classified by OCA, but not 'actual damage'.
Original motion argument, reference relating to actual harm or damage, why?
Whole idea...operating on same guidance of law...asking if relevant for merits would...no not in addition to...
Merits portion of trial and pretrial motions relating to merits...is Government motion going beyond the actual mention of actual damage? Ancillary part preclude that type of information.
We never used the term damage assessment, we meant damage to national security. Many damage assessments explain data wither classified or un-classified.
So, within the information...OCA or damage?
We never used term damage assessment, meant damage to national security. If defense wants to use...in no case have we precluded damage assessments itself, but damage to national security.
I am confused.
Initials might have been used in reports that were compromised. That might be a compromise of national security, but not damage to national security. [Missed.] If they want to cross-examine, but not on damage to national security.
Evidence of damage to 'wantonly'...? ...State Department...people left [I believe she was giving a hypothetical example of the WikiLeaks Persons at Risk Group].
No one could have known until after damage occurred. Whether 'informed decision' is immaterial.
Had given argument, but I want to reiterate, both parties...what 'did' occur could be relevant to what ['could have' occurred?]...
As far as defense is concerned, don't understand...Government doesn't cite case. They also...they also are very confusing on the requested...don't understand position.
State of mind of accused...irrelevant after [event]?
It is relevant...if accused 'believed' information 'could not cause' damage...if general intent.
Are they general intent?
It might not be relevant to 'reasonable', but honestly part of other aspect of the statute requires that it 'could cause' damage if Court could go back to Diaz.
[Coombs reads part that the Government cited.]
...[need to read] footnote no. 4 too. "What injury might ensue and why was the subject of more than forty pages of classified testimony from Paul Rester, a civilian employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency who, at the time of trial, was Director of the Joint Intelligence Group, Joint Task Force GTMO, and had previously served as the Supervisory Intelligence Officer for Interrogation from April to August 2002. We have reviewed this testimony with care. The Government's conclusion that public release of the information in question may have been harmful to the United States is credible. We note as well that Appellant has not challenged before this Court the military judge's application of Military Rule of Evidence (MRE) 505 to this information nor his decision to seal this portion of the record."
Says what injury 'might ensue'?
Yes. Well, we'll see this in Department of State...they would like to say snapshot...and five years here is the damage, but they have to offer some proof. They used training...what the Government's own statement as to whether or not it 'could' cause damage.
But we are talking after the fact...how relevant...[after date of disclosure]?
Goes to the accused 'having reason to believe.' 'I chose what information would not cause damage' is relevant to reasonableness of that belief. And, to whether charged offenses 'could cause' damage. Hudson [2000 WL 228777 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. 2000)] case...risk versus magnitude of harm...
The Court took a look at whether victim had injuries. So, they used what did to educate on what...
In Joseph [33 MJ 960 N-MCMR (1991)], when they look at what 'could'...determination of panel members to see if it could...same in this instance. Government is making...if the information did not cause harm, relevant fact to it 'could cause' damage. Even though Government...Diaz...you have to offer to cause damage and relevant fact did not call damage.
Case in chief?
The reason they don't want information in merits, it is speculative at best. The Government has listed 100 people [as witnesses]. 12 people from Department of State; 2 OCAs; FBI; and multiple agencies of charged information. They are going to get up and, 'Let me describe the information. Let me tell you why [it is] are closely held and why it is classified.' Their classified person is going to get up there and say, 'This could cause damage.' This goes back to this is relevant impeachment. That is your statement as a Government witness.
Well, that is not a statement of witness Government [?] ?
Any agent of the Government who is authorized to make that statement. Yes. OCA. They bring Ambassador so and so, 'This caused grave damage, because it impacted...' 'This could cause damage,' or, 'This could impact ongoing diplomatic efforts' and they are talking about charge.
And, you look at Department of State...by an agent authority of the Department of State. That is a prior statement, that we should be able to impeach [the classification determination].
If the witness here says, 'Could cause damage on X date' ... 'This caused damage.' Depends on witness...they have to under Diaz...that this 'could cause' damage...
That would inform...on day of reasoning...depends after release?
'Could' this cause damage? OCA opinion, and that is what Diaz [says]. So you have to offer some information that it 'could cause' damage...if the Government wanted to offer damage, that is actually...
[Not clear who made this statement from my notes. I believe it was Judge Lind, but it may have been lead civilian defense counsel, Mr. David Coombs.] Don't believe there is any case where this type of argument successful on appeal.
Drake case is a perfect example.
Here is opinion on [18 USC] 793...We would argue Diaz, you have to offer evidence. What actually happened...also relevant under bias, RCM 608(c).
Department of State witnesses here earlier...I was non-confrontational...to get information. If Court recalls that witness made this statement..'impacted...' and when I asked, 'Have you seen that...[damage assessment]?' the answer is 'No, I haven't seen it.' So, 'You are just guessing?' [Answer is], 'Yes.' At every instance...whoever the Government brings, when this information was leaked Admiral McMullen, [former] Defense Secretary Robert Gates, [made statements] how the sky was falling, that, 'WikiLeaks can say whatever it wants,' and the kind of 'blood they have on their hands', and 'targeted assassinations', and 'no one is gonna trust order'...and within short order they backed off. No sources and methods compromised, and Clinton said...
And, then you have proof in the pudding, who ever Government puts up is going to have vested interest to espouse opinion of their boss or previous boss...maximize potential harm, and minimize any concession of any lack of harm. Under RCM 608(a) any time they espouse. With actual proof SigActs...damage assessments...no sources and methods were compromised. That should come in as means to impeach.
If I ruled if it was admissible?
If you said what happened 'could' cause strained relation with country X and then you have open source or other documents. Panel can't say what actually happening. Government can bring anyone from whatever agency. 'I believe to educate the public.' Now panel members left with... You have to offer something more. What 'actually' happened.
Element is 'reason to believe' not 'believe'?
Going along with Diaz statement. Let's use diplomatic cables...'I didn't believe could cause damage.' Now Government has somebody say just the opposite..what additional evidence can you offer?
Go to assault case. What is relevant under [Military Rules for Evidence] 401 [Scope of probative evidence in military commissions]. It 'could cause' damage...it 'couldn't cause' damage. What did happen? And, the fact that the Government is trying to [preclude?] this information [regarding actual damage?] speaks volumes. ... Otherwise, panel members deciding on what limited information.
Going to 'wanton'. Whether this did cause regarding 'wanton'.
How after...?
