text:
REYNOLDS v. COCHRAN
- 1960-1969
Legal provision: Right to Counsel
Argument of Claude Pepper
Mr. Claude Pepper: -- habitual offender of the statute.
Now, the reason I say that it appears that the Florida Supreme Court has not decided the question is this.
In the subsequent case of Milan versus the State, a Florida case in 1958, when that question was presented, then the Court erred -- as to the second question, their Supreme Court had said -- the -- the Supreme Court of Florida held that the general statutes of limitations barred prosecution for an offense.
Now, here is the language of the Court, "The first of the above questions," as quote, "is not before the Court because there is no showing that appellant had actually said his entire sentence for the second offense, before the amended information was filed, charging him with being a second offender."
On this question, there is a difference of opinion among the members of the Court but as it is not right for determination under the record here, no useful purpose could be served by discussing it.
Now, what our suggestion want to do that the Florida Supreme Court in that later case, indicating that they didn't decide this question because there was a difference of opinion among the Justices of the Court, this Court might well apply the doctrine that where the State Supreme Court has not made an authoritative interpretation of a statute, this Court, when the matter is properly before it, may place its own interpretation upon the statute which in this case, to avoid the question of unconstitutionality on the ground of not observing due process, would require the Court to construe the statute to mean as the Court, in the Nelson case indicated, it might have been intended to mean that it only gave jurisdiction to the Court after a man had begun the service of his sentence or after the expiration of a term.
But they didn't go so far as to apply to a case where a man had completed his service of the felony sentence and was free without any previous notice, without any concealment or without any conduct on his part that deterred the State from -- from bringing him within the encompass of the habitual offender statute.
So I'm saying, Your Honors, is that I would be grateful if the Court would take into account and keep in mind that if you construe the statute that way, then, unless they've got some other authority upon which to hold a man, this statute would not be a sufficient ground for his incarceration.
If they've got other grounds, of course, alright, let that appear.
Alright, and to avoid an interpretation of the statute that would raise a serious question of due process as to whether it could apply in case the State had sat by with no fault, at least on the part of the defendant, and allowed him to serve his sentence, get credit for his good time, become presumably good citizen again, and then be, once more, apprehended and incarcerated.
Now, add all of these, if you can do it in one instance, in this case, he had two years and he served, let's say, one and three-quarter years.
He -- the judge could have given him 10 years.
Then, if what I say is not substantially true, Your Honor, what would prevent the Court from the first time he was apprehended under the habitual offender statute to say, "Alright, I'll give you three years this time."
He goes and serves the three years.
Then, he gets out and goes about his business and five years later, they're bringing him in again and give him some more years.
And he goes and serves again and they wait 20 years and bring him up again and he serves some more time.
If there's not some constitutional principle, there's no statutory prohibition here in this Act against the Court waiting 50 years after he had finished the service of the felony sentence for which he was sentenced and then bringing him back again, after he's lived with family and lived an honorable life, and incarcerating him again for having been a habitual offender.
I hope it may be within the scope of -- of this case, in the Court's review of it, to consider those questions, as well as the counsel's questions.
Thank you.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Thank you.
Argument of George R. Georgieff
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Mr. Chief Justice --
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Mr. Georgieff.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: -- may it please the Court.
In essence, this question becomes one of whether or not the Florida Supreme Court, by denying this man -- this man's petition for habeas corpus, ruled in effect that Judge Amidon, by not granting him an extension of time to allow his counsel to appear in court to represent him, denied this man due process such of you -- such as you have recognized in a number of cases with which I don't take any exceptions.
Now, if it is any more than that, I'm not aware that it is.
It simply is the question of the discretion used by Judge Amidon in either allowing or not allowing this man's counsel to appear.Now, that has to turn on one thing and one thing only, as I see it.
Despite the existence of Cash versus Culver, McNeal versus Culver or Capern, one or the other and Chandler versus Fretag, the Supreme Court of Florida could have relied on your decision in the case of Betts versus Brady wherein this Court concluded, albeit a number of the members who participated in that opinion are not here today.
There, you concluded in essence that if it did not result in a fundamental unfairness to deny counsel or to not allow counsel, that it wasn't such as would cause a reversal of a conviction in the state court simply on that basis.
That's my point here today.
If I can demonstrate to you that what happened to this man, as a result of the activities of the criminal court -- record of Polk County, was not any different than what have happened to him had counsel been there, then I think am free to assume that I fully take myself out of the ambit of not only Chandler versus Fretag but also Cash versus Culver on the -- on the status of Betts versus Brady, that is to say that you have not yet reversed it.
Now, I think it --
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Do you think Betts versus Brady have to do with a man having a right to be represented by his own counsel?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: No, sir, it did not.
It --
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Though -- well, that's what this case is, isn't it?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: In -- in Betts versus Brady, as I understand it, was a question of denial of counsel, the appointment --
Chief Justice Earl Warren: That's right.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: -- of counsel.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: That's right.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I am -- it's true that I can't place it squarely within Betts versus Brady but I think, before I'm finished, I'll be able to equate it with the circumstances in that case.
But, I think, in fairness to counsel, since he did not argue any points which he urged to be included in this record, that I ask the Court not to consider any references that I have in my brief to matters they hold the record.
I have made one or two in response to pleading by counsel, and I suggest now that the Court not consider them, wherever they may appear.
Justice John M. Harlan: Where are they?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: They were in reference to affidavits executed by the trial judge and by Mr. Laird, counsel in this case.
I referred to them, and I don't think it would be fair to have you consider my argument surrounding those instances since Mr. Pepper has stated that he is not going to proceed on matters that are not literally a part of the record before you today.
If the Court please, the question of the constitutionality of this statute which was raised by the petitioner, the one that assails it for the possible basis that in its title, it lacks sufficient notice to the electors of the State that they did not know what it included.
His answer was very simply by the case of Baggett versus State at 22 So.2d for the reenactment of a bill into law every two years or whenever the legislature needs, cures the defect that might exist in the title.
Now, it doesn't cure any other constitutional -- constitutional defect except a title one.
That is to say, when it becomes a part of the codified laws of the State, you no longer rely on the title for information, but you do on the codification by the legislature in its adoption as a part of the revised code.
Now, the question about whether or not this man could have been arrested on the basis of this, since it does not charge an offense as such, I think this Court has held several times that the crime of -- or rather, the situation in which a multiple offender finds himself is not one of an offense.
That is not a crime and therefore, the position was advanced by the petitioner.
Since it is not a crime, it is impossible to charge it in a warrant since the statutes of the State of Florida require that a warrant specify the offense for which a man is sought.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Well, doesn't that depend upon the statute of the particular State?
In some States, I think, habitual offender is being charged with another crime.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: That is true, sir.
In Florida, he is not.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: He is not.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: He is not.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: The Supreme Court has held that, hasn't it?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: That's correct, sir.
And --
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Yes.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: -- I say, by the pronouncements of 775.09 and 775.11, we won't deal with 775.10 because that involves fourth offenders and it's not in issue here, but 775.09 provides, and 775.11, the procedure which follows when a man does commit a second felony and is proceeded against, that there shall not be an information drawn.
Now, if we go back to 907.01 in Florida statutes, it provides that when an indictment or an information is returned, indictment filed or information returned, that a capias shall issue for the arrest of the person, and that is very simply what happened here.
The record will reflect, I think on page 4, as filed in this Court that a capias was issued, bond set at $5000 and the man was, as the Senator correctly stated, picked up in Volusia County, some distance away from Polk County and brought back.
Now, the physical warrant or a capias was not -- obviously not given to the deputy, but he was picked up on a hold order.
That's done 1000 a day throughout the country.
I find nothing offensive in that and of course, that he was against -- that he was brought in court against his will, I'll cheerfully concede.
Most of them are.
When he was brought into court, he did not suggest to the trial judge when his case was called for arraignment, and he was asked these -- these questions, whether or not he, in fact, was the man who was named in this information as having committed and found guilty of and served sentences for these other two offenses.
He did not say "I don't know why my lawyer isn't here, but he's on his way" or give some excuse.
I contend that he, at least, should have done that.
He should have told the judge that there was some reason why the lawyer wasn't there or made it known to him that he was trying his best to get the man there but couldn't.
Now, in the state of the record, I can't do anything but -- but imagine or suppose what the circumstances were, but I submit that if 10 defendants were in that same court that morning and each one of them asked for a continuance for that purpose, that it would, of course, destroy any ability to hold a trial.
I don't know how long it took the lawyer to get there or that, in fact, that he had one except as he says in his brief or in his petition.
Now, I submit that the simple refusal of the Court, even if we accept all this as true, to grant a continuance in order for counsel to get there is a little different than a denial of the right to secure counsel.
It's simply one in which the Court is seeking to exercise some control over the process which it is about to administer.
And I don't think that it is quite the subject of condemnation that others have been for similar areas but not identical.
Now, the time limitation is it appears a very serious question here, and I don't know that the Court will ever have to get to it, I really doubt that you will, but to the extent that you may find it necessary to pass on the question of whether or not it is proper to proceed against the man as a multiple offender after he has completed the service of his second sentence, I will address this for your consideration.
I'm satisfied that the Court is quite aware that a number of felony crimes, not only in the State of Florida, but as well throughout the several States and possibly in the federal system, are susceptible of a penalty which -- which includes nothing more than the payment of a fine.
Now, let us assume that a man comes into court and is charged with a felony properly but in that felony prosecution and charge, there is an alternative given to the trial judge.
He may either sentence the man to penal servitude or he may assess against him a fine.
In either case, the man is guilty of a felony.
It's only the punishment that is allowed to be discretionary.
Then, let us say that that man is fortunate enough to have assessed against him the penalty of simply a fine.
