text:
Originally Posted by bjorke
Printable View
Originally Posted by bjorke
I taped over my Kiev once. I got tired of explaining KNEB realy isn't Hasselblad. My real job is a counselor. I've just discovered i'm, very possibly, as neurotic as some of my patients. I don't mind at all showing my Nikons. I have a hunch a well established camera thief knows a good camera witout the name showing.
I've got to go lay down now and wonder why I'm like I am.
I tend to agre strongly with the view on theft and thieves - its like in any other area: there are pros, and tehre are punks. As with car thieves, who probably know more about your car than you do, there is little you can do to fool a pro who knows what he wants. And equally little to stop them if they want your stuff badly enough. Then there are punks, who may steal anything that comes to hand as long as it "looks expensive" to them - or more often, is simply there for the taking. By those standars, Idoubt blacking out will save you from either group, and am certain it won't from a pro. The only thing that does help are bags and packaging that does not scream: "CAMERA INSIDE!!!". I would not blame anyone for taking their nice brand name camera bags and putting them inside gym bags while they're in public view. No one wants your smelly sneakers - and those who do... well, they have problems beyond the scope of this forum :)
I've just black-taped the whole bellows of my 11x14 century-old camera, since it was rdried up and full of holes... The camera now looks much nicer, all black-taped like that, but it's not much more inconspicuous...
I actually took off the black leatherette from my 4x5 busch pressman because i think the aluminium looks better...
As for my 35mm stuff, I've got a beatten-up nikon f4 that looks like it's been through a war, so i don't worry about it attracting too much thieves' attention, especially since i mostly use it with a 50mm f1.8 which doesn't look at all like one of those big zooms everyone seems to be luggung about these days... Otherwise I have an olympus stylus epic, which couldn't be much more inconspicuous even if i tried...
My Hasselblad is a Hasselblad, so if ever someone comes up to me and asks if this is a hasseblad, I can say " well yes, yes it is"... and leave it there... :p
It would serve a thief right if he did steal a Kiev thinking it was a hassy. Hope I didn't offend any Kievaholics out there. The only thing tape is real useful for on a Kiev is to seal the light leaks. If I had a Hassy I'd be proud as punch. Sorry for stetching the thread.
Cammo duct tape would be my choice for this camera "taping" thing. But then I might not be able find it once it was set up. As old as my cameras are perhaps that would be a good thing.
I use black tape on all my film cameras whether it is a black body or not. I use it to cover the release mechanism on the camera back to prevent me from accidentally opening the camera. Once too often I have opened in haste what I thought was an empty camera, only to ruin the exposed film inside.
I have a couple of cameras with both "X" and "M" sync settings -- those levers were both promptly taped to "X" after one bad experience
Here in England about thirty years ago press photographers in London got p****d off that Nikon U.K were using pictures of them in their adverts, and the copy read something like "95 percent of the press pack use Nikon", they started taping over the Nikon logo because they got no payment from the company for this, thereafter a lot of wannabes started the practiceQuote:
Originally Posted by Lee L
I assume they can't make that 95% claim anymore, given what I've seen lately. Used to be in the US that newsrooms had pool equipment that was all or nearly all Nikon, and Nikon bent over backwards to accomodate them on repairs and loaners. I don't know if that's gone away, but I get the impression that Canon is now playing that game very well, at least at major sports venues, and has stolen a lot of market share. I'm also not one who is impressed by what the "pack" is doing, so that tack never worked for me, whether it's Canon or Nikon or anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bentley Boyd
When I last worked at a camera store (and Nikon had that market share in the press) I was completely underwhelmed by Nikon warranty service for the general public. They denied service under warranty on a number of the new 1/4000 shutters in the FM2/FE2, blaming my customers for the failures. They changed stories on their assessment of what went wrong with one particular shutter three times... radically. It was obviously a problem with the early versions of that shutter, but the only way those shutters remained on sale in that shop was the local sales rep agreeing to cover repairs out of his own pocket. Nikon USA (or EPOI, or whoever it was at that point) never acknowledged the problem was theirs. In the first two years of that shutter, the local Nikon authorized repair said he never saw one do better than 1/2500th when set to 1/4000, and most were nearer 1/2000th, a full stop off.
