text:
Visit our other Wisconsin Historical Society websites!
Refine or narrow your results by clicking any term in the gray boxes below.
Expand your results by removing any breadcrumb in a gray outlined box above. Click on the blue "X" to remove the term.
Narrow your results by entering a keyword into the search box above. Then click the "Search Within" checkbox, then click on the orange "Search" button.
If you did not find what you are looking for or you did not get any results, try changing your search term(s). See our Search Help page for more tips.
Description: A crowd of mostly men sitting on bleachers in front of a brick building, all watching some type of sporting event. One man is walking in front of the bleac...
Date: 1940
Description: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Wisconsin Governor Julius P. Heil, and other officials touring the Allis-Chalmers plant.
Description: A group of six men sitting and standing near a barrier wall at a sporting event with bleachers in the background. They are all wearing jackets and hats, an...
Description: View of industrial buildings with a man walking near the building on the right. A large wagon or cart is on the left near a stack of bricks and pipes.
Date: date unknown
Description: View from track of a crowd of men, women, and children in front of and behind a fence at a sporting event. On the left, a man who is possibly a police offi...
Date: 1977-07
Description: Duane Hanson and Norbert Winski attend to a large reducer and incher. This unit was purchased by Allis Chalmers and used by the Cleveland Cliffs Iron Compa...
Date: 1910
Description: George Malone and his camera in front of an ice formation on the Milwaukee (Bayview) shoreline of Lake Michigan.
Description: Three male employees appear to be preparing for a casting in sand. One man holds a hose in his hand while another has a shovel and the other a long metal p...
Date: 1941 ca.
Description: Milwaukee Works foremen and supervisors posing in front of a "high-speed, modernized gun carriage." At the right is Superintendent V.A. Guebard, and next t...
Date: 1914 ca.
Description: Workers relaxing outside International Harvester's Milwaukee Works. One group is crowded around a stage listening to a band while others are playing baseba...
Date: 1930
Description: Factory workers working on cream separator bowls at Milwaukee Works.
Date: 1914-11-12
Description: Waist-up seated portrait of Samuel A. Clark, Neenah manufacturer.
Date: 1875 before
Description: Stereograph. Looking northwest. Designed by Edward Townsend Mix, the building is said to be Wisconsin's premier example of the Victorian Gothic style of ar...
Date: 1949-01-10
Description: Women casting ballots at the Lithographers' Local #7 Strike vote. The ballot box is on a stage at the front of a large crowded room.
Description: Three men in a horse-drawn fire engine races down a downtown street.
Date: 1913-09-12 ca.
Description: Looking south on N. Plankinton Avenue and N. 3rd Street, with the The Second Ward Savings Bank (now the Milwaukee County Historical Society) in the triangl...
Description: A large group of motorcycles and riders are gathered in the middle of a city street.
Description: View from street of a group of ten children sitting on the curb of a street. Behind them are a house, trees, and a man on a bicycle. Seven of the ten child...
Date: 1921-05-12
Description: Quarter-length studio portrait of William Watson Perry, Milwaukee company secretary.
Description: A group of men with their backs to the viewer are gathering in a circle around an unknown event. One man near the center of the image has his shirt open in...
If you didn't find the material you searched for, our Library Reference Staff can help.
Call our reference desk at 608-264-6535 or email us at:
© 1996-2015 Wisconsin Historical Society, 816 State Street, Madison, WI 53706


text:
Wyden calls for campaign restrictions
|| Print |
|High Five
|Friday, April 30, 2010
Sen. Ron Wyden joined other legislators in introducing a measure to restrict the influence of corporate and special interests in political campaigns.
The measure follows a January Supreme Court decision that ruled Congress could not restrict corporate and union rights in political speech.
Read the full story at the Statesman Journal.
{biztweet}Ron Wyden corporate influence{/biztweet}
|The List: 100 Best Nonprofits to Work For in Oregon
|Run, Nick, Run
|One Tough Mayor
|100 Best Nonprofits: Working for equality inside and out
|Salad Days
|Cream of the Crop
|Keep Pendleton Weird
|2 out of 5 millennials pay for their news
|Oregon's graying workforce
|How much did Bernie Sanders raise in Q3?
|Federal regulators OK Jordan Cove LNG terminal
|Amazon to emulate parts of Uber's model
|Another former Daimler alleges discrimination
|Struggling Whole Foods announces layoffs
Wage gaps and workforce shortages are threatening the quality of care and supports to Oregonians with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Who's caring for those who care for our most vulnerable residents?
Engaging employees and customers along the way.
After first visiting as tourists, entrepreneurs relocate to Oregon and spur economic growth.
Are you planning a meeting, party, gala, fundraiser, holiday party, golf tournament, retirement party, team building or birthday? You won't want to miss this show to get hundreds of great ideas!
Promoting from within its own ranks, PacificSource Health Plans has tapped Tony Kopki to head its commercial lines of business in Oregon, Idaho and Montana. In his new role as Vice President of Commercial Programs, Kopki will provide strategic, product and market leadership for PacificSource's commercial programs.
Thomson brings 25 years of healthcare experience in provider relations, sales, marketing and communications.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We will be closed Saturday, July 4
Back-to-School Classroom Supply ~ Over the next few weeks, we will be getting in lots of classroom materials (like borders, posters, calendar sets). If you'd like to add any special orders to our next 3 planned shipments from Creative Teaching Press, Teacher Created Resources, or Carson-Dellosa, we'd be more than glad to add-on your items. There are no shipping charges for special orders! See pdf flyer below for order and arrival dates, and links to their websites.
2016 Battle Books are in. Feel free to call or message to reserve a set, or come in and grab a few for summer reading. 20% off as always! We'll have our formatted list available shortly.
Check out our Facebook page if you want to see the latest store happenings and new products! (Link below)
Web Hosting powered by Network Solutions®