He then proceeds to the clerk and pays his fine.
I should like to know how we can proceed against him as a multiple offender if we can't do it after that.
We certainly can't do it while he's doing it because he's not serving anything.
All he's doing is paying a fine.
He hands the money over and gets a receipt, I understand, and I don't know of any way if the argument is sound that we can proceed against that man after he had served his sentence because that was the only sentence, the fine.
Now, if the argument presented by the petitioner in reference to this is good, it ought to cover that situation too, and I submit that it does not.
Now, the --
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Do you have a speedy -- speedy trial provision in your constitution?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Yes, we do, under 9 -- 915, Chapter 915 Florida statutes and Chapter 916, the first two sections thereof, sir.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: How do you equate this situation to that provision?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I'm afraid I don't quite understand.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Well, here, you have -- have a situation where -- where a man has not been charged for two years or more, and after he has served his time for the offense, he was originally charged with, how -- how can you say that he has a speedy trial in this issue?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Well, sir, I have two remarks that I'd like to make in response to that.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Yes.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: First, the provisions for a speedy trial contemplate that it shall be for a crime.
Second, they provide that if you do not move according to the provisions, I believe it's 916 (1), I'm not certain but it certainly was in Chapter 916, that it is an affirmative directive to the defendant that he shall move for a quick trial and if it is not done within a certain number of them, that is to say three of them, he must make three motions that he'd be brought to trial and if the State does not proceed against him or show good cause why it has not, then he is forever discharged.
It is not an automatic thing unless he initiates it.
There was one case I can call to mind that the Supreme Court ruled on where 29 terms of court had passed.
There were six a year, 29 terms of court had passed.
The man was on -- out on bond, that is different, of course, than here but in any case he made no effort whatsoever to secure any speedy trial until such time as he found himself in the prison.
And then, of course, he came up and said, "Well, look what you've done to me.
You waited all this time."
The Court said, "Yes, but the statute requires that you move and request that this trial be granted.
If, in three terms, it is not granted, you are forever free unless good cause is shown."
So, I don't think that the question of speedy trial quite includes this situation since there was no allegation made that he did not come within it or rather, that he did come within it, or that his circumstance was one of a crime, that is to say, since this is not offense, I must assume that it is also not a crime.
It is only a provision for an enhanced penalty.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: But he's entitled to -- entitled to a jury trial, isn't he?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: In this situation?
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Yes.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: But of course, he is.
No question.
But in any case, as I say, he made no allegation that he felt within the provisions of 916 and that he did meet the test set out by the Supreme Court of Florida for one who complains about the lack of a speedy trial.
As a matter of fact, that was never raised in this petition.
Justice Charles E. Whittaker: Well, is everyone entitled to a jury trial on these multiple offender proceedings?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: The statute so provides, Mr. Justice Whittaker.
Justice Charles E. Whittaker: I understood the statute to so provide if he denied identity.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: That's true, sir.
Justice Charles E. Whittaker: Well, then, that makes quite a difference, doesn't it?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Yes, it does.
Justice Charles E. Whittaker: Did this man deny identity?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Did he deny it?
He did not, sir.
Justice Charles E. Whittaker: What did he do?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: May I read from his petition, I am quoting off at page 5, "The trial court then proceeded to read off to convictions from your petitioner's record," and then asked, "You are guilty of these two convictions, are you not?"
Petitioner saying "Yes, Your Honor, but the Court," and then he proceeds.
So, I cannot assume that he denied his identity and therefore, the question of the jury trial, I don't imagine, comes into play here.
Justice William O. Douglas: Suppose the lawyer have a -- if he was present, he might see a whole nest of problem in statutes of this kind.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Well, Mr. Justice Douglas, I was about to come into that area.
My position, very simply, is --
Justice William O. Douglas: Your -- your brief, apparently, goes on the -- which I read with interest is -- goes on the theory that, since he admitted that he was the man, and that's -- since he admitted that the two crimes have been committed, that there wasn't anything the lawyer could have done for him.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Yes, sir, that is correct.
And in response again to the reply filed by the petitioner to my brief, which I, of course, could not respond to, I stated or I will state now, there was raised the question of well, now, suppose he attacks the constitutionality of the entire statute or suppose he challenges his arrest or suppose he challenges the delay between the tiny served his sentence or was initially sentenced at the time of so-and-so.
Justice William O. Douglas: Well, you've enumerated some of them, but there might even be others.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: It is true there may be a host of them.
Justice William O. Douglas: Yes.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: No question on that.
I -- I can't imagine now what any more would be.
I must assume --
Justice William O. Douglas: Well, one might be -- I don't know if there's anything to the ex post facto point or not but, at least, a lawyer -- some lawyers might think there was.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: The question of ex post facto, I think, though it may not have reached you and had a specific pronouncement from you, it has in Florida in the case of Cross versus State.
Justice William O. Douglas: I understand.
What is -- what are those questions that might deserve the litigation?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Yes and for purposes of illumination, do let me tell the Court that this statute is not new by any means.
It was originally enacted in 1927.
Justice William O. Douglas: I'm just thinking of the list of questions that --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I'd be hard put to figure just what a man might urge if he were counsel in this case.
Justice Charles E. Whittaker: Would it have been open to, may I ask, to assert that, in fact, he was not a multiple offender in that a prior sentence was void?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I take it that that would be an available defense.
I had no reason to believe that it wouldn't, Your Honor.
Justice Charles E. Whittaker: Wouldn't a lawyer be able to help him on that?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I'm satisfied that he could, if he could demonstrate that that were so.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Suppose he -- suppose his defense was that one of these was not a felony in some States, for instance, the crime of forgery.
If in only small amounts, it's punishable by either term in the penitentiary or by term in the county jail and if county jail sentence is given, it does not constitute a felony in that State.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: That is the case in Florida, by the way, I might add.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Is that so?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Yes, sir.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Now, I -- I suppose when you're dealing with the laws of the various States of the union, that would -- that might be a very -- very obvious defense.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I would be less than honest if I said it wouldn't.
Do let me say, however, that in that -- in that instance, I -- I can only contemplate within -- within the confines of what he is confronted with.
The information specifically set out charging that these were felonies, that they were convictions in a certain court, and they can only be that.
In a criminal court of record, they do have joint jurisdiction as to felonies with the circuit court where there is no criminal court of record.
That is to say, we don't have criminal courts of record everywhere in the State.
Now, if this were in -- in a circuit where they did not have any, the trial would have been in a circuit court where they had only felony jurisdiction.
And I take it that the recitation in the charge that the man was charged with a felony, convicted of it, sentenced to Raiford, did serve his sentence would meet that objection on its face since all they would have to produce by the cases that come within the -- come under these sections is somebody who is acquainted with them, even only the county solicitor or the state attorney says "Yes, this is the man that I prosecuted in this Court, and he is and was guilty of this felony and this felony."
So, I don't believe that it's quite correct to say that simply because you could raise this, I think we must consider how valid it would be to a defense under the provisions of 775.09.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Mr. Justice Whittaker read the statute in which it says that if he does not admit his identity, he's entitled to a jury trial.
Now, suppose he said, "Yes, I'm the man who is mentioned in those two -- those two convictions, but I have a defense and -- and I want to contest whether I'm a habitual offender or not."
Is he then entitled to a -- a jury trial?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: On -- I have no doubt that he would be.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: He would be.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I don't mean to suggest --
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Yes.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: -- for instance, that the Court would interpret this statute to mean that the only thing on which he could have a jury trial was a question of his identity, no, sir.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: That's all I wanted to ask.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: No, sir.
I need to say that anything which could be suggested is a valid defense would, of course, entitle him to it.
As a matter of fact, the plea of not guilty would automatically give him that, unless he wished to put it in the bosom of the court as the trier of fact which, of course, here, he didn't do.
But it's my position that, taking into consideration those things which most likely would be urged as a defense, and several of them were set out by petitioner in his reply to my brief, I can only conclude that with the narrow issue of identity, and our court has ruled that is a narrow issue in this circumstance, I don't believe that this man has been dealt with in a -- in a set of circumstances which resulted in anything that might not legitimately have come to him had we observed everything that he says we've failed to observer.
I contend that the arraignment, the reading to him of the circumstances in which the Court found him, that is to say, that he did in 1922 or whenever it was, commit this, 1934 that is, then in 1956, the other one, and that he had served them.
If he says he is the same man, the questions raised as to the validity of his search and so on, I think, are easily answered by the fact that the provisions for charging somebody under this set of circumstances clearly provide and contemplate that you shall have some means to arrest him and that you may proceed against him.
Now, I don't -- I don't feel that with this narrow avenue, that what really has been done against this man, assuming that everything he says is so, and of course, we must, as I say, resulted in anything to him which he would not had even if the counsel had been present at that time to represent him in whatever measure he thought he was capable of producing for him.
Justice William J. Brennan: Mr. Georgieff --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Yes.
Justice William J. Brennan: (Voice Overlap) about three months after he served the sentence, he was picked up and this happened.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Within a day or two, yes, sir.
Justice William J. Brennan: Do you recognize any time in it all, after he'd completed the service of his sentence?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Well, of course, my logic would be faulty if I said there were any limit.
Justice William J. Brennan: This might --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I shouldn't make --
Justice William J. Brennan: -- this might actually then be years.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: To be sure, of course, it could, but then, so may many things.
I don't mean to suggest to stand before you --
Justice William J. Brennan: No, but I gather --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: -- and say --
Justice William J. Brennan: -- I gather, even if it were years, you recognize no constitutional difficulty.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Since there doesn't seem to be, let -- I can only answer that, Mr. Justice Brennan, by saying, let us assume that a man has committed two felonies, not only in foreign jurisdiction but foreign countries.