Sorry, didn't set out to slam Nikon. But like most makers, they're not always as special as they'd like you to believe, taped over or not. I did recently see a photo of Lee Friedlander carrying a taped-over Voigtlander Bessa 35mm rangefinder and lens, one of the newer Leica mount bodies. Got a good chuckle out of that, even though I didn't try to assign a motive. Can you get black electrician's tape with the Holga logo embossed on it, or maybe just a pricetag for $5.99?


text:
Sports Photos
Rangers fans on opening day
Photo: Michael Ainsworth/Staff Photographer
Sonja Wilhelm of Mansfield displays her Silence$ Josh shirt prior to Opening Day at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington on April 5, 2013.
To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We've been pounced with rain for well over a week now. The unforgiving rain turned our roads into raging rivers and the dark clouds shut out the sun for about 5 days straight. That's a rarity in Southern California, to not see the sun for so long. Now we know what the rest of the country feels like! Yes, we're spoiled.
The only ones in our household really complaining about all the water are our dogs, who get limited outdoor romp time. Dante & Sierra practically have to be forced to go outside to do their duty. We won't be surprised if they get bladder infections. Ha, they're wimpy city dogs.
All our lettuce and green seedlings are living it up with all the extra water. And our fruit trees LOVE all this water. After the rains, all the citrus trees seem to get a huge growth spurt and new flowers start to appear. Rain water is like crack for them, not to mention a nice, needed shower.
Our Fremont Tangerine (mandarin) tree is starting to explode with color. During the fall, the all the green fruit dotting practically every inch of the branches were camouflaged amongst all the leaves. But recently after all the rains and a few moments of bright sunshine, the fruit are quickly turning color to a fantastic orange hue.
Some areas get snowballs this time of year, we get tangerines.
Post rain fruit is always spectacular and terrifically sweet. It's a tradition for us to run outside and eat the deepest colored citrus. The fresh, bright, addicting sweet-tangy flavors are the best reward after being cooped up in the house during rain.
Here's one of our favorite cocktails to make with the tangerines, simply named Double Tangerine. It's always a toss up whether to make this cocktail or a Kentucky Sidecar. This one is heavier on the tangerine and the Kentucky Sidecar has a nice kick with the whiskey.
-Todd & Diane
- More Cocktail Recipes
Double Tangerine Cocktail Recipe
Yield: 1 cocktail
Total Time: 5 minutes
We usually make this with a ginger simple syrup (slices of fresh ginger infused into the batch of simple syrup) but it is quite good with a regular simple syrup. Adjust the simple syrup quantity to taste and by the sweetness of the tangerines.
- 3 oz (@2 tangerines) fresh Tangerine Juice
- 1/2 oz (@1/4 lemon) fresh Lemon Juice
- 1 oz Ginger Simple Syrup
- 1 1/2 oz Cognac
- superfine sugar for coating rim (optional)
- Rub the rim of a chilled cocktail glass with a tangerine wedge & sugar the rim.
- Put all ingredients into a cocktail shaker with ice, then shake it with passion for 15-20 seconds. Strain into your cocktail glass. Garnish with a tangerine twist, or for a sexy addition drop a few raspberries into the cocktail glass.


text:
"Hawaii this beautiful place we fell in love with." Top 5 Page for this destination Hawaii (State of) by Waalewiener
Hawaii (State of) Travel Guide: 11,077 reviews and 29,577 photos
Hanauma Bay is a Marine Sanctuary on the Sout Eastern side of Oahu , we spent the most part of a day on the Beach of this fantastic place It is extremely beautiful here and luckely this Bay is well protected from people doing damage to the environment ,there are volunteers who keep an eye out
so that the rules are not broken. There is a beautiful new Education Center and the washroom facilities are excellent.