No one could know at the time he did this, but the issue isn't if he knew this, 'could' this information cause damage... Just like damage. All those factors come into play...but the actual determination in panel members if this 'could' cause damage...and the Government offers...panel members have that...not relevant for Pfc. Manning, but for panel members. Without that, then Diaz and Morison don't make sense. Government argument regarding [those cases] don't say that.
If someone is charged with assault, that [damage] is pretty good evidence in the merits, and aggravation, each of these: Joseph and Hudson.
Court of Appeals actually look at what happened and in both instances used [what actually happened in relation to] 'what is going to happen'.
Joseph case...no one knows if she has significant trauma...looks at the fact that she didn't require stitches.
[Sounds like "Boutier"] case. Training...master swimmer and scuba diver. No one knows what is gonna happen. Individual goes through...after find out didn't have training.
Again, Joseph, not a decision for a judge...all information...'could cause death or bodily harm.'
Difference in assault means whether [could see the?] fists [caused that injury?] an element and specific period of time, is there a distinction between these cases, 'reason to believe...advantage of any foreign nation'. We are talking about a time period.
Understand. Did these accused 'believe could' cause damage?
I do think when you look at Diaz and Morison, what he 'should have known' on knowledge, skills, and training...'could' has to mean something. Can't be too speculative...especially as it relates to Military Rules for Evidence and relevance...does it make it probable.
Panel members can take all this information into context. Then after the fact is some evidence on whether or not it 'could'. Only way you keep it out. Saying, 'relevant'...to the everyday person, 'Would that impact your opinion?' 'Yes, it would.'
Accused is lucky it didn't cause damage, and he was 'reasonable', that logical chain in defense.
If the Court believes that breaks at that belief is 'reasonable'...[if the Court precludes harm] that will eliminate a viable defense, and cut defense off at the knees.
Address MRE [Military Rules for Evidence] 403 [Exclusion of probative evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time] [If the Judge denies the Government motion to preclude actual harm, how does she prevent] ...from confusing members [with harm] instead of actual elements?
I know you don't like to give instructions.
Not talking about actual instructions...[but] actual trial
MRE 403 is emotional bias. Through instruction could tell how the information is relevant. We offer the accused believed it 'could' not cause damage, and did not cause damage...reason to know 'could' cause damage...to the US or any foreign nation.
MRE 403...will the members disregard other information and decide...
Not emotional. But element?
By caveating that to panel members. Didn't cause damage...and this is one of the pieces they will decide.
Thank you, Mr. Coombs. Major Fein?
This entire issue would confuse on merits, whether accused had 'reason to believe', because not elements.
Defense is trying to argue that, that decision was proper on whether that information was proper...
I thought argument was even if the information was classified, it was not causing damage.
That argument has no point of conclusion. So, this 'could cause' damage doesn't impeach. Steele has better language then Diaz. Diaz in footnote on page 133, defense stopped reading there. [Fein reads footnote, he says defense missed].
Article 104 'could cause' harm. You need to go to Steele. Court over and over talks about this in Steele.
No case about actual harm. Talking about being relevant or not relevant, means likely. In order to be [charged with harm?]... ...then 'intended to cause harm.' We do not intend...found him guilty of lesser included offenses. Actual damage at the time of intent, did more than [tap?] someone. Then, you can infer mens rea. Then, use more than...
There are no other cases than these cases in the Espionage Act. Prevents certain people from disclosing..once transmission is complete.
Actually, once it is 'reasonable to believe'...
Government has the burden to provide evidence 'reason to believe' and 'national defense'. Unclassified...was classified. 'Reason to believe' ...coalition of forces in Iraq. Defense can cross-examine why it is in the national defense and closely held...why it was national security information or closely held.
Evidence that you classified and said could cause damage, didn't cause damage, doesn't that impeach...?
Could the defense, say you decide is impeachable. Fact X, Y, and Z could not...closely held, not national security [information]. That fact may not be known to witness. Even still, it does not mean tomorrow it couldn't. Goes back to whether it 'could'.
Understand. 'Could cause' damage. I can impeach as of today?
Not relevant, mitigation evidence. A victim of a crime. It's not relevant if they have a long life mental health issues, not relevant if they were a victim of a crime...take elements on the merits.
Hudson case didn't consider what harm was at very moment...was when spouse went to hospital. 'Reason to believe' prong states you may consider the nature of the information. So, considering nature of the information involved was what was allowed to be put on. Damage assessment is part of the information to decide if he 'reasonably' 'could' have 'known'. Let's say he 'reasonably' should have known cable would affect foreign policy. So, element construction for 'reason to believe...should be reasonably have known'.
Take out classified information. We take a look at what happened with the benefit of hindsight to determine 'reasonably should have known' one of he factors panel could consider is actual harm.
Now, is something after relevant?
When you are talking legal or logic? The only way you could say what actually caused harm...is the evidence. Legal scholars can sit around and talk about this issue of MRE 401 [Scope of probative evidence in military commissions] is not a huge hurdle...even taking out legal...'any tendency' would have to prove did the accused have 'reason to believe' he knew or should have known.
Panel members are going to be [individuals with] college degrees. They are going to understand 'reason to believe'. It is a viable defense...'reason to believe could cause damage'. See the nature of the information. Government likes to say, 'could cause damage'...2012...somewhere the 'tomorrow could cause damage...' and we should not be excluded [from arguing that in the merits].
Anything else we need to address in the next eight minutes?
MRE 505(g)(2). Authorized substitutions for FBI impact statement. No oral argument.
[Will any witness be testifying to] any evidence on sentencing or...?
Not on FBI impact statement.
Not on FBI...?
Now disclosing under Brady.
Does the Government have access...is the Government in any way [missed]?
Are the two witnesses from the FBI familiar with the document?
Created by FBI Headquarters, not investigative branch.
They are not going to be talking about impact or damage?
The prosecution disclosure to defense [for the corresponding MRE 505(g)(2) classified motion for ex parte review, an unclassified motion] is appellate exhibit 157. Court ordered redacted filings and so there is a record of what transpired.
Appellate 156 os the Government's original classified filing.
[Appellate exhibit?] 182 [missed]. Anything else?
One more administrative issue. Cover sheet for Federal instructions. [Missed].
Same thing with the defense. Appellate exhibit...first pages of cover pages...find whatever enclosure and that to the front page of experts.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
For more than a hundred years, Glasgow has been right up there in the major league of big-city crime. From Madelaine Smith and Oscar Slater, by way of the Bridgeton Billy Boys and the Norman Conks, through to modern villains like Paul Ferris and Tam McGraw, Glasgow's streets have spawned a succession of fascinating tales of true crime. Even in the twenty-first century, as the new Glasgow polishes a growing reputation for sophistication and culture, blood still gets… (plus)
Editeur: Black & White Publishing (22 juillet 2009)
Format: EPUB
Nombre de pages: 304 pages
Taille du fichier: 460 ko
Protection: DRM
Langue: Anglais