And that a number of years transpire, and he becomes a problem in the community and it is discovered --
Justice William J. Brennan: Well, I'm speaking about this case, in this case with the very same court in which he had previously been convicted.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: It might be a little more hard put to justify if the span covered is substantial number of years.
Justice William J. Brennan: It's hard to justify on constitutional grounds.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I think so.
As a matter of fact, for whatever difference it may make, I have no objection to the coming legislatures.
As a matter of fact, there's a bill pending before him presently to reduce the time within which they may proceed against someone to two years after the termination of the sentence in the second felony.
Now, what's --
Justice Charles E. Whittaker: Do you agree with -- do you agree, if I may ask, with Senator Pepper's conclusion that the power of the Court ended with the expiration of the term and the completion of the sentence served under that imposition?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: No, sir, I do not.
I'll tell you why, sir.
First, my illustration about the fine.
Theoretically, when the fine is paid, again, the Court's jurisdiction ends, yet, we can't proceed against him because it's already over, if we adopt that reasoning.
Furthermore, assuming my illustration of two convictions in a foreign jurisdiction and a foreign country, you might vest a court, having appropriate jurisdiction of those cases if they were felonies, with jurisdiction to impose the enhanced penalty.
So, if you can get it to him when they never had it, I don't think that it's correct to say that by the simple passage of the sentence, that they have lost jurisdiction to re-impose and enhance one on a multiple offender.
Justice William J. Brennan: Yes, but in -- in this case, might that not be a state law question in this very case?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I don't think I quite understand.
Justice William J. Brennan: Well, might that not still be something which the -- your Supreme Court might say is the way this statute is to be constituted, namely, that this Court had, in fact, in this circumstance, lost jurisdiction --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: (Voice Overlap) --
Justice William J. Brennan: -- under your own statute?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: No question, that the --
Justice William J. Brennan: That's not foreclosed, is it?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: No, no question, of course, it's not.
Justice William J. Brennan: Well, that --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: And they had to --
Justice William J. Brennan: -- a lawyer -- a lawyer might have been very useful to him to raise that question, is it not?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Well, of course, he could have raised even that question.
But as I say, I hope to require a backing away from that by my position on the question of the fine and the two foreign country convictions.
Now, I would not hesitate to urge to my Supreme Court the illustration of the fine because I think it's proper and good, and I don't believe that if they could answer -- if they couldn't answer that, that they could, in good conscience, rule that you had to do it during the time the man was serving his sentence.
And to that end, I say that it would not be available to them on that basis, using that as my argument, to say that you must do it within the time that he's serving his sentence or else you can't.
Now, as I said, I don't know what success the pending bill will have when the legislature convenes, probably none.
But in any case, it is a move on somebody's part, of course, to see that these things are drawn within a reasonable period of time.
And I don't say, for one moment, that three months is, five years isn't, but of course, with each passage of -- with each period of time, the greater it gets, the more difficult it becomes to justify it simply because of that passage of time.
But in this situation, of course, it was somewhat under three months, possibly by a few days, and I don't think that the activities against this man were such as would shock even your conscience considering the narrow avenues that might be involved here.
Now, I don't pretend to be able to explain how many questions might be raised by counsel.
I rather imagine that if we were to find a country lawyer somewhere, he might be limited in his scope, and I rather imagine that Mr. Williams, who is of some providence, would raise a hostel, but I don't think that it ought to be determined on the basis of what a good lawyer would raise as opposed to what a poor lawyer would.
Just the question of whether, within the narrow scope confined in this avenue, that is to say, his identity plus the normal defenses that are available to anybody, that this man was dealt with unfairly, and I don't think that the granting as a petition for cert was provident in this case, and I think that the Court ought to receive from this position initially taken here and deny the cert granted.
Justice Charles E. Whittaker: May I --
Justice Felix Frankfurter: Are you saying -- are you saying, Mr. Georgieff, that the judge, in denying his request, made an estimate of the situation in which the prisoner found himself in?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I must, of course, say that --
Justice Felix Frankfurter: And -- and --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: -- or I cannot continue.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: -- and that such an estimate was a justifiable estimate which didn't cut off any potential opportunities for the prisoner as against the inferences to be drawn of embarrassment to the administration of justice by granting this continuance.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: That's what the case gets down to, does it?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: That is a capsule version.
I would probably agree with.
That's what it becomes and as I stated in my --
Justice Felix Frankfurter: Well, what's lacking?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I beg your pardon?
Justice Felix Frankfurter: What isn't in the capsule?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Well, let me go further and say that that is a narrowed down version that I won't argue with.
I think that it becomes probably a question of just that.
Now, I also stated in my brief, and I will repeat here, that this man has already, in his presentation to the Honorable Gunter Stephenson, who was circuit judge, secure credit for his time.
Now, I don't take any --
Justice Felix Frankfurter: He did what?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: He secured credit for the time on his second felony.
Now, I don't -- I don't ask for any particular kudos on this.
All I say is that he presented an issue without the benefit of counsel to a circuit judge which resulted in a substantial reduction at the time which he had to serve.
Now, he was not ignorant, not by any means.
He is not ignorant, not only then but not now.
And, as I said before, depending upon the outcome of this proceeding, he will have achieved at least two victories out of three.
Now, the only one in which he's failed so far is one before the Florida Supreme Court.
And I submit that that does not demonstrate that he falls within that group of people who would have been so harmed by this as would require a reversal without anything further to say about it.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: Well, we can't deal with a group of people here.
We have a particular -- a case, isn't that it?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I quite understand.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: (Voice Overlap) of circumstances.
This isn't the validity of a statute which is a net which involves -- which, in effect, is a net of such -- such type of composu -- composition that it sweeps within it, that it hauls up all sorts of thing.
This is a particular, a particular record of the particular circumstances you say and therefore, judicial mind isn't -- shouldn't be invited to roam at large and think of all the fanciful possibilities that this prisoner may have been able to dredge up if he'd had Mr. Bennett Williams or his counterpart in -- in Florida.
I mean, is that clear?
I'm not saying that's the answer to the case.
I'm stating a problem, not a result.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I will agree that it is a considerable problem and you said it far better than I could serve.
But at the same time, I find myself in the hopeless position of not being able to rely on a specific case because it, too, embraces a specific set of facts and yet, I can't urge a number of things as a deterrent to this Court's ruling if this man was dealt with unfairly because, again, this is a specific one, and I -- frankly, I don't know any way out of it.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: What do you --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I'm trying to think --
Justice Felix Frankfurter: -- what do you say to the suggestion that -- that in light of the attitude of your Supreme Court in the later -- in the two later Cash cases, if this matter were remanded to that Court to be reexamined not only in the light of our pre-docket case but what they reveal to be the -- their view of the law, you might have a different result.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Without doing --
Justice Felix Frankfurter: I don't mean as a matter of -- I don't mean as a matter of mercy or grace, but they've now laid down in 100 cases.
The Court said, at the property of this, they've -- they've laid down a new, call it what you will, a new attitude by which a new point of view, new consideration or consideration that's not heretofore applied to a situation not that similar and therefore, in a way -- he hasn't put it in those words but implicitly, in a way, what's his name, Reynolds is the victim of the unequal protection of the laws and that he came before them in 1959 instead of early in 1960.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I'm begging the Justices' pardon.
I wonder if I might decline to answer because an intelligent reply would offend either my Court or yourself, and I would --
Justice Felix Frankfurter: Would be what?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I say, an intelligent reply to that might offend either the Supreme Court of Florida or yourself and I don't want to do that.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: Well, why?
I don't understand that.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Well, I can't --
Justice Felix Frankfurter: It's a question of -- I haven't read the opinion and I -- I assume you have.
If you say that --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I have.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: Pardon me?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I have read them, yes.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: Well, then, you're able to tell whether Senator Pepper has put too optimistic an interpretation on the later Cash cases.
If you -- do you agree or disagree with his view of those cases?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I do not think --
Justice Felix Frankfurter: If --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: -- it is too optimistic, no.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: Well, if that -- if -- if I may interpret that more pointedly by saying you think if judge -- that judge by those cases, they would have been -- he was entitled to have a lawyer.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: It is possible that they would, Your Honor.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: Well, then, aren't you saying, in effect, that under the law, as we now have it declared by the highest court of Florida, a situation has arisen which makes a change in the outcome which may reasonably have made a -- may reasonably make a change if the case was sent back in the outcome of the case and therefore, there comes into play a well-known doctrine that an intervening event may change the course of the litigation.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I admit that as a very real possibility.
I couldn't presume to say what the Court would do of course.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: No, no, no, that's -- that's --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: And that is the only reason that I made the remark which I did prior to it.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: Well, you answered --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I anticipate that it's a very real possibility of course.
I couldn't deny what they've written in these two cases.
That would be foolish --
Justice Felix Frankfurter: Nor can you --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: -- in the two Cash versus Culvert cases.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: No, anybody -- that's imprint.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I read it quickly and thoroughly and I'm well acquainted with it and as a matter of fact, I felt err to Elijah McNeal which will probably result in something similar to it.
So, I can only say that --
Justice Felix Frankfurter: If you --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: -- an educated guess would probably produce a yes reply to your question.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: Well, I didn't mean to elicit a prophecy from your argument.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Yes.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: You've given the answers that seem to me vital to a judgment, namely, whether it is true, as a matter of fair interpretation of the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Florida, that their pronouncements which, as it were, if acted upon this case, undercut the -- the unexpressed, inarticulate basis of this decision.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I think that would be fair.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: This -- this man is in jail and he's been in jail a long time, and he's properly here before this Court, don't you believe that, in view of those circumstances, he's entitled to a judgment of this Court without remanding it back to the Supreme Court of Florida for him to wait in jail maybe another year or two before he can have his case judged by this Court?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: No, sir, I don't.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: You think that's equitable to do that?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: You ask me did I think that he was entitled to a judgment of this Court rather than requiring that you send it back.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Yes.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I said I did not think so.