Surfing was a sport of royalty but it became popular in the early 1900's
After the formation of the Outrigger Canoe Club and the Hui Nalu (club of the waves)swimming Club along Waikiki Beach.Members of these two clubs became the Beach Boys , and they taught the tourist the art of surfing, and they would peddle the outrigger canoes out in the Ocean which is still done the same way today.In this picture is Duke a gentle big tall muscular man who became a Master surfer.
This lu'au was at in the courtyard at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel , a beautiful setting ,looking at Diamond Head to the East and watching the sun set to the West, an evening that start with a buffet style dinner, and Musicians playing Hawaiian music and a Singer singing beautiful songs , this lu'au was chosen by our daughter and her husband for their wedding reception,and several new married couples and some people that celebrated their anniversaries were asked to dance. after dinner a fantastic performance by Dancers and Singers and a great skilled performance of handling sticks on fire doing incredible things with the sticks.It was a night to remember.
- Pros:Hawaii is on of the greatest places on this earth
- In a nutshell:Go to Hawaii you will be treated like Roalty there.
Reviews (31)
One going up one going down , just keep on surfing , these waves will never stop coming. more travel advice
Oh boy how am I gonna get up that one , I might have to let that one go and wait for the next one. more travel advice
That wave is going to get me unless i hurry up, will I make it or not. more travel advice
You could disappear inside those waves. Awsome to see it do. more travel advice
Warnings and Dangers (3)See All Don't try to do this at home leave it to...
Local Customs (1)I think the Hawaiian locals love to...
Nightlife (3)See All Lovely ladies in lovely traditional...
Restaurants (1)The food at a Lu'au is delightful and...
Things to Do (10)See All As you will see nature works in many...
Favorites (6)See All When you are having medical problems...
Transportation (2)See All You have problem walking uphill , there...
Been to Hawaii (State of)?Share your travels with the world!
Travelogues (5)
Comments (55)
Hello, Hansi! I see you had a great experience there! ~ Good for you! Thanks for posting these amazing pictures and the video!~
Greetings from Azerbaijan! I will be there, all the best to you and Lori.
Thank you for a great trip around Hawaii Hansi. Carole.
Is that man on fire? The huge Banyan tree is awesome...I wish we had more trees here in Arizona...Norman :)
Great tip here "surfer boy"!??
Lovely, beaches, palm trees, wildlife and the surfing looks wonderful. Wonderful statue of Duke Paoa Hanamoku! I can see why you all fell in love with this place. Wonderful page!
a very helpful tip
Schatje was here, planning a dream trip. Very nice tips and beautiful pictures, Hanje. Hugs to Loritje.
Greetings Sir Lancelot....so ur in planning mode huh.....where are u off to next??? :) Did ya get my sunshine i sent you....LOL Love this pg ......
Belated happy birthday to you.. nice pages full of fun
Waalewiener's Related Pages
Hawaii (State of) Travel Guide
Member Travel Pages
- "Hang Loose in Hawaii"
- "Hawaiian Islands ~ GO Virtual"
- "A Month In Paradise"
- "Hawaii this beautiful place we fell in love with."
- "diver-x's Hawaii Page"
- "Scenic Hawaii"
- "BlueCollar's Hawai'i"
- See All...
- Things to Do in Hawaii (State of)
- Hotels in Hawaii (State of)
- Transportation in Hawaii (State of)
- Nightlife in Hawaii (State of)
- Restaurants in Hawaii (State of)
- Shopping in Hawaii (State of)
- Warnings and Dangers in Hawaii (State of)
- See All...