text:
Refine Your Search
- Alameda
- Butte
- Colusa
- Contra Costa
- El Dorado
- Fresno
- Glenn
- Imperial
- Kern
- Kings
- Lake
- Los Angeles
- Madera
- Marin
- Mariposa
- Merced
- Monterey
- Napa
- Nevada
- Orange
- Placer
- Plumas
- Riverside
- Sacramento
- San Benito
- San Bernardino
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Joaquin
- San Luis Obispo
- San Mateo
- Santa Barbara
- Santa Clara
- Santa Cruz
- Shasta
- Siskiyou
- Solano
- Sonoma
- Stanislaus
- Sutter
- Tehama
- Tulare
- Ventura
- Yolo
- Adelanto
- Agoura
- Agoura Hills
- Aguanga
- Alameda
- Alamo
- Alhambra
- Aliso Viejo
- Altadena
- Anaheim
- Angelus Oaks
- Angwin
- Antelope
- Antioch
- Apple Valley
- Aptos
- Arcadia
- Arroyo Grande
- Atascadero
- Atherton
- Auburn
- Avila Beach
- Bakersfield
- Baldwin Park
- Beaumont
- Bel Tiburon
- Bell Gardens
- Belvedere
- Benicia
- Berkeley
- Bermuda Dunes
- Beverly Hills
- Big Bear Lake
- Bonita
- Bonsall
- Brea
- Brentwood
- Brisbane
- Brooks
- Buellton
- Buena Park
- Burbank
- Burlingame
- Cabazon
- Calabasas
- Calexico
- Calimesa
- Calistoga
- Camarillo
- Cameron Park
- Camp Pendleton
- Campbell
- Canoga Park
- Capistrano Beach
- Capitola
- Capo Beach
- Cardiff
- Cardiff By The Sea
- Carlsbad
- Carmel
- Carmel By The Sea
- Carmel Valley
- Carmichael
- Carpinteria
- Carson
- Castro Valley
- Cathedral City
- Cayucos
- Century City
- Cerritos
- Chatsworth
- Chico
- Chino
- Chino Hills
- Chula Vista
- Citrus Heights
- Claremont
- Clearlake
- Cloverdale
- Clovis
- Colfax
- Colma
- Colton
- Colusa
- Compton
- Concord
- Corning
- Corona
- Corona Del Mar
- Coronado
- Corte Madera
- Costa Mesa
- Coto De Caza
- Covina
- Crestline
- Culver City
- Cupertino
- Cypress
- Daly City
- Dana Point
- Danville
- Davis
- Deer Park
- Del Mar
- Desert Hot Springs
- Diamond Bar
- Downey
- Dublin
- Eagle Rock
- Eastvale
- El Cajon
- El Dorado Hills
- El Monte
- El Segundo
- El Toro
- Elk Grove
- Emeryville
- Encinitas
- Encino
- Escondido
- Fair Oaks
- Fairfax
- Fairfield
- Fallbrook
- Felton
- Folsom
- Fontana
- Foothill Ranch
- Forest Falls
- Foster City
- Fountain Valley
- Fremont
- Fresno
- Fullerton
- Galt
- Garden Grove
- Gardena
- Geyserville
- Gilroy
- Glendale
- Glendora
- Gold River
- Goleta
- Granada Hills
- Granite Bay
- Grass Valley
- Greenbrae
- Gridley
- Hamilton City
- Hanford
- Harbor City
- Hawaiian Gardens
- Hawthorne
- Hayward
- Healdsburg
- Hemet
- Hermosa Beach
- Hesperia
- Highland
- Hillsborough
- Hollister
- Hollywood
- Huntington Beach
- Huntington Park
- Indian Wells
- Indio
- Inglewood
- Irvine
- Isla Vista
- Jamul
- Julian
- Kentfield
- Kerman
- Klamath River
- La Canada
- La Canada Flintridge
- La Costa
- La Crescenta
- La Habra
- La Jolla
- La Mesa
- La Mirada
- La Puente
- La Quinta
- La Verne
- Ladera Ranch
- Lafayette
- Laguna Beach
- Laguna Hills
- Laguna Niguel
- Laguna Woods
- Lake Arrowhead
- Lake Balboa
- Lake Elsinore
- Lake Forest
- Lakeside
- Lakewood
- Lancaster
- Larkspur
- Lemoore
- Lincoln
- Livermore
- Llano
- Lodi
- Loma Linda
- Lomita
- Lompoc
- Long Beach
- Loomis
- Los Alamitos
- Los Altos
- Los Altos Hills
- Los Angeles
- Los Banos
- Los Gatos
- Los Olivos
- Los Osos
- Lower Lake
- Lucerne Valley
- Lynwood
- Madera
- Malibu
- Manhattan Beach
- Manteca
- Marina Del Rey
- Mariposa
- Martinez
- Menifee
- Menlo Park
- Mentone
- Merced
- Middletown
- Mill Valley
- Millbrae
- Milpitas
- Mission Hills
- Mission Viejo
- Modesto
- Monrovia
- Montecito
- Monterey
- Montrose
- Moorpark
- Moreno Valley
- Morgan Hill
- Morro Bay
- Mountain View
- Muir Beach
- Murrieta
- Napa
- National City
- Nevada City
- Newbury Park
- Newhall
- Newport Beach
- Newport Coast
- Norco
- North Highlands
- North Hollywood
- Northridge
- Norwalk
- Novato
- Nuevo
- Oak Park
- Oakhurst
- Oakland
- Oceanside
- Ojai
- Ontario
- Orange
- Orangevale
- Orinda
- Orland
- Oroville
- Oxnard
- Pacific Grove
- Pacific Palisades
- Pacoima
- Palm Desert
- Palm Springs
- Palmdale
- Palo Alto
- Palos Verdes Estates
- Palos Verdes Peninsula
- Paradise
- Pasadena
- Paso Robles
- Perris
- Petaluma
- Phelan
- Piedmont
- Pittsburg
- Placentia
- Placerville
- Playa Del Rey
- Pleasant Hill
- Pleasanton
- Pomona
- Port Hueneme
- Portola Hills
- Portola Valley
- Poway
- Ramona
- Rancho Cordova
- Rancho Cucamonga
- Rancho Mirage
- Rancho Palos Verdes
- Rancho Park
- Rancho Santa Fe
- Rancho Santa Margarita
- Red Bluff
- Redding
- Redlands
- Redondo Beach
- Redwood City
- Reseda
- Rialto
- Richmond
- Riverside
- Rocklin
- Rohnert Park
- Rolling Hills
- Rolling Hills Estates
- Rosemead
- Roseville
- Ross
- Rowland Heights
- Running Springs
- Sacramento
- Saint Helena
- Salinas
- San Anselmo
- San Bernardino
- San Bruno
- San Carlos
- San Clemente
- San Diego
- San Dimas
- San Fernando
- San Francisco
- San Gabriel
- San Jacinto
- San Jose
- San Juan Bautista
- San Juan Capistrano
- San Leandro
- San Luis Obispo
- San Marcos
- San Marino
- San Mateo
- San Pedro
- San Rafael
- San Ramon
- San Ysidro
- Santa Ana
- Santa Barbara
- Santa Clara
- Santa Clarita
- Santa Cruz
- Santa Margarita
- Santa Maria
- Santa Monica
- Santa Paula
- Santa Rosa
- Santa Ynez
- Santee
- Saratoga
- Sausalito
- Scotts Valley
- Seal Beach
- Sebastopol
- Sherman Oaks
- Sierra Madre
- Silverado
- Simi Valley
- Skyforest
- Solana Beach
- Solvang
- Sonoma
- Soquel
- South Gate
- South Pasadena
- South San Francisco
- Spring Valley
- Stanford
- Stockton
- Studio City
- Summerland
- Sun Valley
- Sunnyvale
- Surfside
- Sylmar
- Tarzana
- Tehachapi
- Temecula
- Thousand Oaks
- Thousand Palms
- Tiburon
- Topanga
- Torrance
- Trabuco Canyon
- Tracy
- Tulare
- Tustin
- Union City
- Universal City
- Upland
- Vacaville
- Valencia
- Vallejo
- Valley Center
- Valley Village
- Van Nuys
- Venice
- Ventura
- Victorville
- Villa Park
- Visalia
- Vista
- Walnut Creek
- Warner Springs
- Watsonville
- West Covina
- West Hills
- West Hollywood
- West Los Angeles
- Westlake Village
- Westminster
- Westwood
- Whittier
- Wildomar
- Willows
- Wilmington
- Windsor
- Winnetka
- Woodland
- Woodland Hills
- Woodside
- Yorba Linda
- Yreka
- Yuba City
- Yucaipa
Treatment Programs
- 12 Step Program
- Addiction
- Adult Residential
- Alcohol Rehab
- Christian Rehab
- Continuing Care
- Depression
- Detox Program
- Drug Rehab
- Dual Diagnosis
- Eating Disorder
- Equine Therapy
- Intervention
- Medically Assisted Detox
- Opiate Drug Detox
- Outdoor Therapy
- Pain Management
- Psychiatric Residential
- Residential Boarding School
- Residential Inpatient
- Residential Relapse Recovery
- Sex Addiction Program
- Small Residential Programs
- Substance Abuse
- Support Living
- Teens & Adolescent Residential
- Transitional Independent Living Programs
- Wilderness Rehab
- Young Adult Residential
Out / Inpatient
See Nearest
Pain Management Treatment Centers in California (CA)
Warner plaza Medical clinic
Treatment Facility
"We are dedicated to treat alcohol and other substances dependence in an outpatient therapy setting, in line with evidence based meidicine approach. We have been doing outpatient detox successfully for the last 10 years. Our physicians are compassionate and available every day to answer your questions. once you become our patient, you will be treated with the best and latest available treatments and you are well on your way to a clean and sober life."
Pain Management
Woodland Hills, California 91367(818) 356-7842
The Hills Treatment Center
Treatment Facility
"The Hills Treatment Center offers a unique educational and therapeutic drug and alcohol rehabilitation experience in Los Angeles, CA. The Hills Treatment Center offers a coalition of the finest minds and best research drug and alcohol rehab has to offer, including services for co-existing disorders, dual diagnosis, and mental health issues. The staff at The Hills understands the need to provide privacy in a supportive setting. Located on a secluded gated private road The Hills maintains three separate houses each full staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Hills provides concierge based treatment. This allows clients to mix and match a full menu of services according to their individual needs. The Hills provides a strong commitment to the protection of the privacy of each client and the utmost care is taken to protect everyone's confidentiality."
Pain Management
Los Angeles, California 90046(818) 495-0682
Cognitive Health Science Centers
Treatment Facility
"We are San Diego's Premier recovery center. Success is defined in many ways. Each person's definition of success is theirs alone. Like success, Recovery has many paths of attainment. Together with CognitiveHSC, we will help find your individual path to recovery and move you forward toward YOUR life's success. Our center helps you better understand your recovery, identify emotional, physical, mental, medical, PTSD, and neurological needs, and connect with your true self. Our On-Line Sober Solution gives you access when other options are not available. It takes a lot of courage to enter treatment, or to even make that consideration, and we are here to help you in your process with the necessary tools and steps to lead you to a better life."
Pain Management
San Marcos, California 92069(858) 437-5453
Inneractions Intensive Outpatient Programs
Treatment Facility
"An intensive outpatient program for alcoholics, addicts and their families. Through individual therapy, addiction counseling and group interaction, our clients gain the insight and education needed to make immediate and lasting change. We help our clients understand and manage the physiological and emotional conditions that lead to dependency and compulsive behavior. We believe that treating the whole person means meeting the client where they are when they arrive. We know getting sober isn't easy, but we are there for our clients every step of the way."
Pain Management
Woodland Hills, California 91367(818) 741-3330
New Day Psychotherapy Group
Treatment Facility
"New Day Psychotherapy Group is a practice of experienced clinicians serving two locations in Southern California (Cypress and Pasadena) and the surrounding areas with individual, couples, and family therapy. If you or your family are looking for extra support and guidance through a challenging situation or you're just ready to move in a new direction in life or your career, we look forward to working with you to achieve your goals and empower you to a positive path of growth and well-being."
Pain Management
(562) 479-0136
The Canyon
Treatment Facility
"Treatment centers that handle both substance addictions along with disorders are few and far between. The Canyon Treatment Center is equipped to treat both problems simultaneously while providing clients with the tools needed to begin a life in recovery. The Canyon is located in the peaceful Santa Monica Mountains of Malibu, Calif., on a 240 acre campus. With a staff of educated professionals trained to treat co-occurring disorders, clients can expect to receive an individualized treatment program for their unique needs. The Canyon's specialized treatment programs range from the cutting edge equine and adventure therapies to the more traditional trauma and group therapies."