Was that your question, Mr. Chief Justice?
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Yes.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: And, I said I did not think he was entitled to that without it being sent back because I'm satisfied that the ultimate disposition of this case will reveal that these circumstances are not as represented.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: And therefore, he is not entitled to a hearing?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: He is entitled to a hearing.
I thought, Your Honor -- I beg your pardon.
I equated your question with a pronouncement that your -- your disposition would result in his immediate discharge.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Well, I hadn't made any such --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: No.
Well, I mean--
Chief Justice Earl Warren: -- suggestion.
I was talking about what he is here before us and properly here before us, and -- and is he -- is he not entitled to whatever judgment he's entitled to under the facts.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Unless that would preclude a showing that what his allegations portend is not true, then I say, of course, he is.
Now, if you would preclude a showing that what he contends is not so, then I'd say, by all means, no.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: Are you --
Chief Justice Earl Warren: No, go ahead.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: In other words, if I -- if I may go back to Elijah McNeal --
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Well, I'm a little confused because we're dealing with parables about what the -- what the Court will do and what it won't do and what it might do and so forth.
I -- I get confused on it.I just wonder if this man isn't properly here before this Court and entitled to the judgment of this Court, whatever that -- whatever that might be, based upon the merits of his -- his case here today.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Well, again, sir, I am put in the almost hopeless position of not having anything to urge in defense to his allegations.
I don't plead that as a defense but, nevertheless, it is a fact that I can't avoid.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Well, that's why he's here.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Yes, to be sure, because of the denial without request for return, etcetera, or a hearing.
Now, in effect, all I will say is that whatever disposition you make of it, I think that in fairness to the State of Florida, we should be allowed to show that this man is or is not telling the truth in his petition.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Yes, but your -- the major portion of your argument was that he wasn't entitled to any relief.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Well, I must say --
Chief Justice Earl Warren: But he wasn't even entitled to go back that -- then have a hearing now.
You can (Inaudible) and keep it.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I did not quite allege that he was not entitled to it.
I said, even if he wasn't given this, did he receive due process.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Well, I understood you to say that he got everything in that Court that he was entitled to, that a lawyer couldn't have done him any good and that, therefore, he wasn't entitled to any remedy at our hands.
Maybe I -- maybe I didn't quite understand you.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Now, if I said that, Mr. Chief Justice, and I don't -- I don't have the time right now to go through it word for word --
Chief Justice Earl Warren: No, no, I don't want --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: -- and see --
Chief Justice Earl Warren: -- I don't want to argue with you of course.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: But do let me -- do let me say that my position very simply is, if this Court sees fit to grant this man some measure of relief or whatever measure of relief you think which he's entitled, I think that it would be unfair to allow this -- rather, to deny to the State of Florida the right to show that this man possibly may be lying about what he said.
In other words, let's assume that he did not make this pronouncement to the trial court.
Let's further assume that no denial was ever affected.Let's further assume that he never hired a lawyer or something like that.
I don't know but what that's so or that it is, but if that is possible determination, I think that, probably, we ought to have a right to make that -- make that determination in a hearing.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Well, do you contend that he is entitled to no relief.
Now, I look at your conclusion of your brief and you say "Wherefore it appears almost conclusively that no rights assured petitioner by either federal or Florida law were denied him the proceedings about which petitioner complains did no violence to his liberty, which has not been recognized as valid and lawful in every pertinent way.
It follows that the certiorari should, therefore, be denied."
Now, is that your present position?
Do you believe we should deny this writ or -- or do you believe he's entitled to some relief and if so, what?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I think he is entitled to some relief, Your Honor.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: What relief would you think?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: I think -- I think he is entitled to have a determination of the factual allegations that he made in his petition before the Florida Supreme Court in order to ascertain whether there is enough to them to put that Court in a position of requiring that testimony be taken to establish whether, in fact, these things occurred and if they did, as he suggests, then I'm satisfied that the Court will rule as you would if you had it.
Justice Charles E. Whittaker: Well, is that --
Chief Justice Earl Warren: In other words, your position is that he's entitled to the hearing that was denied him by the Florida courts.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Preceded by a return, yes, sir.
Justice Charles E. Whittaker: Which is the relief that was granted both in the Cash and in the McNeal cases, isn't it?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Precisely.
Of course, we have not yet held a hearing in the McNeal case.
Mr. Daniels and myself --
Justice Charles E. Whittaker: No, but that's the relief that this Court granted --
Mr. George R. Georgieff: That is correct.
Justice Charles E. Whittaker: -- in both of the cases, isn't it?
Mr. George R. Georgieff: That is correct.
And I was about to enter into that by analogy.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Yes.
Mr. George R. Georgieff: And it's my position that that is the relief to which he is entitled.
And we would, of course, respectfully suggest that the Court, if it elects, to find in that vein that that'd be the disposition made of it today.
Thank you.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Thank you.
Rebuttal of Claude Pepper
Mr. Claude Pepper: Your Honor, I think --
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Mr. Pepper.
Mr. Claude Pepper: -- there's only a word or two more that -- that I've been asked.
One of the reasons that I brought up, and I think I have about six or seven minutes, Your Honor, I don't want to exceed.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: No, no, you have -- you have time.
Mr. Claude Pepper: Oh, thank you.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: You go right ahead.
Mr. Claude Pepper: Thank you.
One of the reasons I brought up this question about due process in a case where the defendant had completed the service of his previous sentence was that if the record should show those facts here, and I suppose there's no dispute whatever about the man having completed the service of the sentence for which he was charged, that is, the grand larceny charge.
Now, if under these facts, there wouldn't be any justification for charging this man again.
Well, then it would seem to be rather useless to go all the way even to the Supreme Court and let alone, to back to the Court of -- Criminal Court of Record of Polk County for -- for the decision of this matter again because that's not, so far as I assume, a factual issue.
I don't think the State would dispute the fact that the man had already completed his service of the grand larceny sentence.
Now, if that type, being assumed, would make it a violation of due process to apprehend him again after the completion of that sentence, then I thought that matter might well be within the scope of the consideration of this matter by this Honorable Court.
On the other points, Your Honor, this Court said through the able Chief Justice in the Fretag case, of course, regardless of whether petitioner would have been entitled to the appointment of counsel, his right to be heard through his own counsel was unqualified.
And I rather input from the brief of the State as the Chief Justice did, that the -- the State was taking the position that because there wasn't any effective defense that an attorney could have presented in the Court that sentenced this man under the habitual offender statute that, therefore, he had suffered no harm, and there wasn't any -- anything that -- that need be done for him here.
I would simply say, in my reference to the -- to the two Cash decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida after the -- the Cash-Culvert decision by this Honorable Court.
Why did that Court, evidently having ignored the principle of Cash versus Culvert decided by this Court in this case, September the 15th, 1959, five months after the Cash-Culvert decision by this case, in another case and where counsel were present and where a due consideration was given to the matter, had now affirmed the principle of Cash versus Culvert and of -- and of Chandler versus Fretag as the doctrines of the Supreme Court of Florida which they will apply.
But I didn't mean, in any manner, to suggest that the -- that this man should be left to the speculation by this Court of what the Supreme Court of Florida might decide because the -- the Cash-Fre -- the Cash-Culvert case had already been decided by this Court and in the -- in the books, four or five months prior to the time the Supreme Court of Florida denied this petition, presumably in the light of those second and third of that -- second and third Cash cases, they would so hold but, certainly, as the Chief Justice had intimated, this case is before this Honorable Court.
And I would take it, if the principle is right that due process was denied by the denial of counsel, that it would be proper to -- to grant this certiorari so that the Supreme Court of Florida will do what it did in -- under the Cash versus Culvert decision of this Court, say that it was under the mandate of this Court to issue the writ of habeas corpus.
I add only, in respect to the question of Mr. Justice Whittaker, that the statute, in respect to the man's saying that he was the same person as convicted under the previous conviction, the statute says, "If the jury finds that he is the same person or if he acknowledges or confesses in open court after being duly cautioned as to his rights, that he is the same person."
And the record of this judgment is silent here as to his being informed about any right that he possessed, let alone the right to a jury, the right to question whether the identity existed or not or any other point that may -- that may have been raised.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: I gather from --
Mr. Claude Pepper: And the last --
Justice Felix Frankfurter: I beg your pardon, go on.
Mr. Claude Pepper: I'm sorry, sir.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: I gather from you that you think the Florida Supreme Court finds a mandate from this Court helpful.
Mr. Claude Pepper: I -- I find it so.
And the -- but the defendant finds it particularly so, Your Honor.
They -- I'll end it only this last thing and that is that we, in our brief, did attempt to set out the -- the various points other than those that have been mentioned here, that counsel could have brought up.
Of course, it's an unqualified right to have your own counsel if you can afford it.
But nevertheless, we pointed out a number of -- of things that an attorney could have done.
Mr. Justice Douglas called attention to some and other of the Justices or the Chief Justice had called attention to others.
We could well have contended -- any competent lawyer would have contended to the Court that in the light of the Nelson case and the Milan case, that the Florida Supreme Court had never determined whether or not their statute was intended to apply to a case where the last sentence had already been served.
That could well have been argued and should have been considered and passed upon by the Supreme Court of Florida.
The constitutionality that I -- I would have had much to have said in reply to what counsel for the States had amended ago, that under our statute, only one subject under our constitution in regard to legislation, only one subject can be dealt within a statute and that subject has to be clearly expressed in the title.