text:
Share your reviews,
photos and videos here!
Involvement:General (knows how to use it) - Ownership:1 day to 1 week
Pros:Very well built
Color and surface matches iPhone 4
Has a non-slipping material on the bottom
Charging and sound working perfectly
The only con I can think of is that there is no way to adjust the volume on headphones, unless there is a volume button on the headphone.
Besides the volume issue, nothing could make it better than it already is.
I was surprised by the quality of this dock. Especially if the sound part would work. Not only it has, but the iPhone makes no external sound when connected to the dock. All sound goes to the jack behind it.
A must have for everyone who have an iPhone or iPod
Get great weekly deals and offers like: Collections


text:
Favorite Restaurant to start and end your trip?
I know many people have dining traditions. Do you have a restaurant that you eat at the first day of every trip? Also, do you have a restaurant that you eat at on the last day of every trip?
I'm not sure I have a favorite to end a trip with, but I love to start one at the Crystal Palace :goodvibes
We began our last two trips by eating at Turf Club on our way in from the airport. Traveling from California puts us into Orlando at dinnertime and Turf Club has great, efficient service and yummy food. No traditions for last meals; by then we just go with the flow.
If we have kids in the group we start with Tusker character breakfast and end with Cape May character breakfast.
Adults only we like to start with Bluezoo and end with Victoria & Alberts. |
We don't have a first day becasue we never know which park we are starting with.
However, our last meal is always at The Plaza at the Magic Kingdom. We like some simple food after all the "heavy" eating we do all week. |
We have been ending our trip with Paradiso. For the last 4-5 times. Probably because it is in DTD. Usually for lunch and then hit a park for a couple hours. If we are staying at POR our first dinner is usually Trex or RFC. Because we can take the boat.
Our first park meal is Crystal Palace and our last big dinner is Chef Mickeys. We usually eat at Waffle House though when we get to and leave FL as we don't have them in the mitten.
We always eat at Crystal Palace our first MK day, and at The Rose and Crown out first Epcot day. Total nostalgia for us, as these were our favorite meals on our honeymoon many years ago.
We like to start
our trip with dinner at 50's Prime time and end with breakfast at Olivia's :)
We always eat last at rainforest! We are leaving in 19 days
We like to start with Princesses for our soon to be 4 y.o. and end with our favorite spot(s). We rarely travel to dine, so:
When staying on Monorail line (Bay Lake Tower): start - Cinderella's Royal Table for lunch finish - California Grill for dinner When staying on or near Boardwalk (DVC Villas and/or Swan & Dolphin): start - Akershus for lunch - during Flower & Garden stroll finish - blueZoo for dinner |
We go to Ohana the night we get there, and if its early enough, we go to MK to watch the fireworks, or if it's a late dinner, we watch them from inside with the music piping in... Magic...
Our first breakfast is Chef Mickey's! |
First night--California Grill
Last night-Flying Fish It's what we've done many years now--- |
When we drive down as a family, we usually arrive around 7am, and head out to the Cracker Barrel closest to AKL. The first meal on property has generally been Chef MIckey's. Our first full day at the parks begins at Akershus for the Princess Storybook Breakfast.
We generally end our trips with a breakfast at the QS restaurant in our resort. No tradition, just expediency. |
I don't have a resturant...but a Dole Whip is a must on my first and last day...
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1997-2014, Werner Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved.


text:
Updated: 02/20/2014 6:42 PM
Created: 02/20/2014 2:24 PM WHEC.com
Did you catch the Today Show Thursday morning? A local man appeared with Al Roker in Sochi trading Olympic pins with Today Show weatherman.
Mike Rose is an Olympic fanatic and pin trader from Pittsford. He was in the spotlight with fellow Olympic fan and pin trader Don Bigsby.
Mike is the father of the Nazareth College Hockey Team's coach. Mike had on a Nazareth College Hockey Baseball Hat on Thursday morning.
News10NBC/WHEC-TV welcomes your opinion and interaction on our website, but please remember to keep it clean. If you're advertising for another business, being profane, vulgar or slanderous your post will be deleted. By commenting on this website, you agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Use. Comments are not pre-screened before they posted.