Pain Management
(888) 849-2377
Betty Ford Center at Rancho Mirage
Treatment Facility
"The Betty Ford Center, now part of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, is a licensed chemical dependency recovery hospital with detox services and treatment programs for alcohol and drug addiction. Our commitment is to provide medically-proven, evidence-based treatment programs and 12-Step support, giving patients the optimal opportunity to experience ongoing recovery. Treatment programs have been time-tested over three decades and include education and prevention programs for family members, including children. A national nonprofit organization founded in 1982, Betty Ford Center helps people reclaim their lives from the disease of addiction. Our multidisciplinary teams create personalized treatment plans using proven educational, clinical, and peer-based methods, and our campus offers a safe and supportive environment. Our programs include integrated mental health services for co-occurring mental health issues. Upon completion of treatment, an individualized care plan is provided to help patients navigate their new lives in recovery."
Pain Management
Rancho Mirage, California 92270(877) 978-2412
Journey Malibu
Treatment Facility
"At JOURNEY MALIBU, we encourage you to participate in your own recovery. We will incorporate our staff's wide range of skills, which encompass a combination of allopathic, holistic, and evidence-based medicine/treatments to co-create a program that best suits your individual needs."
Pain Management
(866) 296-8909
Gracer Behavioral Health Services/ Medical Group
Treatment Facility
"Gracer Medical Group specializes in the comprehensive treatment of substance abuse. Our services include medical evaluation, detox, and treatment with the latest nutritional and medical regimens. In addition, the program includes a CARF accredited, Intensive Outpatient Treatment Program (IOP) that is often covered by insurance. This program includes individual, family, and group therapy. Please call for a free intake evaluation with one of our therapists. If our program is not the best one for you, we are delighted to help you find the correct treatment that is right for you."
Pain Management
San Ramon, California 94583(925) 233-4524
Ketamine Clinics of Los Angeles
Treatment Facility
"Our team at Ketamine Clinics of Los Angeles is committed to providing outstanding care that produces real, lasting results. We're here for you from the moment you call our office to long after your last treatment. Ketamine Clinics Ketamine Infusion Therapy offers more comprehensive, affordable, and effective care than any of the other depression treatment centers in the United States. With an 83% success rate, and depression lifted in as fast as one hour, no other severe depression treatment has ever caused such rapid and robust results. At Ketamine Clinics, we believe that personalized care tailored to you is the best way to succeed in helping you, so we take even the smallest details into consideration when discussing your treatment options. With over 35 years of devotion to patient care, our team is experienced and compassionate. With the latest information and state of the art technology, Ketamine Clinics of Los Angeles is the choice for anyone interested in Ketamine Infusion Therapy."
Pain Management
Santa Monica, California 90404(310) 776-6738
Health Resolutions Treatment Center
Treatment Facility
"Health Resolutions Treatment Center takes a bold, fresh approach to the recovery process. We focus on solving core biochemical and physical impairments rather than managing symptoms. Like an engineer, we fine tune a body's own operating system."
Pain Management
Santa Rosa, California 95403(707) 413-6308
Psychological Services for Families
Treatment Facility
"When given new opportunities and education that can improve their lives, people will respond and change in ways that make sense to them. Experienced counselors who respect and educate about individual differences and who value clients' opinions and needs, enable individuals to grow and change to meet the challenges in their lives."
Pain Management
(805) 628-4137
Santa Cruz Neurofeedback Center
Treatment Facility
"At the Santa Cruz Neurofeedback Center ("The Center"), our goal is to help you live to your full potential. Whether you are seeking to increase focus or motivation, decrease anxiety, elevate mood, expand awareness, or simply wish to tune your brain for optimal performance, The Center can help you train your brain! Neurofeedback produces a long lasting effect, without the substantial disadvantages of tolerance and side-effects common with medication. Neurofeedback (brainwave biofeedback) has been shown to help both children and adults with ADD/ADHD, OCD, PTSD, chronic pain, mood disorders, anxiety, stress, learning disorders, head trauma, and numerous other conditions. Many of the clients we see have tried a number of approaches, from talk therapy to prescription medications, with little or no relief. Neuroscientist Langdon Roberts, MA, CMT, The Center's director, has over 15 years of experience successfully helping clients with these conditions."
Pain Management
(831) 346-1319
Akua Mind & Body
Treatment Facility
"Akua Mind & Body is a cutting-edge drug and alcohol detoxification facility, where we take a holistic approach to addiction treatment. At Akua, we use the term "holistic" to refer to treatment that addresses the three important components of our being: mind, body and spirit. In treating you as whole person -- and not just one facet of your being -- we will accelerate the process of breaking destructive patterns created by drugs and alcohol in your life. To accomplish this, we combine the science of substance use disorder services, nutrition, movement, and psychotherapy with Eastern techniques of acupuncture, massage, yoga, and meditation to achieve a fully comprehensive and individualized detoxification program."
Pain Management
Costa Mesa, California 92626(714) 699-9525
Pacific Bay Recovery
Treatment Facility
"Pacific Bay Recovery specializes in treating chronic pain and the dependence and addiction issues that often result. Our clients often come to us when they have nowhere else to go and can get no relief from this debilitating disease."
Pain Management
San Diego, California 92101(619) 493-3110
Cerebrum Centers
Treatment Facility
"Direct Neurofeedback® is an extremely low-strength electric current that is effective in reducing the symptoms of anxiety, depression, traumatic brain injury (TBI), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), addiction, attention deficit disorder (ADD/ADHD), insomnia, and chronic pain. Direct Neurofeedback sends a tiny, imperceptible signal to the brain that causes a slight fluctuation in brainwaves. This fluctuation allows the brain to reorganize itself and get out of frozen, stuck patterns, like re-booting a frozen computer. The percentage of patients that receive substantial benefit is upwards of 80%. Of those, the large majority experience initial improvement in the very first session. These initial improvements are temporary, lasting from a few hours to a few days. With further treatment the improvements endure. An average of about 20 sessions is needed. Treatment is not necessary on an ongoing basis. Although the conditions that improve have very different causes, there is one common denominator: they are stuck in dysfunctional patterns. HPN causes a "disruption" of that pattern regardless of origin, and allows the brain to either return to its "factory specifications" or begin creating new, healthy patterns. This coincides with the tremendous amount of research demonstrating a newly discovered "neuroplasticity" in the brain."
Pain Management
Los Angeles, California 90064(646) 606-2651
Treatment Facility
"Reflections is a Fully Licensed Luxury Residential Treatment Facility located in Marin County in the San Francisco Bay Area. We offer 30, 60 and 90 day programs (as well as extended care) for men and women. We serve people from many walks of life, including business executives, attorneys, athletes, entertainers and other professionals. Clients can expect an individualized program delivered by a highly trained staff in an environment which promotes Choice, Empowerment, Respect and Transformation. Clients can expect private bedrooms, private bathrooms, dietary needs served by an Executive Chef, individual workstation, use of cell phones, pool, spa, gym all in a beautiful Mediterranean spa like setting. We are highly staffed for dual diagnosis clients and excel in relapse prevention."
Pain Management
(866) 274-2593
His House
Treatment Facility
"A Licensed and Certified Residential Program by the State of California Department of Alcohol and Drug Program #360075BP We are CARF Accredited. We offer programs from 30 to 180 Days Depending on the need of the client. We specialize in: Non Medical Detox, Residential Treatment, Out PatientTreatment, Sober Livings, and Interventions, Also we have Separate Locations for Men/Women OUR PROGRAM HAS FOUR PHASES Phase One - Day 1 to 30 (Intro Phase). Phase Two - Day 30 to 60 ( Passes ). Phase Three - Day 60 to 90 (Job Search). Phase Four - Day 90 to 180 (Sober living and IOP)."
Pain Management
(909) 726-5120
Valley Recovery Center of California
Treatment Facility
"Many people struggling with addiction simply cannot achieve the level of health they long without help. Valley Recovery Center of California residential treatment Center provides a safe, supportive environment where a person struggling with addiction can develop a solid foundation for recovery. Valley Recovery Center recognizes that addiction is a complex disease that in some cases may require an array of evidence based treatment modalities. Our professional team of clinicians are able to treat co-occurring disorders simultaneously with substance addictions. We believe cognitive behavioral therapies, medication management and medically assisted detoxification are the most productive forms of alcohol and drug abuse treatment. The use of individual, family and group therapies assist clients to change and provide incentives for abstinence, building skills to resist drug use, improve problem solving skills and facilitate better family and interpersonal relationships. We feel privileged to honor the client's process of change, Passion is our driving force we truly believe that hope is available for both you and your love one. A caring and confidential counselor is standing by ready to talk with you."
Pain Management
Sacramento, California 94203(530) 285-4020
Virtual Reality Medical Center
Treatment Facility
"Using the latest tools and technologies, such as Virtual Reality, combined with traditional Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Biofeedback, we individualize treatment to serve each client's unique needs. With 20 years of experience, we use clinically validated protocols and tools to empower you and teach you skill sets that transfer from the clinic setting to real life situations."
Pain Management
San Diego, California 92121(858) 384-4355