And here, in view of the law of Florida, that once the court's term had expired or once the defendant had entered upon the service of the sentence, the court then lost jurisdiction.
It's grievously doubtful as to whether or not a legislator would have been informed in passing upon this habitual offender statute that it meant to create new jurisdiction in courts not only after the term had expired or after the man had begun the service of his sentence, but it meant to give the court jurisdiction for an indefinite time after he had completed the service of his sentence.
I can well imagine that legislators might have had entirely different opinions about that aspect of the matter of which they had no advice in the title of the statute if they were entitled to have under the provisions of our constitution.
I could multiply instances, of course, if I knew my time.
Justice Potter Stewart: Senator Pepper, is there anything -- just as a matter of curiosity, more than anything else, is there anything in this record to indicate what it was that motivated the apprehension of this man on this second offender --
Mr. Claude Pepper: No, Your Honor.
Justice Potter Stewart: (Voice Overlap) --
Mr. Claude Pepper: The record is silent.
It merely says that -- that the -- he -- he got out about the 1st of December and then on -- the record shows then that on the 13th, the county solicitor filed this information and while I don't see it in there, counsel has stated in his brief that on the back side of it, it appears that on the 15th, it was served.
And the record then shows that on the 18th, the -- the defendant was picked up by this pickup order which wasn't a warrant, and that's another point that we've called attention to in our brief.
Justice Potter Stewart: (Voice Overlap) --
Mr. Claude Pepper: It's whether he was properly picked up or apprehended under our law.
But it just shows that he was apprehended under this pickup order to be carried down there to the -- to the Court.
And there's no -- there's no -- nothing to explain why they waited more than two years to discover a conviction that have been rendered in this very Court against --
Justice Potter Stewart: Is this an unusual kind of a happenstance (Voice Overlap) --
Mr. Claude Pepper: Well, it would seem to me so.
And by the way, this man, in his petition, refers to the case of Patch versus State.
I believe it is Patch versus, I think, it's State or Patch versus (Inaudible).
They tell me that down at the state prison, they have what they call a prisoner's library when they passed around these pleadings.
That's the reason sometimes, in a -- in the petition of a man like this, you will find some good phrasing then you will find him saying some things that are utterly ungrammatical at all.
I suspect that maybe, possibly, he copied something that he picked up, and I don't think it shows you that this man was an able man, so far as that's concerned or -- or an informed man.
But nevertheless, in that Patch case, the Florida Supreme Court considered the practice that has prevailed by the courts of Florida for quite a long while and condemn the practice and -- and require the -- the determination of the practice, that is, that after a man was convicted, the Court would just indefinitely withhold sentence and sometimes that withholding went on for years.
A man would be subject any time to be brought back and -- and sent to prison under a sentence he'd been convicted by a jury, let's say, but instead of a sentence being imposed within a reasonable time, the Court would just put him on probation, as it were, by just not imposing a sentence, by holding it in the bosom of the Court.
Well, now, the Florida Supreme Court pointed out that -- and this man said, "Does a man never to know in substance when he's subject to be called back and incarcerated in prison as it were?
Does he have no certainty about his liberty and that sort of thing?"
So, the Florida Supreme Court laid down a principle which I think might, under due process, apply to the length of time in which these charges of being a habitual offender might be presented.
The Court said unless there's some real justifiable reason for the Court withholding the imposition of a sentence, like a motion for a new trial or a motion and a rest of judgment or for some other reason, it would be a normal as -- just as indicated this morning in another case.
Should -- should we hold it for this reason or there's some real justifiable reason.
Why, it's a duty of the Court to impose whatever sentence he's going to impose, give the man a right of appeal.
You can't appeal from a sentence that's never been imposed.
You've got to have a final judgment before you can appeal.
Give the man a chance to appeal or to move for a new trial or rest of judgment or something like that.
And then, if you're going to give him probation, give him probation.
Then, you know what the man's rights are.
And so -- so the Court laid down the principle that even dealing with courts, you ought to act promptly with the -- with the -- promptly or there's got to be some reason, and I say the same thing should apply to these cases.
The order -- the state order act promptly or there ought to be some justifiable reason or under facts like this, it's not due process of law.
Thank you.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Senator Pepper, on -- on behalf of the Court, I would like to express our appreciation to you for the very vigorous manner in which you have defended the rights of this indigent person.
We're always comforted when lawyers like yourself are willing to take assignments of this -- of this kind, and we do thank you.
Mr. Claude Pepper: Thank you, Your Honor.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Mr. Georgieff --
Mr. Claude Pepper: It was a privilege to serve (Voice Overlap) --
Chief Justice Earl Warren: -- I want to say to you, sir, that we likewise appreciate the frank and able and diligent manner in which you have represented the interest of your State.
Rebuttal of George R. Georgieff
Mr. George R. Georgieff: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Chief Justice Earl Warren: You have given us a good presentation of the case, both of you.


text:
Organizers: Mike Birse U. Manchester firstname.lastname@example.com
Yannick Meurice
Shan-Wen Tsai
Program Coordinator: Application form |
method in nuclear, particle and condensed matter physics (INT-10-45W) February 22 - 26, 2010
The ideas of the renormalization group (RG) and scale invariance have played central roles in physics
over the last four decades. They are associated with the emergence of key concepts such as universality, self-
similarity, scaling and asymptotic freedom. In addition, RG methods have allowed the numerical treatment
of difficult few-body and many-body problems.
The RG provides a universal language spoken by scientists working in very different areas. Despite this
universality, practical applications have often been developed independently in these areas, often without
much communication among them. Generating closer interaction among workers in the many diverse fields
where RG methods are applied is a desirable if long-overdue endeavor. Recent developments in the application
of these methods to various areas of physics makes this particularly timely.
The overall goal of the workshop is to bring together RG practitioners who are working in nuclear,
particle, atomic and condensed matter physics. We intend the workshop to enable the communication of
new exciting results across traditional boundaries, to stimulate exchange of theoretical techniques, and to
generate new types of collaborative effort. Pedagogical introductions to technical aspects in specific areas
will be provided. We plan to organize the workshop around five themes of common interest for all the
disciplines represented.
1. Opening and closing conformal windows
Scale invariance and conformal symmetry appear at fixed points of the RG. Conformal windows open
or close when certain parameters are varied, and in some cases only a discrete subgroup of the conformal
symmetry survives. New realizations of conformal symmetry have been found in various disciplines which
are worth discussing in a common place. Nonrelativistic fermions in the "unitary limit" are important
both in nuclear physics and in atomic physics (Feshbach resonances). In few body problems, conformal
symmetry can be anomalously broken and the RG flow tends to a limit cycle, where only a discrete remnant
of conformal symmetry survives (Efimov effect). In lattice gauge theory, recent simulations have provided
indications of new IR fixed points and conformal windows in QCD-like models with more flavors or higher
order representations. The continuum physics seems quite different from QCD: conformal symmetry with
absence of confinement and chiral symmetry breaking and the term "unparticle physics" has been used to
describe the need for new observables. Graphs of RG flows or running of couplings look quite similar to
those encountered in Hubbard models with competing next-to-nearest-neighbor interactions or Bose-Hubbard
models, calculated with functional RG methods.
2. Effective interactions
Short-range interactions between nucleons can be described by an expansion around a nontrivial fixed
point, describing the unitary limit. A consistent scheme has been demonstrated for renormalizing short-range
interactions. Similar methods are also being applied to resonances in two-body scattering. An alternative
to the Wilsonian RG is the similarity renormalization group, in which a unitary transformation is applied
to a Hamiltonian to suppress its off-diagonal elements, so that it flows towards a diagonal form. There is
interesting RG work to study Coulomb interactions in graphene, where the low-electronic excitations are
well described as massless chiral Dirac fermions. Close to the Dirac point, the density of states vanishes
linearly with energy, and finite-range interactions are irrelevant. The Coulomb interaction, however, is
marginal, and logarithmically renormalizes the Fermi velocity until it becomes equal to the velocity of light
at the fixed point. In recent years, the questions of chiral symmetry breaking and deconfinement, which are
central in lattice gauge theory, have become increasingly important in condensed matter. Recent studies of
chiral symmetry breaking in graphene have been done using lattice gauge theory methods. Other interesting
developments have occured in condensed matter and cold atom physics. Starting with a given microscopic
model RG approaches can provide effective models at low temperatures or energy scales. The energy cut-off
of the problem is reduced via mode-elimination, and the RG expansion relies on a large-N expansion, with
N being inversely proportional to the cut-off energy. This was shown to also rely on a 1/N expansion by
making use of a double index notation, as introduced by t'Hooft in the context of gauge theory.
3. Global aspects of RG flows
The linearized behavior of RG flows near a fixed point has universal features that can be expressed in
terms of critical exponents. However, calculating the RG flows between fixed points is usually a difficult
nonlinear problem. We have mentioned before that similar global properties of RG flows are observed in
condensed matter and lattice gauge models, while very different numerical methods are used to calculate the
flows. A topic of common interest is the possibility of improving approximate numerical method such as the
Migdal-Kadanoff approximation or local potential approximations. QCD confinement can be stated as the
smoothness of RG flows between two fixed points. The already mentioned limit-cycles and their stability
under perturbation provide other interesting examples of global behavior.