text: This Isn't A Game! Chapter 3.Chapter 3: Trapped and Lonely.A Yogscast fanfic.------------*Somewhere else, many miles from Ponyville*"Let me go!!" I yell, unsure if anyone can hear me or not. "Let me out of here!!" I'm trapped, there not much else I can say. Locked up by, who I think, was Herobrine. Surrounded by obsidian, netherrack below me. The ground is warm, and its starting to burn my feet. Or should I say, hooves. Yes, hooves. Somehow or another, I've been turned into a pony. I don't know how or by whom. But it would be nice to find out. My hind-legs are aching from kicking the wall, trying to break the rock that's imprisoning me. But no matter what I try, I can't escape. I even tried hitting the wall with magical bursts, once I'd worked out how, but even that didn't do anything. Didn't even leave a dent."You just don't give up do you?" I hear a voice coming from outside the cage, but I can't see who it is."Who are you! What do you want!" I snap. Not really thinking before I speak."Livid Coffee, you r


text:
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Usually when the same sentence mentions Amazon, Apple, Samsung or Microsoft and the word "patent" you are reading a report concerning some billion-dollars infringement litigation.
This time, however, the above companies and a group of other tech giants are on the same side, being the joint signatory of a common position addressed to the Preparatory Committee of the Unified Patent Court as well as to other European concerned bodies.
The position urges European officials to review the UPC system in order to enhance the protection from patent trolls.
In particular, the tech companies point out that the bifurcated system, which allows a decision on infringement separated from the decision on the validity of the patent, may be exploited by patent trolls at their advantage and to the detriment of the innovators, noting that "this result unduly reduces competition, can increase the cost of products in the market and reduce product choices, all negatively impacting consumers. Many other stakeholders, ranging from telecommunications operators to pharmaceutical companies and patent practitioners, raised similar concerns and made similar recommendations".
Here in Italy, as well as in most EU countries, bifurcation is not possible and validity and infringement are assessed together by the same court. Claims based on vague or shaky patents hardly originate injunctions, so that the weapons in the hands of patent trolls are far less effective compared to other Countries.
The UPC should reflect the best practices of the different EU courts; chances are that the bifurcated system is not among them.
Let's see if the EU officials take into account the concerns expressed in the common position and provide the new system with effective troll antibodies.
Topics: EU, Patent Infringement, Patent Litigation, Patent Trolls, Unified Patent Court
Published In: Civil Remedies Updates, Intellectual Property Updates, International Trade Updates
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© DLA Piper - IP Technology in Italy | Attorney Advertising
Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…
…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.
Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »
Our Intellectual Property & Technology department is an integrated group of professionals dedicated... View Profile »
See more »


text:
Hmm so your ass is so loose you didn't notice ? Yikes.
How do you miss??!!!
IDIOT!! Great for diarrhea though.
Um… I don't know how that happens because it's not that hard to miss. But I stopped wearing tampons.
Maybe if she regularly injects novocaine into her gooch. Any other reason is too disturbing.to think about.
It looks like you are too stupid
to own one….
She just needs to admit she digs anal and it will be all good!
Am I the only one turned on by this?
regardless of how messed up this woman is i must thank her for having to make me cover up my mouth to stop the food i was eating from coming back out due to laughing so hard!
I wish people wouldn't discuss their personal business with others or post it on facebook. Perfect example of refusing to use their common sense. Obviously she gets alot of action there if the tampon slides in that easily.
How do you even do that? There are three possible holes. It's not like freaking Indiana Jones trying to figure out what tunnel to go down when he's surrounded by 10 tunnels.
@mem^^^^^ 3????? I've always known chicks are born with 3 vaginas, but one of em is due north. Don't think you could accidentally slip something in that one while prodding for another. But then again, i,m just not THAT frisky.
© Copyright 2011 Awkward Messages |


text:
Tyler Hilton & Ryan Cabrera With Special Guest Dan Godlin
Ryan Cabrera, Tyler Hilton, Dan Godlin
Performance begins at 7PM.
This show is ALL AGES. Valid Photo ID is required for age restricted shows. Forms of valid ID are current and non-expired Driver's License, State ID or Passport.
House of Blues Chicago is a standing room only venue, all tickets are General Admission unless otherwise stated. Please contact the House of Blues Box Office 312.923.2000 to inquire about Dinner Package Seating and/or Disability Seating. House of Blues Chicago is Smoke Free. There is no re-entry.
To take advantage of the 4-Pack offer, enter quantities of four in the special offer box below. BUY TICKETS PARKING


text:
karaoke the day hostess goes out of business
This photo was shot on film. Taken by kylethefrench with a Lomo LC-A+ RL (available in our Online Shop) loaded with Lomo x pro film in Connecticut, United States. These tags describe this photo: karaoke, hostess, and xpro. Date: 2012-11-16. This photo can also be found in the album super weird vibes.Please login to get more out of this site
You are currently not logged in, do so now to add comments, like articles as well as photos, submit to competitions, translate articles and gain access to unlimited photo upload! If you are not registered yet, go here to find out more about Lomography and join now! If you just want a limited account for now you can use Twitter or Facebook. We would love to have you as a member here!
10 people like this photo
Liking photos helps us to present the best ones to you and others. 10 people like this photo. 10 people like this photo: sobetion, peropero, atria007, modern_nmt, alexyz, weleasewoger72, herbert-4, icarus13, fish300, and rik041.
1 comment
I don't think things like Twinkies, Hoho's, Hostess Cupcakes, Snowballs, etc. are going away ultimately. As they go down in bankruptsy, Bimbo's is working very hard to buy the brand, settle the strike (this is not the union's fault, no matter what Fox News says, the current owners of Hostess heinously mismanaged the company and pulled out the equity to pay themselves, then tried to cut pay to workers 30% and make most part time so no benefits) and restart production. We'll see what happens. Anyway, I can't eat any of this, I'm old and diabetic.