text:
Christopher Hughes Gambol
Position: G-T
Height: 6-6 Weight: 303 lbs.
Born: September 14, 1964 in Pittsburgh, PA
High School: Oxford
College: Iowa (school history)
Drafted by the Indianapolis Colts in the 3rd round (58th overall) of the 1987 NFL Draft.
Weighted Career AV (100-95-...): 5 (9187th overall since 1950)
Let people know you like this site. Sponsor this page for $5. Your message will replace this ad.


text:
these are very beautyfull. i want to fuck them.i want them to touch my penny
Thanks for helping us associate the correct Pornstars to this video!
Help Us: Do these Pornstars appear in this video?
Pornstar Name:
Video Description:
These sexy amateur bitches had the perfect idea... Playing Strip Dart and recording it on tape!
All Comments (20)
these are very beautyfull. i want to fuck them.i want them to touch my penny
Thank you girls, you are beautiful!!!!!!!!!!!!
omg this made me so happy!
I like the blue bitch
Dame girls y'all sexy nice boobs
how disappointing the strip and have disgusting pubes on display wasn't missing much girls please shave
Mm riko
what are there names
I would like to fuck them everyday for the rest of my life
I have the feeling that the tall blonde did fail on purpose just to show off in front of the camera. Well done, cute girl.
that girl with the blue bra and brown panties has an amazing body. especially that ass
i want to fuck all of them
id love for any of those girls to sit on my face shaved or not!
Well, I hope it's new darts. Nude art.
I'd like to have all three girls shaved or not to play darts or any other game including fucking.
Did anyone notice how bad they were at darts?
Be careful girls, those arrows are sharp The winner should get fucked by the winner of a male strip dart game. Now that would be fun!
i would love to release my material into any of them.
All 3 are cute. Shave them pussy's bald & I'd nail all 3 of them any day !