4. New types of boundaries in phase diagrams
Many interesting models have intricate phase diagrams. Popular examples are: temperature versus
ratio of couplings in Hubbard models with competing interactions, temperature versus chemical potential
in lattice QCD at finite temperature and density, and disorder parameter versus interaction strength in
Bose-Hubbard models with on-site disorder. These phase diagrams have common features. The locations
of the phase boundaries and the nature of the transitions are the subject of animated discussions in several
communities and the time seems ripe to bring these communities together. The RG method is a common
theoretical framework used to map phase diagrams, however, practical implementations can be very different
in these communities. In ultra-cold gases of trapped atoms, Feshbach resonances can be used to tune the
scattering lengths to very large values. Functional RG methods can be used to study the phase diagram
of matter consisting of these particles and, for example, the crossover from BCS pairing to Bose-Einstein
condensation of bound molecules. In quantum antiferromagnets, the concept of deconfined criticality has
been introduced. The new type of critical theory is not expressed in terms of the order parameters of either
state (as in Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson theory), but involves fractionalized degrees of freedom and an emergent
topological conservation law.
5. RG and quantum information
There has been important progress in Density Matrix RG inspired numerical methods in condensed matter
over the last years, as indicated by a number of recent workshops and conferences. A special focus has been
put on the link between quantum many-body simulations and quantum information (mainly entanglement
theory). A class of methods (Vidal's MERA - multiscale entanglement renormalization) can be directly
related to conformal field theory. RG flows are usually understood in the space of cut-off hamiltonians,
however, decimation-based methods such as White's density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG, today
understood primarily as a variational method), can be constructed as an RG flow in the space of reduced
density operators. More generally, the concepts introduced in quantum information provide new ways to
look at the interplay between a subsystem and its environment that has been recently exploited in the RG
context. It is desirable to disseminate these new developments broadly in the RG community.
There is a mandatory $90 registration fee for this workshop which will include expenses for catering and a workshop dinner.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Unique Blade About Us
Unique Blade LLC offers high quality switchblade knives, auto knives, butterfly knives, balisong knives, Italian stilettos, spring-assisted knives, stiletto knives, Stun Guns and much more. We offer unique edged knife products at reasonable and cheap wholesale pricing. In the beginning as a Powerseller on eBay for over six years, we received 24,000 plus, positive feedbacks, due to the high quality and reliable Military Police Tactical products, Unique Blade has to offer. We have also been successful at building a tremendous clientele over the past 13 years, many of which are repeat customers, because customer service is a top priority.
From a wide variety of switchblade knives, butterfly knives, stun guns, to swords, our on-line store offers high quality goods for the lowest cost available and with a price match guarantee. Find it for a lower price and we will match it! Whether you're shopping for a gift or looking to add to your own collection, you've come to the right site to buy!
Unique Blade LLC sells the hottest Military Police name brands, including Microtech, Benchmade, Smith & Wesson Auto, Boker Magnum, Real Italian stilettos from Frank Beltrame, AKC, AGA Campolin and several other automatic knives and switchblades. In addition, We are also authorized dealers for many companies, such as Cold Steel, CRKT, Esee - Rat Cutlery, Microtech, Taylor Brands Smith and Wesson, Boker Magnum, Spyderco and many more! Being a dealer allows us to service many automatic knives, spring assisted knives, fixed blade knives, switchblades, Balisong butterfly knives and a variety of liner lock knives.
In addition to knives, Unique Blade carries self defense products, novelty butane lighters and air-soft BB guns in tons of different styles and sizes! You'll also find multiple accessories to meet your needs. With Unique Blade there's no reason to worry about your product being shipped in a timely fashion, it will be! Customer satisfaction is a top priority! In an effort to ensure your satisfaction, Unique Blade provides the most attentive customer service you could ask for, available via e-mail and phone. Our service is hard to beat, making our site one of your favorites! We invite you to browse our web site and become a Unique Blade customer, you'll wish you did sooner! We're happy to assist you with any questions you may have, and look forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks for visiting us and please visit us again!


text:
No results found.
No results found.
No results found.
Robin Riker |
Kelly Hall |
Hallie Todd |
Penny Waters |
Philip Charles MacKenzie |
Donald Maltby |
Robert Walden |
Joe Waters |
Paul Regina |
Cliff Waters |
Brandon Maggart |
Lou Waters |
John Putch |
Bucky |
Guest Star |
Lou: You know who my favorite science fiction writer is? Kilgore Trout.
Kilgore Trout is a character in a number of books written by Kurt Vonnegut. The story Lou references is "Dancing Fool", which is in the Vonnegut novel Breakfast of Champions.
User Score: 1628
User Score: 79
User Score: 47
User Score: 18
User Score: 7
User Score: 4
User Score: 3
User Score: 2


text:
More Guidance from Mother NatureHow else can nature influence plant growth in your fields and gardens? Click here to read the rest of Amy's article>
Each sign of the zodiac is said to have special characteristics that influence plant growth. Before setting out with your garden to-do list, take a look at the general qualities of each.
Capricorn—Earth sign: dry and productive. Good for planting root crops, as well as grafting fruit trees.
Aquarius—Air sign: dry and barren. Take advantage of this time for cultivating and tackling weeds.
Pisces—Water sign: moist and productive. This is a great time for planting.
Aries—Fire sign: dry and barren. Not surprisingly, this is good for attacking pests and cultivating to inhibit weed growth.
Taurus—Earth sign: moist and productive. Because it's an Earth sign, it's good for planting root crops.
Gemini—Air sign: dry and barren. This is a good time for harvesting produce for storage.
Cancer—Water sign: moist and very productive. This is most likely the best time to plant and transplant.
Leo—Fire sign: dry and barren. Harvest for storage, as well as battle weeds and pests.
Virgo—Earth sign: moist and barren. This is a good sign to plant vines.
Libra—Air sign: moist and somewhat productive. Plant flowers and herbs under this sign.
Scorpio—Water sign: moist and very productive. Tomatoes are best transplanted under Scorpio, but other varieties do well, too.
Sagittarius—Fire sign: dry and barren. Harvest root vegetables or prepare soil.
- Amy Grisak
<<Page 1 << Page 2
Hobby Farms
Tips for keeping livestock, raising crops, marketing the farm and more
Sign up to get updates delivered straight to your inbox. HobbyFarms takes your privacy seriously. To learn more, please read our privacy policy.


text:
Get the Best Priced Chrysler St Regis Spark Plugs
- Fast Shipping
- 30-Day Money-Back Guarantee
- Lowest Prices
Chrysler St Regis Replacement Spark Plugs Information
Search our online spark plugs catalog and find the lowest priced discount auto parts on the web. We sell wholesale to the public. We offer high quality new, OEM, aftermarket and remanufactured Chrysler St Regis Spark Plugs parts. We specialize in a wide-variety of high-quality car parts and accessories for your car, truck or SUV. Call toll free to order or place your order online via our secure checkout system. Our online parts catalog uses real-time inventory, so you can be assured the parts you buy are in stock at the time of ordering. Most orders are shipped the same day. They are available for the following Chrysler St Regis years: 1956, 56. This part is also sometimes called Chrysler St Regis Spark Plug. We stock spark plugs parts for most Chrysler models including Town & Country, PT Cruiser, 300, Pacifica, Sebring, Crossfire, 300M, Concorde, LHS, New Yorker, Cirrus, Voyager, Fifth Avenue, Aspen, 200, Intrepid, LeBaron, Windsor, TC Maserati, Prowler, Royal, Imperial, Neon, Laser, Conquest, Grand Voyager, Newport, Cordoba, Dynasty, Saratoga, E Class, Daytona, Executive Limousine, Executive Sedan and Nassau.
We stock these Spark Plugs brands for the Chrysler St Regis: NGK, Champion, E3 Spark Plugs and MSD.
56 1956 Chrysler St Regis Ignition Coil Mallory
56 1956 Chrysler St Regis Spark Plug Wire Set 5.8L V8 Standard Motor Products
PartsGeek is the best parts website I have ever used. I have placed several orders with them and always shipped ground and recieved the part within 2 days. excelent communication. The only thing I ...
The transaction went smoothly...I received what I ordered in a timely manner. Can't ask for more than that. It also helped that the price of the items I ordered were one of the best on the net.


text:
Good mornin' baby, baby
Welcome back to town
Yeah, you doin' so much travelin' woman
I never know when you're gonna be around
Yeah, you a fine and mellow, baby
But you stubborn as a mule
You love me like an angel, baby
But you treat me like a fool
Two faced woman
Don't you hand me no double cross
Well, because anytime I'm ready woman
Well, I can tell you, I can tell you, "Baby, get lost"
You cheatin' on the outside
You're doin' everything you chose
You better come back on the inside woman
'Cause you got too much to lose
I don't want no trouble with you, baby
I wanna tell you I got to be the boss
Yeah, because anytime I'm ready, baby
Oh, I can tell you, I can tell you, "Baby, get lost"
Yes, I'll try to stop your cheatin' woman
But I just don't have the time
I got so many woman, baby
Till they're standing in line
I want to tell you, baby
Yeah, you know I've got to be the boss, alright
Well, because anytime I'm ready, baby
I can tell you, "Baby, get lost"
Get the embed code
Note: When you embed the widget in your site, it will match your site's styles (CSS). This is just a preview!
Preview the embedded widget
B.B. King Lyrics provided by SongLyrics.com
1 | Bringing In A Brand New Year |
2 | Story From My Heart And Soul |
3 | Legend In My Time, (I'd Be) A |
4 | Worry, Worry, Worry (Live) |
5 | Standing On The Edge Of Love |
6 | You Can't Fool My Heart |
Genres |
Top Lyrics |
SongLyrics |
Cannot annotate a non-flat selection. Make sure your selection starts and ends within the same node.
An annotation cannot contain another annotation.