text:
CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
Gerardo Reyes
Reyes has a big time arm capable of pitching in the majors in high leverage situations. The FB/SL combo is excellent, and he was overpowering for the NYPL. He struck out the side in his first inning of work on 11 pitches; all strikes. While he is physically maxed, he could still use a slight refinement in his command. This will likely come with more repetition on the mound, as he certainly shows pitchability. His second inning was not as crisp, and he dipped in velocity and command. He flashed a CH, but I don't think he will need that in his max effort relief role. Overall, this is a quick-moving reliever that could see the majors in a year or two.


text:
Free Photo Archive of over 30,000 vintage photographs. Find people and the places were they lived. Search for your surnames. Find photos of your ancestors. Make connections with genealogy cousins. Add your family's photos. |
Charles Kelley and Georgia Mays Kelley
Charles Kelley 1900-1981 and Georgia Mays Kelley 1902-1970. Charles is a grandson of Samuel Kelley and Elizabeth Hensley Kelley.
The Kelley Family were very simple people who lived deep in the rural country of West Virginia. They owned land and most made a living from farming.
Submitted by Ruth Kelley, great granddaughter
Does anyone know who Georgia's parents were?
Parents of Georgia Mays
Her parents were Jasper Mays and Agnes Keyser.
Were my Great grandparents
Hi there the Mays were my great grandparents, my Grandfather was Charles Kelley, Father was Bernard Darnel'sr for some reason my father writes is last name [KELLY]??? I spell mine Kelley never understood why,Rumor has it in time past the correct spelling is O"Kelley, What do u know of this
Thank You
Bernard Kelley jr
To make this photo larger, click on the word "original" above.


text:
We're sorry, we need more information to run your search. Please enter a last name (adding more details will improve your results).
If you are trying to access details about Tim Brennan, then you are in the right place. PeopleFinders.com can help you find personal details about Tim Brennan like possible relatives, known aliases, and physical address. With access to a database of public records information and our exclusive DataTsunami™ logic, we can obtain info about anyone easily.
To help you spot the correct Tim Brennan, we include pieces of information that we have available. This data helps our users pinpoint the precise Tim they are looking for and contains details like relatives, previous residences, and known aliases. If the Tim on this page is not the Tim you are trying to track, we have also provided a list of people with the last name Brennan above.
You can also refine your search query by adding more text into the search fields above. By supplying more information—first name, middle name, last name, city, state and/or age—we can offer better results for your search of Tim Brennan. And once you have placed the Tim Brennan you are looking for, you can take your time and consider all of the public records data for Tim that we have available.


text:
My Profile
Santa Fe, Texas
Member since Aug 2008
Flag This ProfileFlag as Inappropriate
Reviewed Crab Hushpuppies
Apr 25, 2011 in Food Network Community Toolbox on FoodNetwork.com
"Made this over the weekend and it was not a big hit. Way to much thyme! My mom and dad are like me and we eat whatever doesn't eat us. Next time I think I will omit the thyme all together and add jalapeno or some other spice. ""


text:
Neuroscience - Assistant/Associate Professor (2 Positions - Brain Injury and Neurodegeneration)
University of Manitoba
Date posted:
UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA FACULTY OF MEDICINE Tenure-Track Faculty Positions in Neuroscience. The Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority are developing a new priority initiative to establish an interdisciplinary program in brain injury and neurodegeneration. Two (2) tenure-track faculty positions are available at the rank of Assistant or Associate Professor, commensurate with qualifications and experience. Positions 10634 and 10635. Candidates must have a PhD and/or MD with at least 2 years of postdoctoral research experience and be able to demonstrate exceptional potential to become independently-funded principal investigators.
Successful applicants will be expected to develop rigorous, independently-funded, innovative and interdisciplinary research programs with a primary focus on cellular and systems events responsible for pathologic progression of brain injury (traumatic or non-traumatic) and/or neurodegenerative disorders. Examples of suitable research areas include, but are not limited to: cell/molecular pathways of neuron death, glial cell function in CNS injury and neurodegeneration, animal models, neurovascular structure and function, neuroinflammation, regeneration, behavioral outcomes and animal and human neuroimaging and probe design. Successful applicants are also expected to teach and train graduate students in neuroscience and related disciplines, and will be offered an academic appointment in a basic science department to be determined according to his/her interests and specialty area.
The Program will be housed in dedicated laboratory space in the new Kleysen Institute for Advanced Medicine, which is part of the Winnipeg Health Sciences Centre complex. One of the goals of the Institute is to foster research that integrates basic and clinical studies with a focus on human neurological disorders caused by CNS injury and neurodegenerative disease. Accordingly, all members are expected to develop strong collaborations to generate applied or translational research with relevant clinical departments (e.g. neurosurgery, anesthesia, neurology, pathology, clinical neuropsychology, radiology, or psychiatry) or other faculties (e.g. engineering, chemistry). Successful candidates will be provided with a competitive start-up package and will have access to numerous centralized facilities in areas including human/animal imaging (MRI, CT, PET, two-photon laser scanning microscopy), transgenic/gene targeting mouse production, proteomics, epigenetics, lentiviral packaging and cell sorting.
Candidates are to forward further enquiries or a letter of application together with curriculum vitae, supportive information, a statement of research interests and the names and contact information of three referees to: Dr. Kevin Coombs, co-Chair, Neuroscience Program search committee ( firstname.lastname@example.com ), Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Room A108 Chown Bldg, 753 McDermot Ave., Winnipeg, MB R3E 0T6 Tel: (204) 789-3375 Fax: (204) 789-3942.
This position will remain open until filled. Anticipated start date is January 1, 2014 or as soon thereafter as possible. Application materials, including letters of reference, will be handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Manitoba). Please note that curriculum vitaes may be provided to participating members of the search process.
Learn more about our research at http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/medicine/research. Winnipeg has a strong health research focus. The city has a rich cultural environment, including symphony, opera, dance, theatre, professional sports and ethnic festivals. The region provides many opportunities for outdoor recreation in all seasons. Learn more about Winnipeg at http://www.winnipeg.ca.
The University of Manitoba is committed to creating a diverse and inclusive workplace. Applications are encouraged from qualified applicants including members of visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, people of all sexual orientations and genders, and others who may contribute to the further diversification of the university. All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however, Canadian citizens and permanent residents will be given priority.