"Travel now , don't wait until it is too late"
- Member Rank:
- 0 0 1 5 6
- Forum Rank:
- 0 1 2 6 5
- 1,129 Reviews
- 7,415 Photos
- Add Friend
- Follow
- Send Message
Badges & Stats in Hawaii (State of)
- 129 Reviews
- 343 Photos
- 29 Forum posts
- 36,415PageViews
- 2 Cities
- See All Stats
- See All Badges (60)
Have you been to Hawaii (State of)?Share Your Travels
Latest Activity in Hawaii (State of)
- Posted in Miscellaneous Forum "Re: VT Member Awards - Voting now..."
- Commented on one of deecat's Hawaii (State of) travel pages
- Wrote a Review Every body surfing surfing USA. in Hawaii (State of) Off The Beaten Path
- Uploaded a Photo to "Every body surfing surfing USA."
- updated a Hawaii (State of) Travelogue "Experiencing this Lu'au in this setting was awsome"
Photos in Hawaii (State of)See All Photos (343)
Videos in Hawaii (State of)See All Videos (4)
Top 10 Pages
- Top 5 Page for this destination Ruinas Chichén-Itzá Intro, 50 reviews, 84 photos, 4 travelogues
- Top 5 Page for this destination Frigiliana Intro, 35 reviews, 94 photos, 7 travelogues
- San Francisco Intro, 42 reviews, 84 photos, 5 travelogues
- Top 5 Page for this destination Breda Intro, 34 reviews, 77 photos, 5 travelogues
- Top 5 Page for this destination Honolulu Intro, 34 reviews, 76 photos, 5 travelogues
- Top 5 Page for this destination Arnhem Intro, 33 reviews, 76 photos, 5 travelogues
- Top 5 Page for this destination Fuengirola Intro, 32 reviews, 76 photos, 5 travelogues
- Top 5 Page for this destination Marbella Intro, 32 reviews, 75 photos, 5 travelogues
- Top 5 Page for this destination Hawaii (State of) Intro, 31 reviews, 74 photos, 5 travelogues
- Oahu Intro, 27 reviews, 70 photos, 5 travelogues


text:
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Fourth Circuit Denies Stay in Virginia Same-Sex Marriage Case
Without analysis, the Fourth Circuit today in Bostic v. Schaeffer entered its Order denying the stay of its opinion that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Here's the text of the Order:
Upon consideration of submissions relative to the motion to stay mandate, the court denies the motion.
Entered at the direction of Judge Floyd with the concurrence of Judge Gregory. Judge Niemeyer voted to grant the motion.
The 2-1 division of the panel is the same as the division in the opinion on the merits, which we analyzed here.
The saga will undoubtedly continue.
August 13, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Sexual Orientation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, August 4, 2014
Alabama District Judge Declares State's Restrictive Abortion Law Unconstitutional as Applied
United States District Judge Myron Thompson, in a lengthy opinion in Planned Parenthood Southeast v. Strange, concluded that the staff-privileges requirement of Alabama's Women's Health and Safety Act of 2013, 1975 Ala. Code § 26-23E-4(c), is unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs.
In considering whether the hospital admitting privileges requirement, especially given that hospitals were not deeming physicians eligible to apply, Judge Thompson found it constituted an undue burden. He did note and rely on last week's Fifth Circuit decision in Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Currier in which the appellate court concluded that the admitting privileges requirement that would operate to close the only abortion clinic in Mississippi was an undue burden, in part because a state could not shift its responsibilities to other states.
The Alabama situation, however, was different as Judge Thompson noted:
This court does not need to resolve the legal issue of whether to consider out-of state clinics because, even if this court were to consider those clinics, it would reach the same conclusion. The out-of-state clinic nearest to any of the three cities at issue in this case is in Pensacola, Florida, approximately 50 miles away from Mobile. The Columbus, Georgia clinic is approximately 80 miles away from Montgomery. A woman in Mobile traveling to Pensacola or in Montgomery traveling to Columbus would still face the same threshold difficulties related to losing an abortion clinic in her home city; she would still have to overcome the challenges of the first 50 miles. Furthermore, the record does not support the conclusion that the Pensacola and Columbus clinics could actually accommodate an influx of patients from Alabama, and, in fact, the evidence from the Huntsville and Tuscaloosa clinics, discussed below, shows that it is not always easy for a clinic to increase capacity and suggests that the out-of-state clinics may not be able to treat large numbers of new women from Alabama.