text:
* |
Justin is currently working on developing reference materials, reference data, and reference methods for human genome sequencing with the Genome in a Bottle Consortium. Specifically, he is developing methods to compare and integrate whole genome DNA sequencing data from multiple platforms and sequencing runs. Also, he developed a method to use synthetic DNA and RNA Standard Reference Materials to improve base quality scores from "Next Generation Sequencing" instruments. Since starting as a postdoctoral research associate at NIST in January 2009, Justin's previous research interests included synthesis of liposomes in microfluidic devices and developing methods to synthesize and measure nanoparticle agglomerates for nanotoxicity studies. Awards NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Latest Publications
Position: Biomedical Engineer
Biochemical Science Multiplexed Biomolecular Science Education:PhD (2008) - Biomedical Engineering, University of Memphis BS (2003) - Electrical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University Contact
Phone: 301-975-4133 |


text: Performers include Guante, JeRecord artista Prhym8 & Tha Mammoth W/ Drunknives, Bomba De Luz, CMJ and Yahnluke. There will also be live art. $5 at the door, 21+ show. Come and show your support for the people of West Africa. Presented by Oxfam at Nomad World Pub, 501 Cedar Ave. in Minneapolis


text:
Paul Bettany Talks "Age of Ultron," Working with James Spader & More
Showing results 51-100 of 161
Three #5The three take on the 300 in the final issue of Kieron Gillen and Ryan Kelly's "Three."
February 28th, 2014 | ||
Zero #5After the intense brutality of the last issue, Ales Kot & Will Tempest's "Zero" #5 takes a look at what recovery means for an unfeeling assassin.
January 27th, 2014 | ||
Pretty Deadly #4Picking up from last issue's big reveal, Kelly Sue DeConnick and Emma Rios keep the stakes high in "Pretty Deadly" #4 while prepping readers for the final showdown.
January 27th, 2014 | ||
The Massive #19Brian Wood moves the locale to Eastern Europe and begins a new story with the return of some familiar characters and plot threads in "The Massive" #19, and this post-crash world looks as bleak as ever as drawn by Garry Brown.
January 22nd, 2014 | ||
Three #4The Helots are finally cornered in Kieron Gillen & Ryan Kelly's "Three" #4. With no more ways to bargain, they have to decide how they want to go out.
January 13th, 2014 | ||
Young Avengers #15Kieron Gillen, Jamie McKelvie and a handful of rockstar guest artists ring in the final issue of "Young Avengers" for an incredibly strong finale.
January 9th, 2014 | ||
Quantum and Woody #7"Quantum & Woody" #7 has James Asmus and Ming Doyle continue the mixture of silliness and drama that keeps this reboot of a classic comic an entertaining series.
January 8th, 2014 | ||
Pretty Deadly #3Ginny comes closer to her goals, and Sissy comes closer to learning the truth, as the end of world approaches in Kelly Sue DeConnick and Emma Rios' "Pretty Deadly" #3.
December 23rd, 2013 | ||
Young Avengers #14"Young Avengers" #14 by Kieron Gillen, Jamie McKelvie, Emma Vieceli, Christian Ward and Annie Wu is the beginning of the "Afterparty," a two part epilogue that runs through the last two issues, containing many sweet and bittersweet enc
December 20th, 2013 | ||
Forever Evil: Rogue's Rebellion #3"Forever Evil: Rogue's Rebellion" #3 starts to feel a little predictable, as Brian Buccellato, Scott Hepburn and Andre Coelho go on a walking tour of the DC Universe during "Forever Evil."
December 20th, 2013 | ||
Three #3Practically everything goes wrong for the Helots, while practically everything goes right for the creative team, in this incredible third issue of Kieron Gillen & Ryan Kelly's "Three."
December 13th, 2013 | ||
Pretty Deadly #2In "Pretty Deadly" #2, Kelly Sue DeConnick and Emma Rios deepen the breathtaking mystery of Deathface Ginny.
December 2nd, 2013 | ||
The Massive #17The second part of the 'Longships' arc doesn't live up to the promise of the first, but it's still gearing toward an exciting finale.
December 2nd, 2013 | ||
Deadpool Annual #1An enjoyable comic built to answer a popular question, "Deadpool Annual" #11 is worth a read -- but maybe not worth $4.99.
November 29th, 2013 | ||
Cataclysm: Ultimate X-Men #1"Cataclysm: Ultimates" #1 gives Joshua Hale Fialkov a chance to continue to regale readers with the further developments of the dynamic pairing of Galactus and the Gah Lak Tus Swarm in the Ultimate Universe through the artwork of Alvaro Martinez
November 29th, 2013 | ||
The Wake #5Scott Snyder and Sean Murphy bring their first arc to a breathtaking conclusion in "The Wake" #5.
November 22nd, 2013 | ||
Three #2The well-researched "Three" #2 by Kieron Gillen and Ryan Kelly switches it up and slows it down to focus more heavily on the Spartans.
November 18th, 2013 | ||
Captain Marvel #17Carol Danvers isn't the only hero in town when she faces the long to recovery and a new villain in Kelly Sue DeConnick and Filipe Andrade's oversized "Captain Marvel" #17.
November 11th, 2013 | ||
Marvel Now What?! #1"Marvel Now What?!" turns out to be a charming collection of humorous shorts from a variety of artists and writers, all ready and willing to poke fun at Marvel (and specifically Marvel NOW!).
October 28th, 2013 | ||
Pretty Deadly #1"Pretty Deadly" #1 unites Kelly Sue DeConnick and Emma Rios in a western tale featuring dead bunnies, butterflies and girls in vulture cloaks.
October 22nd, 2013 | ||
Indestructible Hulk Special #1Mike Costa continues to spin his time-traveling, time unraveling X-Men/Spider-Man/Hulk story in "Indestructible Hulk Special" #1.
October 21st, 2013 | ||
Zero #2"Zero" #2 by Ales Kot and Tradd Moore is an intense but uneven issue that focuses on the brutally harsh and cold formative years of Edward Zero, the eventual soldier/assassin seen in the series' introductory issue.
October 21st, 2013 | ||
Forever Evil: Rogues Rebelllion #1Having once declared themselves not killers, Flash's foes take center stage in "Forever Evil: Rogues Rebellion" #1 from Brian Buccellato and artists Patrick Zircher and Scott Hepburn.
October 17th, 2013 | ||
Three #1Kieron Gillen and Ryan Kelly bring ancient Greece and the violent struggle of the Helots to life in "Three" #1.
October 14th, 2013 | ||
Quantum and Woody #4With talent like James Asmus, Tom Fowler, Jordie Bellaire and Dave Lanphear onboard "Quantum & Woody" #4 can't help but be a good comic book. Instead, it exceeds any and all expectations.
October 7th, 2013 | ||
All-New X-Men Special #1Mike Costa and Kris Anka bring Spider-Man (the superior model) and Doctor Octopus together for an adventure with Beast, Iceman, Marvel Girl and Cyclops in "All-New X-Men Special" #1.
October 3rd, 2013 | ||
The Wake #4In "The Wake" #4, Scott Snyder and Sean Murphy's deep ocean mystery twists into visually spectacular survival horror.
September 27th, 2013 | ||
Zero #1"Zero" #1 by Ales Kot and Michael Walsh introduce Edward Zero, a super-spy with a mission to complete and a will to get it done that makes The Punisher look indecisive.
September 21st, 2013 | ||
Adventures of Superman #21DC's digital-first "Adventures of Superman" is a tremendous magnet for comic book talent, bringing Tim Seeley and Mike Norton in for a tale as Superman encounters Darkseid and imparts wisdom on an orphan.
September 18th, 2013 | ||
Superman #23.1"Superman" #23.1 introduces a Bizarro to the world of the New 52, and while Sholly Fisch and Jeff Johnson do their best to keep the reader's attention, ultimately this comic feels slightly pointless.
September 4th, 2013 | ||
Deadpool #15With art by Declan Shalvey, "Deadpool" #15 guest stars Captain America and Wolverine, providing some chuckles along the way thanks to Brian Posehn and Gerry Duggan.
September 2nd, 2013 | ||
Journey Into Mystery #655Kathryn Immonen and Valerio Schiti give Sif a righteous send off in the final issue of "Journey Into Mystery."
August 29th, 2013 | ||
American Vampire Anthology #1"American Vampire Anthology" #1 reminds readers why Scott Snyder and Rafael Albuquerque's creation is so beloved as more than a score of the comics' industry's biggest names contribute to the legend of Skinner Sweet.
August 28th, 2013 | ||
Venom #39Cullen Bunn and Kim Jacinto put Venom and his freshly minted protégé against Jack O'Lantern in a fight to the finish in "Venom" #39.
August 26th, 2013 | ||
RoboCop: Last Stand #1Frank Miller's ideas for RoboCop find their way to comics through writer Steven Grant and artist Korkut Öztekin in "RoboCop: Last Stand" #1.
August 12th, 2013 | ||
The Thrilling Adventure HourBen Acker and Ben Blacker bring a dozen of their wildly popular characters to print in ten stories by a diverse collection of comic book art talent in Archaia's "The Thrilling Adventure Hour" original graphic novel.
August 7th, 2013 | ||
Batman Beyond 2.0 #1DC's Digital First campaign brings Kyle Higgins and Thony Silas onboard to launch "Batman Beyond 2.0" #1.
August 5th, 2013 | ||
Venom #38Cullen Bunn and Kim Jacinto craft a wonderfully horrific story of the agony of double identities in a world filled with vengeful madmen as Flash Thompson suffers a loss in "Venom" #38.
August 5th, 2013 | ||
Tom Strong and the Planet of Peril #1Tom Strong's newest adventure kicks off with a profoundly dull debut issue, but Chris Sprouse keeps the ship afloat with his usual fantastic art.
August 2nd, 2013 | ||
The Wake #3"The Wake" #3 puts Scott Snyder's and Sean Murphy's latest creation in motion with devastating results.