text:
One has to consider that the source of this op-ed by Liz Peek is Republican Party mouthpiece Fox News, but still it's a question worth asking given the Times' near-maniacal support of the marijuana legalization movement:
… Read the restThe legalize-pot bandwagon has a new conductor. With the single-mindedness of Hillary Clinton seeking the Oval Office, the New York Times is pushing for legalization of marijuana. The paper has published no fewer than eight editorials or op-eds approving speedy decriminalization of pot in just the past few weeks. What's it all about?
Let us dismiss conjecture that the Times is gunning for a Public Service Pulitzer, which they have not won for a decade. Instead, two thoughts occur.
First, the Times may view decriminalizing marijuana as the next great progressive wave, following on the heels of same-sex marriage and, in earlier years, abortion rights. A smaller wave, to be sure, but one that liberals (and libertarians) can ride with enthusiasm.


text:
Rochester Police Log
Thursday, April 17, 2014
ROCHESTER — The following items are based on 833 entries on the Rochester Police Log from March 31 to April 5:
3:19 p.m. — The city has received a fraudulent letter from an attorney in England.
10:27 a.m. — A shotgun and three drills are stolen from a locked vehicle at Royal Crest MHP.
11:05 p.m. — Redell Baldwin, 40, of 41 Olde Farm Lane, is charged with fraudulent use of credit card.
4:48 p.m. — A Glenwood Avenue man has been hit in the face by a neighbor.
10:58 a.m. — There are thefts from two more vehicles on Railroad Avenue.
6:22 p.m. — A GPS is taken from a Crown Point Road vehicle.
5:31 p.m. — Daniel Boumel, 33, of 4 Mountain View Lane, is charged with conduct after an accident.
9:28 a.m. — There's been a dognapping from a vehicle in the Walmart lot. |


text:
An eclectic mix of styles, finishes, and textures, the Beat Generation room draws its inspiration from the "Beat" culture of 1950s America, when writers and creative-types championed non-conformity.
The best place to enjoy a good dram is from the comfort of a great leather armchair, in a cosy and relaxing space amongst good company. The Timothy Oulton lounge at Quintessentially Lifestyle New York hit just the right spot last week for an evening of whisky tasting with The Glenrothes.
Now available in Hong Kong, Timothy Oulton's new Bespoke service allows you to customise a selection of our most classic bags with your personalised choice of materials and finishing touches. Play around at home with the new online experience.
stay informed about all our latestnews and events.


text:
Loading stream...
Express Links:
Now Playing
Podcasts & RSS Feeds
All Content |
View all podcasts & RSS feeds |
Connect with Us
Behind the Mics
Jazz 89.5-2 host
Co-host of BusinessWorld
Host, Performance Oklahoma
7:00 am
Sat December 3, 2011
Complicity In Crisis: Can We Trust Ratings Agencies?
By editor
The current world economic crisis has raised hard questions about the assessments made by the big three ratings firms, S&P, Moody's and Fitch. It's also brought charges that they not only missed the onset of financial crisis, but helped fuel it with faulty judgments. Host Scott Simon talks with Roben Farzad, a senior writer for Bloomberg-Businessweek.


text:
Columbia Prof. Rashid Khalidi is dead-on with his assertion that we're the biggest enablers to Israel's illegal occupation…!
MENA Mashup: The I/P, Egypt, ISIL, Iraq, and Turkey |
By: CTuttle Friday November 21, 2014 6:50 pm |
MENA Mashup: Abbas, Bibi, and ISIS |
By: CTuttle Monday September 29, 2014 8:00 pm |
Seriously, why won't Abu Mazen sign the Rome Statute…?
MENA Mashup: False Flags and False Narratives |
By: CTuttle Friday March 28, 2014 6:59 pm |
Moving along…
Late Night: MENA Mashup |
By: CTuttle Wednesday November 6, 2013 9:00 pm |
Iran has said it is ready to call for the withdrawal of foreign fighters in Syria.
Syria Mashup: 'Group Think', House of Saud, and The UN |
By: CTuttle Saturday September 14, 2013 10:40 am |
Let's remember that Putin submitted his own evidence to the UN, and, Assad has too.
MENA Mashup: Egypt, the I/P Peace Farce, Iran, and Iraqi Drones? |
By: CTuttle Friday August 16, 2013 7:00 pm |
Now, besides McCain and Graham demanding a halt, it seems Leahy is also calling for cuts…\
MENA Mashup: Israel 'Doesn't Know What Its Best Interests Are', 'Institute for Scary Iran Stories', And, Mali |
By: CTuttle Thursday January 17, 2013 4:51 pm |
"The modern liberal state … often uses deception to gain its ends — not so much deception of the foreign enemy, but of its own citizens,who have been taught to trust their leaders." – Howard Zinn
Debunking the Latest IAEA Report on Iran |
By: CTuttle Saturday September 1, 2012 7:00 pm |
From that RT blurb… The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has condemned threats by Israel and the US to strike Iran. This comes after Tehran rejected as a 'political move' the latest report by the IAEA which claimed the country has doubled its nuclear capacity…
First off, you can take a look at the IAEA report here from the Grey Lady…! Now, let's take a gander at what the Grey Lady's in-house AIPAC mouthpieces had to say about it…
FDL Welcomes James Fallows, How America Can Rise Again |
By: Jim White Wednesday February 24, 2010 11:00 am |
In How America Can Rise Again, author (and former Jimmy Carter speechwriter) James Fallows explores the question of "whether America is finally going to hell", but in the tradition of the jeremiad, he offers possibilities for overcoming the massive problems he diagnoses.