text:
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Fifth Circuit Rejects FMLA Claims
The Fifth Circuit dismissed most of the plaintiff's Family and Medical Leave Act case in Bryant v. Texas Dep't of Aging and Disability Services, holding that most claims were barred by state sovereign immunity and qualified immunity. But the court remanded the question whether the plaintiff's claim for monetary damages against her supervisor is barred by state sovereign immunity.
The plaintiff, Tammy Bryant, sued her employer, Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services, and her direct supervisor, Kim Littleton, for interfering with her self-care FMLA leave and for retaliating against her for taking FMLA leave. She sought reinstatement and monetary damages.
The Fifth Circuit dismissed most of Bryant's case. The court ruled that while Congress validly abrogated states' Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to the FMLA's family-care provision, Nev. Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs, Congress did not validly abrogate with respect to the self-care provision. Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland. As a result, the department had Eleventh Amendment immunity against Brant's self-care claims for monetary damages.
As to Bryant's claim for reinstatement, the court said that the Ex Parte Young exception (allowing plaintiffs to sue a state for prospective relief) did not apply to suits against state agencies; it only applies against state employees acting in their official capacities.
The court ruled further that Littleton enjoyed qualified immunity from Bryant's interference claims, because Bryant failed to show that Littleton violated clearly established law.
Finally, the court remanded Bryant's claim for monetary damages against Littleton. The court recognized that this "depends on the state's being the real party in interest" and left it to the lower court to work that out.
March 26, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Congressional Authority, Courts and Judging, Eleventh Amendment, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Court Dismisses Defamation Case on Government State Secret Assertion
Judge Edgardo Ramos (SDNY) dismissed a private defamation case this week after the government moved to intervene and asserted the state secrets privilege. Judge Ramos ruled that moving forward with the case at all (even excluding privileged evidence) would "impose an unjustifiable risk of disclosing state secrets." The ruling thus puts an end to the case, unless and until appealed. It is not a ruling on the merits, however.
The case, Restis v. American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, involves Greek shipping magnate Victor Restis's defamation claim against the group United Against Nuclear Iran for claiming, as part of its "name and shame" campaign, that Restis was involved in the illegal exportation of Iranian oil in violation of international sanctions. Restis sued UANI, and the government intervened and moved to dismiss on state secrets grounds, filing a classified declaration by the head of the government department that has control over the matter in support. (The government asserted, and the court apparently accepted, that the government couldn't even reveal "the department that has control over the matter" without risking the disclosure of secret information.)
Judge Ramos reviewed the declaration in camera and held two ex parte, in camera meetings with the government before determining that the state secrets privilege applied. "Having carefully reviewed the classified declarations and documents submitted by the Government ex parte, and being cognizant of a district court's obligation to grant 'utmost deference' to the executive's determination of the likely import of disclosure of the information on military or diplomatic security, the Court is satisfied that there is a reasonable danger that disclosure of the facts underlying the Government's assertion would in fact jeopardize national security."
Judge Ramos went on to say that "further litigation of this action would impose an unjustifiable risk of disclosing state secrets" and dismissed the case entirely. (Under the state secrets privilege, Judge Ramos might have allowed the case to move forward without the privileged evidence. But here, he said, any further litigation would risk disclosure.)
Notably absent from the ruling was any discussion of the state secrets privilege as a separation-of-powers principle. (Treating the privilege as a separation-of-powers principle has in the past led to a much more robust privilege, as in the Fourth Circuit's ruling in El-Masri.) Instead, Judge Ramos treated the privilege as it was designed and as the government apparently asserted it--as an evidentiary privilege. Even so, the government's assertion of the privilege resulted in the dismissal of the entire case.
Judge Ramos rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the government shouldn't be able to rely only on ex parte submissions for its assertion and that the case could be litigated in an in camera trial--because the evidence was apparently too secret even to tell the lawyers. Judge Ramos wrote, "The nature of the information here requires that counsel not be granted access."
Judge Ramos gave a hat tip--but only a hat tip--to the plaintiff's interest in access to justice:
The Court recognizes that dismissal is a "harsh sanction." It is particularly so in this case because Plaintiffs not only do not get their day in court, but cannot be told why.
Still, he said that "dismissal is nonetheless appropriate," because "there is no intermediate solution that would allow this litigation to proceed while also safeguarding the secrets at issue."
March 25, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Executive Privilege, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Separation of Powers, State Secrets | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Sierra Club Has Standing, Defeats EPA Redesignation of Cincinnati Area
The Sixth Circuit ruled last week in Sierra Club v. EPA that the Sierra Club had standing to challenge EPA's redesignation of the Ohio and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati area from "nonattainment" to "attainment" of the area's national air quality standards for particulate matter. The court went on to rule that the EPA's redesignation violated the Clean Air Act.
The ruling is notable, because it's the first time the Sixth Circuit had a chance to address a petitioner's burden of production on standing in a direct appeal of a final agency action. The court said that the petitioner bears a burden of production similar to that required at summary judgment (and not like the lower standard required on a motion to dismiss), that is: "the petitioner has to present specific facts supporting standing through citations to the administrative record or 'affidavits or other evidence' attached to its opening brief, unless standing is self-evident." This standard aligns the Sixth Circuit with the Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits.
Here, the Sierra Club attached to its brief a declaration by Sierra Club members who claimed that the redesignation would cause aesthetic, recreational, and physical injuries. As to causation and redressability, the court noted "that many courts have apparently found it so obvious that redesignation would lead to higher emissions that they did not even need to discuss the standing of environmental litigants." Still, the court looked to "reasonable inferences" about redesignation's impact and concluded that "[w]e find it reasonable to infer actual and imminent aesthetic and physical injuries to an identified member of the Club from redesignation of the Cincinnati area."
After concluded that the Sierra Club had standing, the court went on to rule against the EPA on the merits--that the redesignation violated the Clean Air Act.
March 24, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, March 20, 2015
Families of Hostages Lack Standing to Halt Government No-Ransom Policy
The Ninth Circuit ruled today in Munns v. Kerry that families of a government contractor taken hostage in Iraq lacked standing to challenge the alleged government policy prohibiting families from offering a reward or negotiating with terrorist kidnappers. The ruling dismisses the case.
The case was brought by former employees of a private firm (and their families) that contracted with the government for security services in Iraq. Former employees of the company claim, through their next of kin, that they were issued substandard military equipment and were ill-prepared for a mission (because of the negligence of their employer, sanctioned by the State Department), that as a result they were taken hostage and held for over a year, and that government policy prohibited the families from negotiating with the kidnappers. Kidnappers brutally executed the employees in 2008.
One plaintiff, Bjorlin, not taken hostage, alleges that he wishes to return to Iraq but wants to be sure that government policies will not prevent his employer from properly equipping him for security missions.
The families of the kidnapped and executed employees argued that an alleged government policy prohibiting them from seeking information on the kidnapped employees, and offering a reward, violated the First Amendment; they sought declaratory and injunctive relief against such a policy. They also argued that the government withheld money that belongs to them as survivors of their deceased contractor relatives, in violation of the Due Process and Takings Clauses; they sought monetary damages.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing for their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. As to the families of executed employees, the court said that they didn't allege how any government policies would affect them in the future (even if they alleged that those policies affected them in the past). As to Bjorlin, the court said that the chain of events required before he would be affected by any policies was simply too attenuated.
Because the court affirmed the dismissal based on lack of standing, it didn't address the political question doctrine as an alternative basis for dismissal.
The court also rejected the plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages based on sovereign immunity.
March 20, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Alabama Supreme Court Orders Probate Judges to Discontinue Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses
In a per curiam opinion in excess of 130 pages, the Alabama Supreme Court has ordered certain probate judges to 'discontinue the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples' in compliance with a district judge's order and a denial of a stay by the United States Supreme Court.
[UPDATED: Reports state that the controversial Chief Justice Roy Moore recused himself from the ruling, but neither Moore nor recusal seems to be mentioned in the opinion]. The Alabama Supreme Court's opinion per curiam opinion states that "Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur," and that "Main, J., concurs in part and concurs in the result," and that "Shaw, J., dissents." Chief Justice Moore is the ninth of the nine justices of the Alabama Supreme Court (pictured below).
The case is styled Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, Alabama Citizens Action Program, and John E. Enslen, in his official capacity as Judge of Probate for Elmore County; In re: Alan L. King, in his official capacity as Judge of Probate for Jefferson County, et al., and is an Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Justice Greg Shaw's dissent highlights the unusual procedural posture of the case: he concludes that the Alabama Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction, that the public interest groups (Alabama Policy Institute and Alabama Citizens Action Program) cannot sue in Alabama's name and do not have standing, that the petition for writ of mandamus is procedurally deficient given that there is no lower court opinion, and that the court's opinion improperly rules on the constitutionality of the Alabama marriage laws since that issue is not before it. Justice Shaw concludes:
I believe that this case is not properly before this Court. As the main opinion notes, this case is both unusual and of great public interest; however, I do not see a way for this Court to act at this time. By overlooking this Court's normal procedures; by stretching our law and creating exceptions to it; by assuming original jurisdiction, proceeding as a trial court, and reaching out to speak on an issue that this Court cannot meaningfully impact because the Supreme Court of the United States will soon rule on it; and by taking action that will result in additional confusion and more costly federal litigation involving this State's probate judges, this Court, in my view, is venturing into unchartered waters and potentially unsettling established principles of law.
Shaw's dissent provides a window into the Alabama Supreme Court's lengthy opinion. Much of the opinion concerns the odd procedural posture of the case. The opinion does specifically address the relationship between Alabama and the federal judge's decision by declaring that the "Respondents' Ministerial Duty is Not Altered by the United States Constitution":
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama has declared that Alabama's laws that define marriage as being only between two members of the opposite sex -- what has been denominated traditional marriage -- violate the United States Constitution. After careful consideration of the reasoning employed by the federal district court in Searcy I, we find that the provisions of Alabama law contemplating the issuance of marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples do not violate the United States Constitution and that the Constitution does not alter or override the ministerial duties of the respondents under Alabama law.
Thus, because the Alabama Supreme Court disagrees, Alabama is not bound by the federal decision. The Alabama Supreme Court's "per curiam" opinion on the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban is scholarly, lengthy, and well-reasoned (and perhaps more persuasive than the Sixth Circuit's opinion in DeBoer v. Snyder, to which the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, and on which the Alabama Supreme Court relies extensively). But this discussion does little to resolve the basic federalism of whether the state is bound by the federal court's judgment. The court's order does include this specific provision, which may engage the issue most directly:
As to Judge Davis's request to be dismissed on the ground that he is subject to a potentially conflicting federal court order, he is directed to advise this Court, by letter brief, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 5, 2015, as to whether he is bound by any existing federal court order regarding the issuance of any marriage license other than the four marriage licenses he was ordered to issue in Strawser.
March 3, 2015 in Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Federalism, Fourteenth Amendment, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, Recent Cases, Sexual Orientation, Supremacy Clause, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Court Clears Path to Internet Tax Reporting Challenge
The Supreme Court ruled today in Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl that out-of-state retailers can move forward with their challenge to Colorado's requirement that the retailers notify Colorado customers of their Colorado sales and use tax burden and report tax-related information to those customers and to the Colorado Department of Revenue.
The case tests a state's best efforts at collecting sales and use taxes for out-of-state and internet purchases by its residents, given the long-standing rule that a state cannot tax out-of-state and internet retailers directly.
The underlying issue goes back to 1967, when the Court ruled in National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois that states cannot require a business to collect use taxes (the equivalent of sales taxes for out-of-state purchases) if the business does not have a physical presence in the state. That rule was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Court reaffirmed that rule in 1992 in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota.
But that rule has created a significant loss of revenue for states, now that so many (and dramatically increasing) sales go through the internet, to out-of-state online retailers. The rule means that states cannot collect use taxes from those retailers.
So some states, like Colorado, implemented information and reporting requirements. For example, Colorado's law requires out-of-state retailers to inform its in-state customers of their use tax burden and to report tax-related information to Colorado tax authorities.
Out-of-state retailers sued, arguing that Colorado's requirements violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. The district court ruled in their favor, but the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the suit was barred by the Tax Injunction Act. In a relatively short and simple opinion today, the unanimous Court reversed, holding that the Tax Injunction Act did not bar the suit (because the Act only bars suits against a tax "assessment, levy or collection," and not information and reporting requirements).
The Court's ruling opens the door to the out-of-state retailers' challenge to Colorado's information and reporting requirements. If the district court is right, even these modest efforts violate the Dormant Commerce Clause--and create an even bigger headache for states trying to collect use taxes on their citizens' out-of-state and internet purchases.
On the other hand, Justice Kennedy signaled today in concurrence that the Court may be willing to reassess its Bellas Hess and Quill Corp. rule (or at least that the Court should reassess the rule) in light of the technological changes we've seen in the last 25 years (and the proliferation of online retailers) and the fact that the Dormant Commerce Clause changed enough between the two cases to render the Quill ruling questionable. (Justice Kennedy reminds us that three Justices upheld Bellas Hess in Quill on stare decisis grounds alone, and that the majority recognized that Bellas Hess stood on weak ground.)