July 31st, 2013 | ||
Journey Into Mystery #654Kathryn Immonen and Valerio Schiti's "Journey into Mystery" #645 finds Sif and Beta Ray Bill trapped in a malfunctioning Stark tech space station, struggling to find a way out. As they soon discover, they are not as alone as they first thou
July 29th, 2013 | ||
The Rocketeer and the Spirit: Pulp Friction #1Mark Waid and Paul Smith release a nearly perfect comic that walks the line between retro and modern, and carries the weight of comics history with a flippant, fun ease in "The Rocketeer and the Spirit: Pulp Friction" #1.
July 29th, 2013 | ||
Quantum and Woody #1Valiant scores again with another great first issue: "Quantum and Woody" #1 by James Asmus and Tom Fowler.
July 11th, 2013 | ||
Journey Into Mystery #653"Journey Into Mystery" #653 gives Beta Ray Bill more room to shine and Sif more quandaries to solve as Kathryn Immonen and Valerio Schiti do their usual stunning job with this title.
July 1st, 2013 | ||
The Wake #2Spanning millions of years and with a fascinating and disturbing mystery at its center, Scott Snyder and Sean Murphy's "The Wake" #2 is a force to be reckoned with in comics storytelling.
June 28th, 2013 | ||
The Massive #13Writer Brian Wood alters the direction of the series for the better in "The Massive" #13, while keeping all of the dystopian elements that have made it great. Plus, the welcome return of regular series artist Garry Brown.
June 26th, 2013 | ||
Mara #5In "Mara" #5 by Brian Wood and Ming Doyle, Mara is powered up even further and undergoes even more personal loss, leading inexorably to a heavily foreshadowed cliffhanger that still has the power to shock.
June 24th, 2013 | ||
X-Files Season 10 #1"X-Files Season 10" #1 sees writer Joe Harris and artist Michael Walsh return to the world of the X-Files. Is the truth still out there?
June 20th, 2013 | ||
Captain Marvel #13"Captain Marvel" #13 by Kelly Sue DeConnick and Scott Hepburn has Carol hunting old enemy Yon-Rogg (now The Magnitron) as he begins to make big moves.
June 20th, 2013 | ||
Ultimate Comics X-Men #27Utopia is officially under siege, and with it come a ton of surprises in Brian Wood and Mahmud Asrar's latest installment of "Ultimate Comics X-Men."
June 17th, 2013 |


text:
There are currently no items in your cart.
Mark Hayes: Carols for the Intermediate Pianist
Seasonal Settings that Warm the Heart
By Mark Hayes
- Listen (2)
- Instrument:
Mark Hayes: Carols for the Intermediate Pianist (Seasonal Settings that Warm the Heart). Composed by Mark Hayes. For Piano. Sacred Piano. Advent, Christmas. Level 2. Published by Lorenz Publishing - Digital Sheet Music (LX.70-1621L).
Echoing the success of the first "Mark Hayes for the Intermediate Pianist," a collection of hymn settings, is this new collection of Christmas carols just in time for the Advent and Christmas season. Hayes has written creative, fresh settings of familiar carols that sound hard but are easily played by intermediate and advanced players alike. Special attention is given to smaller-handed pianists'no excessive use of octaves, no large leaps or chords, and thinner but satisfying harmonic textures. However, the trademark Hayes harmonies, modulations and embellishments are still there. Each arrangement is three minutes or shorter, making them perfect for use in services where timing is a consideration.
About Digital Print Sheet Music
Digital Print is printable sheet music available anytime, anywhere. Just purchase, print and play! View your online sheet music at home, school, work or anywhere you have a computer connected to the Internet. Use our iPad app to view your digital sheet music on the go. With Digital Print, you can print your digital sheet music immediately after purchase, or wait until its convenient. And our software installation is easy - we'll guide you through the simple steps to make sure you have Adobe Flash Player, Adobe AIR and the Sheet Music Plus AIR application.
Buy Together
Mark Hayes: Carols for the Intermediate Pianist
Digital Print Deluxe Binder
Buy both for $22.95
Customers Who Bought Mark Hayes: Carols for the Intermediate Pianist Also Bought:
Mark Hayes: Hymns for the Intermedi... $15.00
Mark Hayes: Hymns for the Intermedi... $15.00
Advent $15.00
Mark Hayes Piano and Rhythm Christm... $24.95
How Great Thou Art $3.99
Romantic Silent Night in C Key - To... $5.25
Digital Print Deluxe Binder $7.95
Sweet Hour of Prayer Medley $3.99
Mark Hayes: Piano and Rhythm Christ... $24.95
Prayludes for Winter $15.00
Carols We Love $18.00
Hymn Harmonizations by Hayes, Vol. ... $29.95
Reflections For Worship $16.95
Mark Hayes: Jazz Hymns for the Inte... $15.00
Mark Hayes: Carols for the Intermed... $15.00
Linus And Lucy $4.99
Mary, Did You Know? $3.95
O Come O Come Emmaneul $3.99
To play the media you will need to update yourFlash plugin.
Mark Hayes: Carols for the Intermediate Pianist
Seasonal Settings that Warm the Heart
- Explain exactly why you liked or disliked the product. Do you like the artist? Is the transcription accurate? Is it a good teaching tool?
- Consider writing about your experience and musical tastes. Are you a beginner who started playing last month? Do you usually like this style of music?
- Feel free to recommend similar pieces if you liked this piece, or alternatives if you didn't.
- Be respectful of artists, readers, and your fellow reviewers. Please do not use inappropriate language, including profanity, vulgarity, or obscenity.
- Avoid disclosing contact information (email addresses, phone numbers, etc.), or including URLs, time-sensitive material or alternative ordering information.
- We cannot post your review if it violates these guidelines. If you have any suggestions or comments on the guidelines, please email us.
- All submitted reviews become the licensed property of Sheet Music Plus and are subject to all laws pertaining thereto. If you believe that any review contained on our site infringes upon your copyright, please email us.
- Read Sheet Music Plus's complete Privacy Policy
Mark Hayes: Carols for the Intermediate Pianist
Seasonal Settings that Warm the Heart
Tell a friend (or remind yourself) about this product. We'll instantly send an email containing product info and a link to it. You may also enter a personal message.
We do not use or store email addresses from this form for any other purpose than sending your share email.
Read our Privacy Policy.
Now you can also view your purchased titles on your iPad with our
free Sheet Music Plus Digital Print Viewer app.
With Digital Print, you can print from your computer immediately after purchase, or wait until its convenient. And our software installation is easy - we'll guide you through the simple steps to make sure you have Adobe Flash Player, Adobe AIR and the Sheet Music Plus AIR application on your computer.
See all System Requirements for Digital Print
Note: Our Digital Print items are purchased solely through our website. By purchasing a Digital Print item, you are authorized by the publisher to print out the purchased number of copies for that particular title. Thus, we are unable to fax, mail or email digital titles in any form or file format (including PDF) as it violates copyright law.
Google Chrome Users: The most recent Google Chrome update is not compatible with Adobe AIR. We recommend using an alternate browser (such as Internet Explorer, Safari, or Firefox) in order to download Adobe AIR and print your music.
Digital Print - Available Instantly!
If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please contact us at email@example.com.
Make a wish list for gifts, suggest standard repertoire, let students know which books to buy, boast about pieces you've mastered: Music Lists are as unique as the musician! Easily share your music lists with friends, students, and the world.
To create a music list, please sign in.
Existing Accounts New AccountsSave up to 25% on New Releases for Piano Solo at Sheet Music Plus
First 50 Classical Pieces You Shoul... $14.99 $11.24
40 Piazzolla Tangos for Piano $19.99 $14.99
Endless Communion $18.95 $14.21
33. Gospel $16.99 $12.74
Popular Performer -- Great American... $19.99 $14.99
2015 Greatest Pop & Movie Hits $14.99 $11.24
Cocktail Piano $16.99 $12.74
The Theory of Everything $14.99 $11.24
How to Train Your Dragon $14.99 $11.24
Popular Songs for Piano Solo - 14 S... $16.99 $12.74
Bernstein Broadway Piano Solos $12.99 $9.74
Beethoven - Complete Piano Sonatas $34.99 $26.24
Fifty Shades Of Grey $19.99 $14.99
Chopin: The Ultimate Piano Collecti... $35.00 $26.25
See Similar Sheet Music
More by this Composer: Mark Hayes Sheet Music Mark Hayes Piano Solo Sheet Music
Instrument: Piano Solo Sheet Music


text:
Bob and Janeen from "Homegrown" interviewed me about The Brother Gardeners and said that it was 'probably the best book on the subject ever'.
The Invention of Nature. Alexander von Humboldt's New World (forthcoming September 2015, published in the UK, US, Germany, and Portugal).
Chasing Venus. The Race to Measure the Heavens (2012 published in the UK, US, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Japan and Brazil.
click here for Chasing Venus reviews
The Founding Gardeners. The Revolutionary Generation and the Shaping of the American Nation (2011, published by Knopf and William Heinemann)
Click here for Founding Gardeners reviews
The Brother Gardeners. Botany, Empire and the Birth of an Obsession
UK paperback February 2009
Winner of American Horticultural Society 2010 Book Award
Longlisted for the Samuel Johnson Prize for Non-Fiction
US edition 30 March 2009
This Other Eden Seven Great Gardens and Three Hundred Years of English History
« Research Seminar at the Victoria & Albert Museum, 22 October 2009, 'Their Temple was Liberty Tree'. | Main | Talk at Adkins Arboretum, Ridgely, Maryland, USA, 4 May 2010 »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Radio Interview: The Brother Gardeners on WFPL-FM, Homegrown, 4 October 2009:
The comments to this entry are closed.
photo credit (c) Antonina Gern