text:
Weather here has been quite warm with a couple of cold snaps here and there. Around -8 Celsius these days. Supposed to turn cold by the end of the week, which is just dandy because I will be on the beach in Mexico I've recovered nicely from arthroscopic surgery to repair torn cartilage in my knee. I think some snorkeling is good physiotherapy, don't you think
Looking forward to this exchange as I have the past exchanges I've been involved with you guys (any gals?). I'm considering trying something different; it's not difficult, just different. Not going to spill the beans; you'll have to wait


text:
President Obama: Don't spend all day playing video games; go exercise!
Let's not dwell on this for too long, since it's largely a non-issue. President Obama, speaking to the American Medical Association (mostly about health care, such as it is), listed "video games" as a potential bad guy… for your health. You know, sitting on a couch all day long trying to rack up Achievements. Read More
Patriotic Microsoft threatens to move U.S. jobs overseas rather than pay taxes
Good for Microsoft, kicking the American worker when he's down. President Obama means to close a loophole in the taxcode that allows corporations to "deduct… cost at a high tax rate and report… profits at a low tax rate." In other words, win-win for the corporation at the expense of the United State Treasury. You know how Microsoft's Steve Balmer said… Read More
Google's Public Policy Chief To Be Deputy CTO for Obama Administration
Google's head of public policy, Andrew McLaughlin, will join the Obama administration as deputy chief technology officer, according to a report by the New York Times. McLaughlin will assist former Virginia Secretary of Technology Aneesh Chopra, who President Obama appointed as CTO in April. McLaughlin has been leading Google's public policy efforts for quite some time now. According… Read More
If The Watchdogs Are Saved: Ethical Repercussions Of A Newspaper Bailout
The somewhat depressing and controversial possibility of a newspaper bailout turned into a stone-cold reality in the past few months as politicians, including Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Ben Cardin and President Obama, have hinted at giving the newspaper industry a life vest to save a sinking industry. Kerry, in his dire remarks at the Senate hearing on "Future of Journalism" a few… Read More
Google's Schmidt and Microsoft's Mundie Appointed As Obama Tech Advisors
Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, and Craig Mundie, Microsoft's chief research and strategy officer, have been named to President's Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). According to a statement released by the White House, PCAST is an advisory group of the the country's foremost scientists and engineers who will help the President and Vice… Read More
Obama loosens Cuba restrictions for tech companies
Looks like President Obama wants to see some change in our Cuba policy, and not merely change affecting only Cuban-Americans and their relationship with the country. American telecommunication companies will now be allowed to, among other things, establish satellite links between the two countries and—Opie and Anthony may soon be heard in Havana! Read More
President Obama, Where's Our CTO?
President Obama incorporated technology into his election campaign in an unprecedented way, became known as the YouTube president within the first week of being elected, and seems to be forward thinking in his views on innovation and technology, which is why we endorsed him last year. But now we are almost four months into his tenure as President and leader of the free world, and the Obama… Read More
The DTV Delay Act isn't official yet, Obama hasn't signed it
So, Obama? What's going on here? The Senate and The House of Representatives both passed the DTV Delay Act that made the analog switch-off optional until June 12, 2009. But Obama hasn't signed the damn bill yet! What's he doing? There is nothing more important than American television. Forget the economy, sign this bill into law and lets confuse millions of American's… Read More
Obama inauguration draws attention to cellphone jamming (again)
President Obama's inauguration last month has brought cellphone jamming technology into the limelight, if that's the word to use, once again. The Washington Post reports that Federal authorities were jamming cellphones left and right for the duration of the event, and now state and local authorities want to be grated the same leeway. As you probably know, cellphone jamming is… Read More
UK's Directgov Giving Change.gov A Run For Its Money
Directgov.com, the UK government's one-stop supersite for citizens, has opened up idea generation by allowing developers around the country to share ideas on how to build a word-class online hub for all national government services. The Directgov site, which launched in 2004, reportedly receives more than 11 million visits a month. Unlike President Obama's digital initiative… Read More
Digital TV switch officially delayed
Have no fear, the Obama administration is here! Today, the Senate voted to postpone the digital switch from February 17th to June 12th. Read More
Be that guy, get an Obama Coveroo for your gadget
Really? This is getting out of hand, no? The onslaught of Obama clad doodads has begun. This stuff is going to sell like hotcakes! Read More
How Obama Will Use Web Technology
Editor's Note: The following guest post was written by Kevin Merritt, the CEO and founder of blist, a Web-based list manager and spreadsheet that was used on the Obama Administration's transition Website, Change.gov. President Barack Obama was sworn into office this week as our nation's 44th president. Despite running into a few technical challenges in the first few days at… Read More
1.5-gigapixel "Obamaramic" photo of inauguration
This enormous picture, taken by David Bergman, was stitched together from 220 images taken on a Canon G10 mounted on a Gigapan panoramic imager system. Easter eggs inside! Read More
The Sectera Edge demo'd via CNN
President Obama will hold onto his Blackberry for personal communication but anything government related that is considered classified will probably be handled on the Sectera Edge. We published some pictures of the General Dynamics device when we broke the news 'bout Obama's Blackberry plans last week, but CNN got a short video demo explaining the devices capabilities; yes, they… Read More
CNN's Inauguration Photosynth will blow your mind
You've likely seen Photosynth in action before, but reader KSA sent this in and we thought we'd share. Look at all those people! Read More
Yes We Can buy Obama's watch
Obama wears a Jorg Gray 6500 Series Chrono and now you, too, can own the same watch. How much is this piece of presidential ephemera? $325, babies, and worth every penny. Here's the story: Read More
Obama's inauguration: Cellphone reception concerns, Twitter madness & satellite radio coverage
In just a few hours Barack Obama will place his hand on the Bible, look into John G. Roberts' eyes, and take the oath of office. So I hear. With so many people expected to cram into Washington, what are the cellphone companies doing to ensure that your photos, texts and, oh yeah, phone calls go through while Washington celebrates? And how can you experience the thrill of the… Read More
The TechCrunch Guide To The Inauguration
Whether you are headed to Washington for the Obama Inauguration or simply want to follow along online, there is no shortage of sites and applications dedicated to the national party on Tuesday, January 20. Of course, every major news site will have videos, photos, and reporting from the event. But the people lining the parade route will also be Twittering, uploading photos, and capturing… Read More