Bellas Hess and Quill Corp. go to state use taxes, not information and reporting requirements like Colorado's. Still, the retailers' challenge to Colorado's information and reporting requirements could put Quill on the chopping block. (At least the district court decision striking the requirements relied on Quill.)
If so, this case (in its next round) could give the Supreme Court a chance to reassess the Quill rule and give states more latitude in collecting use taxes from out-of-state and internet retailers.
March 3, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Commerce Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, Federalism, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Recent Cases | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, February 13, 2015
Standing in King v. Burwell
There's no shortage of opinion on standing in King v. Burwell, the case testing whether the IRS had authority under the Affordable Care Act to grant tax credits to purchasers of health insurance through a federally-facilitated (not state-run) exchange. The Wall Street Journal and Mother Jones wrote about the standing problems first, but now there's coverage all around the internet.
Still, neither the government nor the Court has said anything about it.
The Court can consider the plaintiffs' standing anytime, and on its own motion. If it rules that the plaintiffs in this case lack standing, surely there will be efforts to find new plaintiffs.
But remember: The parallel case in the D.C. Circuit--which first came down the same day as King--is still in abeyance pending the outcome of King. If the Court dismisses King for lack of standing, the D.C. Circuit would likely lift its case out of abeyance and put the issue back before the Supreme Court relatively quickly (or at least quicker than ACA opponents could scrounge up new plaintiffs and start all over).
February 13, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Judge Moore: federal courts have no power over state marriage law
In a Letter to the Governor of Alabama, Robert Bentley today, the Chief Justice of Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore (pictured) asked the Governor to continue to uphold the respect for different-sex marriage and reject the judicial "tyranny" of the federal district court's opinion last Friday finding the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. He writes grounds the sacredness of man-woman marriage in the Bible, and writes
Today the destruction of that institution is upon us by federal courts using specious pretexts based on the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Full Faith and Credit Clauses of the United States Constitution. As of this date, 44 federal courts have imposed by judicial fiat same-sex marriages in 21 states of the Union, overturning the express will of the people in those states. If we are to preserve that "reverent morality which is our source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement," then we must act to oppose such tyranny!
He argues that United States district court opinions are not controlling authority in Alabama, citing a case, Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Taylor, 28 So. 3d 737, 744n.5 (Ala. 2009), regarding a common law negligence claim rather than a constitutional issue. He does not argue the Supremacy Clause.
Justice Moore is no stranger to controversial positions, including promoting his biblical beliefs over federal law, and gained notoriety as the "the Ten Commandments Judge." Recall that Moore was originally elected to the Alabama Supreme Court with the campaign promise to "restore the moral foundation of the law" and soon thereafter achieved notoriety for installing a 5,280-pound monument depicting the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building. See Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1285 (11th Cir. 2003). After federal courts found that the monument violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1304 (M.D. Ala. 2002), aff'd, Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2003), Chief Justice Moore was ordered to remove the monument. See Glassroth v. Moore, No. 01-T-1268-N, 2003 LEXIS 13907 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 5, 2003). After the deadline to remove the monument passed, Chief Justice Moore was suspended, with pay, pending resolution of an ethics complaint, which charged that he failed to "observe high standards of conduct" and "respect and comply with the law." Jeffrey Gettleman, Judge Suspended for Defying Court on Ten Commandments, N.Y. Times, August 23, 2003, at A7.
In 2012, Justice Moore was re-elected to the Alabama Supreme Court as its chief justice after almost a decade out of office during which time he served as "President of the Foundation for Moral Law."
[UPDATE: A great video produced by Christopher Scott and Mary Baschab, University of Alabama School of Law, Class of 2011 is here].
January 27, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Federalism, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Fundamental Rights, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, Recent Cases, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Supremacy Clause, Supreme Court (US), Theory | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, January 22, 2015
No Remedy for Inmate when Authorities take Medical Settlement for Cost of Incarceration
The Ninth Circuit ruled in Shinault v. Hawks that a state has to provide pre-deprivation notice and hearing before it freezes funds in an inmate's trust account to recover the cost of his incarceration. But at the same time, the court said that this rule wasn't "clearly established" at the time, so the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. The court also rejected the inmate's Eighth Amendment claim.
The upshot is that prison authorities took more than $60,000 of an inmate's money--money from a settlement for a medical liability claim--in violation of procedural due process. But according to the Ninth Circuit, the inmate has no recourse against the officers.
Lester Shinault received a $107,417.48 settlement from a medical claim against a drug manufacturer who products (prescribed while Shinault was not in custody) caused him to develop diabetes. Shinault's attorney deposited the money in his inmate trust account.
Prison authorities then ordered Shinault to pay $65,353.94 to cover the cost of his incarceration. On the same day that Shinault requested a hearing, authorities transferred this amount from his trust account into a "reserved miscellaneous" sub-account in Shinault's name, but which Shinault could not access. An ALJ ruled against Shinault (in a hearing where Shinault didn't have an attorney and struggled mightily to represent himself), and about a year later authorities withdrew $61,352.39.
Shinault sued, arguing that the withdraw violated procedural due process and the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment against him.
The Ninth Circuit held that authorities violated procedural due process under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, because they failed to provide a pre-deprivation hearing prior to freezing the funds. But it also held that the violation wasn't "clearly established" at the time (because it couldn't find precedent directly on point, and because it said that procedural due process questions were fact specific, that is, not determined until a particular case is litigated), so the officials enjoyed qualified immunity.
In other words, the court said it wasn't "clearly established" that authorities had to provide a pre-deprivation hearing before freezing over $60,000.00 that Shinault obtained from a settlement with a drug company whose products caused him to develop diabetes. Because this wasn't "clearly established," the defendants enjoyed immunity, and Shinault has no claim against them for return of his money.
The court also held that authorities did not violate Shinault's Eighth Amendment rights, because "no authority supports the notion that freezing or withdrawing funds from an inmate account constitutes deliberate denial of care under the Eighth Amendment."
January 22, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Procedural Due Process | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
CAC on Access in the Roberts Court
The Constitutional Accountability Center published its most recent issue paper in its series on the Roberts Court at 10, this one on access issues. And it doesn't paint a pretty picture.
Brianne Gorod, the author of Roberts at 10: Roberts's Consistent Votes to Close the Courthouse Doors, looks at Roberts Court cases in four areas: standing, arbitration, pleading standards, and suits against states. Gorod concludes that the Court's record is mixed, but mostly negative:
Although most of the decisions of the Roberts Court in this area have limited access to the courts, there have been a few that have not, including most significantly the Court's 2007 decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, holding that Massachusetts could sue the Environmental Protection Agency to challenge its failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
But if the Court's record is mixed, Gorod says that Chief Justice Roberts's record is not:
He dissented in that 2007 case and in every other case during his tenure as Chief Justice in which the Court has refused to limit access to the courts, and he has always been in the majority when it has decided to limit such access.
Gorod says that Chief Justice Roberts's record is "not terribly surprising," given his pre-confirmation positions on access.
Check it out.
January 21, 2015 in Courts and Judging, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Court Dismisses Challenge to IRS Non-Profit Process
Judge Reggie B. Walton (D.D.C.) yesterday dismissed an action by True the Vote against the IRS for politicized foot-dragging on its 501(c)(3), not-for-profit application. The ruling ends True the Vote's case against the IRS, with very little chance of a successful appeal.
True the Vote sued the IRS after the agency took a long time with its 501(c)(3) application and requested additional information from the organization before granting not-for-profit status. True the Vote argued that the IRS did this because True the Vote was a politically conservative organization aligned with the Tea Party, in violation of the First Amendment, the IRC, and the APA.
But Judge Walton dismissed the organization's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as moot, after the IRS ultimately granted 501(c)(3) status, leaving nothing more for the court to order in terms of relief. The court also ruled that the "voluntary cessation" exception didn't apply, because the IRS, by the plaintiff's own reckoning (and the court's judicial notice), "suspended" its "targeting scheme" on June 30, 2013, and wouldn't re-engage in the footdragging.
Judge Walton dismissed the plaintiff's claim for monetary relief, ruling that there's no Bivens remedy, because the IRC already provides a comprehensive statutory remedial scheme. (It didn't matter that the plaintiff didn't like the scheme, only that it existed.)
Finally, Judge Walton dismissed the plaintiff's statutory claim that the IRS requested and inspected more information than necessary from True the Vote, because the IRC allows it to do that.
True the Vote can appeal, but Judge Walton's ruling is likely to be upheld.
October 28, 2014 in Cases and Case Materials, First Amendment, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, Mootness, News, Opinion Analysis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Seventh Circuit Reverses Injunction Against Wisconsin Political Spending Investigation
The Seventh Circuit this week reversed an earlier district court injunction halting a criminal investigation into coordination between Governor Scott Walker's campaign committee and "independent" groups on issue advocacy. We posted on the injunction here.
Recall that the Milwaukee County District Attorney asked a state court to initiate a "John Doe" criminal investigation into alleged coordination between Walker's campaign committee and "independent" groups on issue advocacy. As part of the investigation, the court issued subpoenas, including one to Eric O'Keefe, who manages the Wisconsin Club for Growth, Inc., one of these "independent" groups. The state court granted O'Keefe's motion to quash. The prosecutor took the issue to the state's higher courts, but, before those courts could rule, O'Keefe filed in federal court, seeking an injunction and monetary damages against the prosecutors. The district court granted the injunction (thus halting the investigation), ruled that the defendants did not enjoy qualified immunity, and ordered the defendants to return or destroy all documents obtained in the investigation.
The Seventh Circuit reversed the injunction and dismissed the case. It held that the Anti-Injunction Act and principles of equity, comity, and federalism prohibit it. The court said that the plaintiffs couldn't show irreparable injury, that they had adequate remedies under state law, and that federal relief was not appropriate. Because the state court judge "concluded that the investigation should end as a matter of state law, because [the prosecutor] lacks evidence that state law has been violated . . . [t]he result is an injunction unnecessary at best, advisory at worst."
The court also took the district judge to task for effectively anticipating a Supreme Court ruling that would allow the kind of coordination alleged here under the First Amendment. That hasn't happened (yet), said the court, and the district judge was wrong to base the injunction on it.
The court said that the district judge was also wrong to deny qualified immunity.
Plaintiffs' claim to the constitutional protection for raising funds to engage in issue advocacy coordinated with a politician's campaign committee has not been established 'beyond debate.' To the contrary, there is a lively debate among judges and academic analysts. . . . No opinion of the Supreme Court, or by any court of appeals, establishes ('clearly' or otherwise) that the First Amendment forbids regulation of coordination between campaign committees and issue-advocacy groups--let alone that the First Amendment forbids even an inquiry into that topic.
Thus, the defendants enjoy qualified immunity.
Finally, the court held that "Wisconsin, not the federal judiciary, should determine whether, and to what extent, documents gathered in a John Doe proceeding are disclosed to the public." The court said that the federal district court "should ensure that sealed documents in the federal record stay sealed, as long as documents containing the same information remain sealed in the state-court record."
This ruling almost surely marks the end of the federal case. Because of the Anti-Injunction Act and the state of First Amendment law on campaign finance, this is not a good candidate for en banc or Supreme Court review.
September 25, 2014 in Campaign Finance, Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Federalism, First Amendment, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, Music, Opinion Analysis, Speech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Second Circuit Arguments on NSA Spying on C-Span
The Second Circuit heard oral arguments yesterday in a challenge to the NSA program involving mass collection of telephone call details under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. The full argument was broadcast on C-Span and is available here. (The embed code wasn't cooperating.)
The case, ACLU v. Clapper, is one of three cases challenging the program now pending in the circuit courts; the other two are Smith v. Obama (in the Ninth Circuit) and Klayman v. Obama (in the D.C. Circuit). The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a backgrounder here, with links to case materials; the ACLU has a backgrounder on Section 215 here; the ACLU's page on ACLU v. Clapper is here.
Challengers in the cases argue that Section 215 violates the First and Fourth Amendments, but face justiciability questions before the courts will get to the merits. That's because Section 215 prohibits a telecommunication company subject to a 215 order from telling its customers about it, so without more a customer wouldn't know. Still, the district courts in Smith and Klayman ruled that the plaintiffs had standing based on the sheer breadth of the program.
September 3, 2014 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, August 29, 2014
Sovereign Immunity Protects Official's Determination of Streambed Ownership
The Ninth Circuit ruled this week in Lacano Investments v. Balash that state sovereign immunity barred a suit against a state official for his determination that streambeds claimed by the plaintiffs were owned by the State of Alaska. The court said that the relief plaintiffs requested--declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting the defendants from claiming title to the lands beneath the waterways--was the funcational equivalent of quiet title, a claim that under Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho does not fall within Ex parte Young.
The case arose when an Alaskan official determined pursuant to the federal Submerged Lands Act of 1953 that certain streambeds over which the plaintiffs claimed ownership were in fact owned by the State of Alaska. The plaintiffs said that they owned the streambeds pursuant to a federal land patent granted the year before Alaska became part of the Union. When the official then determined that the streambeds belonged to the state, the plaintiffs sued, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Under Ex parte Young, the plaintiffs could sue a state official for injunctive relief and dodge state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. But the Supreme Court limited Ex parte Young in Coeur d'Alene, holding that the Eleventh Amendment barred a suit that was "the functional equivalent of a quiet title action." That's because that kind of claim "implicate[d] special sovereignty interests"--the historical and legal importance of submerged lands to state sovereignty. The Coeur d'Alene Court explained that "if the Tribe were to prevail, Idaho's sovereign interest in its lands and waters would be affected in a degree fully as intrusive as almost any conceivable retroactive levy upon funds in its Treasury."
The plaintiffs argued that Coeur d'Alene was distinguishable, because the plaintiffs in that case sought to divest the state of its title (and not, as here, the other way around), and because a ruling for the plaintiffs in Coeur d'Alene would have deprived the state of all regulatory power over the property (and not so here). The court didn't bite, however. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Coeur d'Alene is no longer good law. Instead, the court applied Coeur d'Alene, ruled that the plaintiffs' claim was quiet-title-like, and held that the claim was therefore barred by state sovereignty under the Eleventh Amendment.
The ruling means that the plaintiffs' case is dismissed.
August 29, 2014 in Cases and Case Materials, Eleventh Amendment, Federalism, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
No Head-of-State Immunity for Finance Minister
Judge James E. Boasberg (D.D.C.) ruled earlier this week in Sikhs for Justice v. Singh that while Manmohan Singh enjoyed head-of-state immunity from suit in U.S. federal court for acts committed while he was Prime Minister of India, that immunity did not extend to acts he took earlier, when he was Finance Minister. They ruling means that the plaintiff's case against Singh for acts he took while Finance Minister can move forward, but that Singh is immune from suit for acts he took while Prime Minister.
Plaintiffs Sikhs for Justice alleged that Singh tortured and killed Indian Sikhs during his time as Prime Minister and before, when he was Finance Minister. The group filed suit in the D.C. District while Singh was Prime Minister, but Singh then left office (or, rather, got voted out). The government filed a Suggestion of Immunity, arguing that Singh enjoyed head-of-state immunity for acts he committed as Prime Minister. But it didn't state a position on immunity for acts before Singh became Prime Minister, when he was Finance Minister.
Judge Boasberg ruled that Singh wasn't immune for those acts. In a case of apparent first impression, Judge Boasberg said that "[w]hile Singh's alleged acts as Finance Minister are not 'private' per se, they did not occur in the course of his official duties as head of state; accordingly they are not encompassed within the purview of head-of-state immunity."
Judge Boasberg, however, adopted the government's position and granted immunity for acts taken while Singh was Prime Minister. Judge Boasberg also ruled that Singh enjoyed risidual immunity for those acts after he left office.
The upshot is that the plaintiff's case can proceed against Singh for acts he took as Finance Minister, but not for acts he took as Prime Minister, even after he left office.
August 20, 2014 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Foreign Affairs, International, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Saturday, July 19, 2014
No Constitutional Damages for Victims of Rape in Military
The D.C. Circuit ruled on Friday that survivors of rape and sexual assault in the military did not have constitutional damage claims against military officers who failed to address the prevalence of sexual misconduct and retaliation in the Navy and Marine Corps, even in the face of congressional mandates to take action. (The plaintiffs did not sue their assailants in this case; instead, they sued higher-ups for perpetuating and grossly mismanaging the problem.) The ruling means that this avenue of relief--the constitutional tort--is unavailable, and that survivors will have to look elsewhere for a remedy.
The three-judge panel declined to apply a Bivens remedy to the survivors' claims that officers violated the First, Fifth, and Seventh Amendments. (A Bivens remedy would have allowed the survivors to sue the officers for monetary damages, even though there's no statutory authorization for such a suit.) The court said that "special factors" counseled against a Bivens remedy. (The court did not say whether other avenues of relief were available, the other part of the Bivens inquiry.) In particular, the court wrote that "the military context" and "Congress's extensive legislation on this specific issue" were "special factors that counsel decisively against authorizing a Bivens remedy."
The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that rape and sexual assault were not "incident to service," and that therefore the military context shouldn't foreclose a Bivens remedy. The court said that the plaintiffs did not sue their assailants for rape and sexual assault; instead, they sued higher-ups for creating and failing to change a hostile environment--"a decade's worth of military management decisions," which, according to the court, is exactly the kinds of military decisions that fall outside Bivens's scope.
The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that officers ignored Congress in failing to establish an investigatory commission and failing to create a database. The court said that Congress's extensive regulation of the issue, without creating a statutory civil damages remedy, was telling, and that it would violate separation-of-powers principles for the courts to step in and create a remedy when Congress declined.
The ruling aligns with the Fourth Circuit's Cioca v. Rumsfeld and adds to the recent line of cases rejecting Bivens claims for military torture, including Doe v. Rumsfeld, Vance v. Rumsfeld, and Lebron v. Rumsfeld. In other words, it adds to the well established body of law that says that courts defer entirely to the military in defining the kinds of military actions that fall outside of Bivens--even when those actions quite clearly have nothing to do with running a good ship.
July 19, 2014 in Cases and Case Materials, Congressional Authority, Fundamental Rights, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Separation of Powers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
D.C. Circuit Rejects Guantanamo Detainees' Mistreatment Claims
The D.C. Circuit this week rejected a variety of claims by Guantanamo detainees for mistreatment by government officials and guards even after they had been cleared for release by the Combat Status Review Tribunal. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' request to remand the case to amend their complaint.
The case, Allaithi v. Rumsfeld, involved detainee claims of "forced grooming, solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, forced medication, transport in 'shackles and chains, blackened goggles, and ear coverings,' and the disruption of . . . religious practices," even after some of the plaintiffs were cleared for release by the CSRT. The plaintiffs brought claims against government officials and Guantanamo guards under the Alien Tort Statute, the Geneva Convention, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
As to the ATS, the court held that the defendants were acting within the scope of their employment, which, under the Westfall Act, transforms their ATS claim into a Federal Tort Claims Act claim against the government. But the plaintiffs didn't pursue administrative remedies under the FTCA, so their case was dismissed.
As to the Vienna Convention, the court said that the Convention confers a private right of action.
As to the other, Bivens claims, the court held, citing its second Rasul ruling, that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity, or, alternatively, that the case raised special factors counseling against a Bivens remedy.
June 11, 2014 in Cases and Case Materials, Due Process (Substantive), First Amendment, Foreign Affairs, Fundamental Rights, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Religion | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Ninth Circuit Upholds Contribution Disclosure Requirement
The Ninth Circuit yesterday rejected a challenge to California's political contribution disclosure requirement by a group of political committees that backed Prop 8, the state constitutional ballot initiative that defined marriage only as between one man and one woman. The ruling means that the California's disclosure requirement stays in place, and that Prop 8 Committees have to comply.
The Prop 8 Committees in ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen challenged California's requirement that political committees disclose contributors who contribute more than $100, even after a campaign, arguing that some of their contributors had been harassed. The Prop 8 Committees challenged the requirement both on its face and as applied.
The court rejected the challenges. It applied the familiar "exacting scrutiny" standard to disclosures--that the requirement (and the burden it imposes) bears a "substantial relation" to a "sufficiently important" government interest. As to the facial challenge, the court said that the state obviously had sufficiently important interests in disclosure during the campaign, and that the state still had sufficiently important interests even after the campaign:
A state's interests in contribution disclosure do not necessarily end on election day. Even if a state's interest in disseminating accurate information to voters is lessened after the election takes place, the state retains its interests in accurate record-keeping, deterring fraud, and enforcing contribution limits. As a practical matter, some lag time between an election and disclosure of contributions that immediately precede that election is necessary for the state to protect these interests. In this case, for example, Appellants' contributions surged nearly 40% (i.e., by over $12 million) between the final pre-election reporting deadline and election day. Absent post-election reporting requirements, California could not account for such late-in-the-day donations. And, without such reporting requirements, donors could undermine the State's interests in disclosure by donating only once the final pre-election reporting deadline has passed.
As to the as-applied challenge, the court said they weren't justiciable: a request for an injunction to purge records of past disclosures is moot (and not capable of repetition but evading review); a request for an exemption from future reporting requirements is not ripe. Judge Wallace dissented on the as-applied challenge.
May 21, 2014 in Campaign Finance, Cases and Case Materials, Elections and Voting, First Amendment, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, Mootness, News, Ripeness, Speech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, May 19, 2014
Oregon District Judge Declares Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
Joining a decided trend which we last discussed here and here, today Oregon District Judge Michael McShane declared unconstitutional the state's same-sex marriage prohibition in Article 15 of the state constitution. Judge McShane's 26 page opinion in Geiger v. Kitzhaber concludes that because "Oregon's marriage laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without a rational relationship to any legitimate government interest, the laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
Judge McShane noted that the state defendants "concede that Oregon's marriage laws banning same-gender marriage are unconstitutional and legally indefensible, but state they are legally obligated to enforce the laws until this court declares the laws unconstitutional," and thus, the case "presents itself to this court as something akin to a friendly tennis match rather than a contested and robust proceeding between adversaries." However, McShane did not find (or analyze) any Article III "case or controversies" issues, or address standing (including defendant standing).
Judge McShane notes that last term's decision in Windsor v. United States finding DOMA unconstitutional
may be distinguished from the present case in several respects. Yet, recounting such differences will not detract from the underlying principle shared in common by that case and the one now before me. The principle is one inscribed in the Constitution, and it requires that the state's marriage laws not "degrade or demean" the plaintiffs in violation of their rights to equal protection.
Unlike Justice Kennedy's opinion for the Court in Windsor, however, Judge McShane's opinion in Geiger is quite specific regarding the level of scrutiny being applied: rational basis. McShane rejected two arguments for intermediate scrutiny. First, he rejected the argument based upon a gender classification, concluding that the "targeted group here is neither males nor females, but homosexual males and homosexual females" and thus the state's marriage laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, not gender. Second, he rejected the applicability of the Ninth Circuit's opinion in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs, reasoning that the panel's decision in SmithKline is not yet a truly final and binding decision given that the mandate has not issued pending en banc review. (Recall that last week, a federal district judge in Idaho found "SmithKline's examination of Windsor is authoritative and binding").
Judge McShane then engaged in the by now familiar analysis of government interests - - - including protecting traditional marriage and promoting responsible procreation - - - and their relationship to the same-sex marriage prohibition. Like his fellow judges in recent cases, Judge McShane found rational basis is not satisfied.
And like some of his fellow judges, McShane shared his personal perspective. McShane's provided his in an extended conclusion:
I am aware that a large number of Oregonians, perhaps even a majority, have religious or moral objections to expanding the definition of civil marriage (and thereby expanding the benefits and rights that accompany marriage) to gay and lesbian families. It was these same objections that led to the passage of Measure 36 in 2004 [the ballot measure defining marriage as only between a man and a woman]. Generations of Americans, my own included, were raised in a world in which homosexuality was believed to be a moral perversion, a mental disorder, or a mortal sin. I remember that one of the more popular playground games of my childhood was called "smear the queer" and it was played with great zeal and without a moment's thought to today' s political correctness. On a darker level, that same worldview led to an environment of cruelty, violence, and self-loathing. It was but 1~86 when the United States Supreme Court justified, on the basis of a"millennia of moral teaching," the imprisonment of gay men and lesbian women who engaged in consensual sexual acts. Bowers, 478 U.S. at 197 (Burger, C.J., concurring), overruled by Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578. Even today I am reminded ofthe legacy that we have bequeathed today's generation when my son looks dismissively at the sweater I bought him for Christmas and, with a roll of his eyes, says "dad ... that is so gay."
It is not surprising then that many of us raised with such a world view would wish to protect our beliefs and our families by turning to the ballot box to enshrine in law those traditions we have come to value. But just as the Constitution protects the expression of these moral viewpoints, it equally protects the minority from being diminished by them.
It is at times difficult to see past the shrillness of the debate. Accusations of religious bigotry and banners reading "God Hates Fags" make for a messy democracy and, at times, test the First Amendment resolve of both sides. At the core of the Equal Protection Clause, however, there exists a foundational belief that certain rights should be shielded from the barking crowds; that certain rights are subject to ownership by all and not the stake hold of popular trend or shifting majorities.
My decision will not be the final word on this subject, but on this issue of marriage I am struck more by our similarities than our differences. I believe that if we can look for a moment past gender and sexuality, we can see in these plaintiffs nothing more or less than our own families. Families who we would expect our Constitution to protect, if not exalt, in equal measure. With discernment we see not shadows lurking in closets or the stereotypes of what was once believed; rather, we see families committed to the common purpose of love, devotion, and service to the greater community.
Where will this all lead? I know that many suggest we are going down a slippery slope that will have no moral boundaries. To those who truly harbor such fears, I can only say this: Let us look less to the sky to see what might fall; rather, let us look to each other ... and rise.
Judge McShane's opinion ends with a exhortation perhaps more befitting religious rhetoric than legal analysis.
May 19, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Equal Protection, Family, Fourth Amendment, Interpretation, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, Opinion Analysis, Reproductive Rights, Sexual Orientation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Court Temporarily Stops Force-Feeding at Guantanamo
Judge Gladys Kessler (D.D.C.) on Friday temporarily enjoined the government from force-feeding Abu Wa'el Dhiab, a hunger-striking Guantanamo detainee. Judge Kessler's order also requires the government to produce medical records and videotapes of Dhiab's "forcible cell extractions" for the purpose of "enteral feedings." Judge Kessler will preside over a status conference on May 21 to work some of this out.
This isn't the first time Judge Kessler ruled on the case. In her earlier ruling, on July 10, 2013, she held that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241(e)(2) deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear a claim over a Guantanamo detainee's conditions of confinement. She was also highly critical of force feedings in that ruling, however, and telegraphed her likely ruling on the merits, should it ever come to the merits.
It did come to the merits after the D.C. Circuit ruled that Guantanamo detainees could challenge the conditions of their confinement under 28 U.S.C. 2241(e)(2). After that ruling, Dhiab's case came back to Judge Kessler, leading to Friday's ruling.
Judge Kessler's ruling is only temporary. But if this ruling and her prior ruling (in the first round) are any indication, she's almost certain to rule against the practice.
May 18, 2014 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Fundamental Rights, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, War Powers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)


text:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">

The guide also includes a complete reference for bundled DTrace
observability tools and the D programming language.

GenerationType; import javax.

The classname NULL occurs rarely and only occurs when the
"To make matters worse, the ATPCO data format descriptions were
incomplete and the processing algorithms were left as an exercise to the
This examplecode, called heapTracker, exists to track all object
allocations in the heap, saving the stack trace where each object was
allocated. However you can consider adding an extra interface in more
complex cases. java, contains the processinglogic for the application.
After entering a number,the user presses the "Guess" button to submit
the information. See the documentation for the ajaxZone tag for
acomplete list of attributes. Support for structural unmarshalingWhat is
the purpose of the java.

Note that the focus in this tip is on implementing a Facade for web-only
applications that are not using an EJB tier, that is, Java EE
applications that do not use the EJB container or services. properties
file in the TechTip-Facade directory and set properties appropriately
for your environment. She has also written and performed for the stage,
including stand-up comedy. The JConsole in J2SE 5.

instrument classes and the -javaagent option in JDK 5. The other
parameters consist of options that direct Dynamic Faces onhow to process
the request. An alternative is to find the new byte codes, add the dup
after each, and then insert the invokestatic byte code after the
matching method call for the specific class.

"Seaney is adamant about the uniqueness and superiority of his site:
"Absolutely no other site offers this sort of real-time alerting
Managed beans are JSF application beans that can be instantiated on


text:
H By Hudson Brown leather lace up chukka boots
Item No.0840108292
Item No.0840108292
70% Off - Save a total of £80.50
These brown chukka boots from our premium range by Hudson are made from contrasting smooth and grained leather with stitch detail. They have a low heel and a lace up front with two eyelets.
UK Home Delivery Free (UK orders over £30) or £3.49
Delivered within 5 working days
Next or Named Day Delivery
7 days a week between 8am - 6pm
Sunday to Friday - order by 9pm - £3.99
Saturday - order by 6pm - £3.99
Next or Named Evening Delivery
7 days a week between 6pm - 10pm
Monday to Sunday - order by Midnight - £6.99
Collect from store the next day - FREE
Order before 9pm for next day collection after 12pm midday
Show participating stores
Show full delivery details
Subject to exceptions, Debenhams is happy to exchange or refund your purchase within 28 days of delivery. Please check here for more details on our returns policy and exceptions.


text: This hotel is 2 blocks from Paddington Underground and Train Stations. Our first floor room was close to the main entrance but quiet. We could have used more space to spread out but the heated bathroom floor was a treat, although the bathroom was so small you have to sit sideways on the toilet which isn't a problem as long... More


text:
Columbia, MOUSA
July 16, 2014
Hi! I'm a single mom with a teen and young adult. I work in healthcare. I'm the quiet adventurer and would like to meet some great people.
Meetup members, Log in
By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy


text:
Bumper for the MTV show Essential. Showcasing the biggest and best bands from around the world.
Loading more stuff…
Hmm…it looks like things are taking a while to load. Try again?
TM + © 2015 Vimeo, LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with k in NYC.
Your content preferences apply to any Vimeo videos you view. Learn more about content preferences in our FAQ.


text:
20 Singers and Rappers Get Turned Into Cereal Art
From Drake to Aaliyah and more, see 20 Singers and Rappers Get Turned Into Cereal Art.
From Drake to Aaliyah and more, see 20 Singers and Rappers Get Turned Into Cereal Art.
These days, fans are getting used to seeing veteran singers get back into the spotlight in their late 40s and early 50s. But who'll age gracefully? Well, Jennifer Lopez is one who has. The Bronx-born superstar is still golden at the age of 46 today (July 24).
If you think about taking that day off from the 9-to-5, these ladies and gents are sure to make you feel guilty with the work they put in. Check out 10 Singers & Rappers Who Never Stop Working.
Not everyone loves Jennifer Lopez's booty. An education group has slapped the singer-actress with a lawsuit over her concert performance that aired on public television in Morocco.
Now this is some real shady news. Apparently, while Mariah Carey was belting out high notes during her performance at the 2015 Billboard Music Awards, Jennifer Lopez had no interest in what she was doing onstage because she appeared to be on Instagram.
The 2015 Billboard Music Awards brought out the brightest superstars in hip-hop and R&B, and, of course, the most fashionable outfits on the red carpet. And since the awards ceremony was right in the heart of Las Vegas, we expected to see an abundance of hot ensembles.
Jennifer Lopez dazzled audiences with her rendition of Rihanna's chart-topping song "Diamonds" on the 'American Idol season' finale on Wednesday night (May 13).
Now that 'American Idol' will have its final season next year, Jennifer Lopez has made one big announcement of her own — she's heading to Las Vegas!
After 15 seasons, 'American Idol' is coming to end. On Monday (May 11), Fox executives held a press conference to formally announce its final season.
It's that time of year again when the world's most popular artists gather at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art to showcase their lavish gowns and tuxedos for the 2015 Met Gala.


text:
I apologize if this is a silly, already-answered question. I am intimidated by RegEx and this is the first time I feel like I nearly have it working the way I want it to.
I am parsing a string using a Scanner and the following delimiter:
I have given this thought and I am sure that this is the only way that I can ensure that the Scanner delimits only on the commas that I want it to.
The problem is that I am losing the contents of
\p{Alpha} which I would really rather prefer to retain. Keeping the comma too would be fine, as it's easy enough to get rid of. As in
. . . length_range={7.574499506969005,103667.75776468226},height_median=44756.6002109626 . . .
where I delimit only on the comma outside the curly braces, retaining
How would I go about doing this? Thank you in advance for your help.


text:
All Michael Matthews: Page 2
Greipel, Boonen, Matthews abandon Giro as race approaches high mountains
- By VeloNews.com
- Published May. 23, 2015
Avoiding a challenging final week in the mountains, several sprinters are leaving Italy to recuperate in preparation for later season goals
Michael Matthews sprints to Giro win in tough, hilly stage 3
- By Spencer Powlison
- Published May. 11, 2015
- Updated May. 27, 2015 at 12:13 PM EDT
Matthews survives category 2 climb late in the stage to emerge victorious in Sestri Levante, sprinting to victory wearing the pink jersey
Elia Viviani wins stage 2; Michael Matthews takes lead at Giro
- By VeloNews.com
- Published May. 10, 2015
- Updated May. 27, 2015 at 12:13 PM EDT
Michael Matthews takes the maglia rosa at the Giro d'Italia as Elia Viviani out-kicks the field for the victory in stage 2
Orica's Giro d'Italia goals: Win stages, wear pink
- By Andrew Hood
- Published May. 4, 2015
The Australian-based squad wants to start the race by successfully defending its opening-stage TTT win
Fleche Wallonne: New climb adds twist to Mur finale
- By Andrew Hood
- Published Apr. 21, 2015
- Updated May. 22, 2015 at 3:32 PM EDT
Flèche Wallonne organizers added a new climb near the finish of Wednesday's race, but the race could still be decided on the Mur de Huy
Casino in the Limburg: Amstel Gold Race
- By Andrew Hood
- Published Apr. 17, 2015
Dozens of favorites line up for Sunday's Amstel Gold Race, where a string of climbs and narrow roads makes for a tense day of racing
Felline is fabulous in Pais Vasco stage 2 sprint
- By Spencer Powlison
- Published Apr. 7, 2015
- Updated Apr. 7, 2015 at 2:26 PM EDT
Fabio Felline freelances his way to a stage win in Spain, as Michael Matthews keeps the overall lead and places second in the sprint
Matthews sprints to stage 1 win in Pais Vasco
- By Spencer Powlison
- Published Apr. 6, 2015
- Updated Apr. 6, 2015 at 3:10 PM EDT
Aussie speedster Michael Matthews survives climbs and sprints to victory and overall lead in first stage of Vuelta al Pais Vasco
For John Degenkolb to shine in Sanremo, other stars had to fade
- By Gregor Brown
- Published Mar. 22, 2015
- Updated May. 5, 2015 at 10:08 AM EDT
Sprinter John Degenkolb shone brightly in Sanremo, but not before some other bright lights went dim on the long, cold road from Milano
John Degenkolb wins 2015 Milano-Sanremo
- By VeloNews.com
- Published Mar. 22, 2015
- Updated May. 5, 2015 at 10:08 AM EDT
A rainy, crash-packed edition of La Classicissima ends in a mad dash to the line won by Giant-Alpecin's John Degenkolb


text:
2010 Honda Civic
102,000 Km
12,995 $
2012 Nissan Versa
132,129 Km
7,295 $
2012 Honda Accord
43,622 Km
17,900 $
2012 Volvo S60
63,504 Km
19,995 $
Used cars for sale by brand
Used cars for sale by model
Used cars for sale by city
Welcome to Browsecars.caBrowseCars.ca is a leading classified site for buying and selling new and used cars in Canada. Whether you are located in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary or elsewhere in Canada, you can use BrowseCars.ca to help you find your next vehicle!
Use our intuitive search engine at the top-right of this page to start your search. Enter the car brand, model, year and/or price you're looking for and we will list all of the cars available in your area. You can even enter your postal code or city to narrow your search to the vehicles closest to you!
Don't hesitate to provide us with feedback.
Enjoy your visit!