text:
Good News Translation (GNT) | New International Version (NIV) |
32 Then I took another scroll and gave it to my secretary Baruch, and he wrote down everything that I dictated. He wrote everything that had been on the first scroll and similar messages that I dictated to him. | 32 So Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to the scribe Baruch son of Neriah, and as Jeremiah dictated, Baruch wrote on it all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them. |
Scripture taken from the Good News Translation - Second Edition, Copyright 1992 by American Bible Society. Used by Permission. (The Good News Translation - The Holy Bible Online) | Scripture quoted by permission. Quotations designated (NIV) are from THE HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica. All rights reserved worldwide. (New International Version Bible Online) |


text:
For those who love to travel or covet a particular city, this necklace is perfect for displaying which place has your heart. Destination charm necklace available in: Amsterdam, California, Paris, Texas, Venice, London, New York, and Tokyo. [$24, UrbanOutfitters.com]
Crave: Destination Necklace
Posted Under: crave, destination, jewelry, necklaces, travel, urban outfitters


text:
3 charged in murder of Jersey City man, July 17, 2014
Thursday, July 17, 2014 12:28 PM
Rafael A. Torres Jr., 27, was arrested Wednesday night in front of the Bethune Center on Martin Luther King Drive in Jersey City. Torres, who is in a wheelchair, is one three men charged in the July 10 murder of Michael Siegel on Jewett Avenue. Michaelangelo Conte/The Jersey Journal


text:
According to the United Nations, the countries below are the best countries in Africa; they used a strategy (The Human Development Index) which is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries all over the world. This is used to measure if a country is developed, developing or under-developed country, and it is also used to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.
1 Libya- has the second highest GDP per capita in Africa, behind Equatorial Guinea due to its large petroleum reserves and low population. They Libya are the fourth largest country in Africa by area, and the 17th largest in the world. Libya has a population of 5.7 million citizens.
2 Seychelles- is a nation in the Indian Ocean, with 115 islands; they have the smallest population of any country in Africa with about 87,476 citizens. Growth in the country has been dominates by the tourist sector, which provides more than 70% of hard currency earnings, and also by tuna fishing.
3 Mauritius- is regarded as a developed country with a GDP per capita of $11,991; this is enough for all 1.3 million of the country population. Mauritius has developed from a low-income, agriculturally based economy to a middle income diversified economy with growing industrial, financial, and tourist sectors.
4 Tunisia has a population of 10,327,800, and a GDP per capita of $7962. The country's economy ranges from agriculture, mining and tourism. They have one of Africa and the Middle East highest per-capita GDP.
5 Algeria - has a population of 33,769,669 with the fossil fuels energy sector is the greatest source of its economy, this accounts for roughly 60% of the country's budget revenues, 30% of GDP, and over 95% of export earnings. They have a GDP per captia of $6,698
6 Gabon- have a population of about 1.5 million people, the small population together with abundant natural resources notably oil and foreign private investment have helped make Gabon one of the most prosperous countries in Africa
7 Equatorial Guinea Equatorial Guinea have a population of 504,000, making them the third smallest country in continental Africa in terms of population. Large oil reserves was discovered in the country 1996 and its successive exploitation have contributed to an increase in the government revenue. By 2004 Equatorial Guinea became the third-largest oil producer in Sub-Saharan Africa. The GDP per capita is $18,028.
8 Egypt - Egypt possesses one of the most developed economies in the Middle East, with sectors such as tourism, agriculture, industry and service at almost equal rates in national production. It's GDP per capita is $5,898, and its population is 76 million.
9 Cape Verde- Cape Verde has been classified as a developing country after being promoted from the least developed countries status in 2007. The economy of Cape Verde is service-oriented, with commerce, transport, and public services accounting for more than 70% of GDP. 70% of its population lives in rural areas, Expatriate Cape Verdeans contribute an amount estimated at about 20% of GDP to the domestic economy through remittances. They have a population of 507,000 and a GDP per capita of $3,498.
10. South Africa South Africa is known for its diversity in cultures, languages, and religious beliefs. South Africa is ethnically diverse, with the largest Caucasian, Indian and racially mixed in Africa. 79.6% of the South African population is Black the South African population is estimated at 47.9 million. They have a GDP per capita of $10,119.
Africa, The best African places to live in,African Leaders and shakers, African Actors, African Models, Africa's Richest, African Holidays, African Countries to Live in.African
Monday, 1 June 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


text:
David Headley, the Mumbai attacks co-accused, told a Chicago court that he gave more than $ 100,000 to co-conspirator Tahawwur Rana, indicating that he kept all his illegal money with his long-time friend and perhaps was an investor in his business.
Headley said this money was given to Rana spread over several years and he got this money from his father's cash, profit from the illegal trade in heroin.
Headley was testifying in a court here on the fourth-day of the trial of Pakistani-Canadian Rana, another co-accused in the case. The statements formed part of the testimony of Headley, who has pleaded guilty.
Headley told the court that he had access to Rana's account, which even Rana's wife did not have.
He said that Pasha, the Pakistani terrorist, was a former military guy and that their fathers knew each other.
While Pasha's father was a Major in the Pak Army, his father was a senior diplomat.
In fact, Headley told the court that the then Prime Minister of Pakistan came to the funeral of his father, reflecting the important position of his family in the Pakistani society.
He said that Rana threw cold water on his plans to hold a fund raiser for Shiv Sena, as the latter being a devout Muslim was against such a move for a Hindu outfit.
Keywords: David Headley, Mumbai terror, 26/11 attacks, Chicago court trial, Tahawwur Rana