The court also observed that if it looked outside the state's borders, it should not only look south and east but west as well. West of Alabama is Mississippi, and the court duly cites Jackson Women's Health Organization.
[image via]
As the judge clarifies, he "reaches no conclusions on these matters, but hastens to point out that an out-of- state analysis is both much more complicated than the State suggests and potentially harmful, on balance, to the State's case."
Moreover, the judge refused to deem the Fifth Circuit's decision in Abbott (on Texas's HB 2) as setting a per se rule that 150 miles of travel was not an undue burden. Instead, he found that the consideration of undue burden should be very specific and focused on the undue burden that the Alabama regulation would have on urban women rather than rural women.The court carefully considered the state's two proffered interests, the relationship of those interests, and then considered the undue burden, and anchored the conclusions in the testimony that is extensively discussed.
August 4, 2014 in Abortion, Due Process (Substantive), Fundamental Rights, Gender, Opinion Analysis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Divided Fifth Circuit Upholds Preliminary Injunction Against Mississippi's Restrictive Abortion Law HB 1390
A panel of the Fifth Circuit in its opinion today in Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Currier upheld the district judge's injunction against the enforcement of a restrictive abortion statute known as Mississippi HB 1390.
The statute required physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges to a nearby hospital. As the court noted, a similar provision in Texas (HB 2) was recently upheld by the Fifth Circuit in Planned Parenthood of Texas Surgical Providers v. Abbott. As to the rational basis of such a law, the panel stated it was "bound" by Abbott as precedent to accept that the Mississippi statute survives a constitutional challenge.
Regarding undue burden, however, the panel majority, in an opinion by Judge E. Grady Jolly (who interestingly hails from Mississippi) and joined by Judge Stephen Higginson, the effects of HB 1390 were relevant in this as-applied challenge. In assessing the undue burden, the court found it highly relevant that "if enforced, the admitting privileges requirement would likely require JWHO, the only currently licensed abortion facility in Mississippi, to lose its license." The panel rejected the State's attempt to "walk back" this statement - - - which is actually a quote from the State's opening brief - - - as "too little, too late." Additionally, the majority found it important that the hospitals had rejected the physicians' applications for admitting privileges based on the fact that the physicians performed abortions.
The central - - - and exceedingly interesting - - - question of the undue burden analysis is the relevance of the clinic's status as the only abortion clinic remaining in Mississippi. The State argued that there is no undue burden because women could travel to another state and many of these distances would not be unduly burdensome in and of themselves. Recall that in Planned Parenthood of S.E. Penn. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) the plurality opinion rejected the contention that traveling long distances constituted an undue burden. But, as Judge Jolly notes, there was no suggestion that women should have to go to neighboring states in Casey or in any other opinion, and there is at least one circuit court opinion that finds it "dispositive" that women had to leave the state to exercise their constitutional right.
Additionally - - - and this is the interesting part - - - the court relies upon State of Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938) in the United States Supreme Court rejected Missouri's argument that its failure to admit an African-American man to its law school was essentially cured by its offer of a tuition stipend to allow Mr. Gaines to attend law school in another state. Here's the passage from Gaines that Judge Jolly finds worthy of quoting at length:
[T]he obligation of the State to give the protection of equal laws can be performed only where its laws operate, that is, within its own jurisdiction. . . . That obligation is imposed by the Constitution upon the States severally as governmental entities, —each responsible for its own laws establishing the rights and duties of persons within its borders. It is an obligation the burden of which cannot be cast by one State upon another, and no State can be excused from performance by what another State may do or fail to do. That separate responsibility of each State within its own sphere is of the essence of statehood maintained under our dual system.
Id. at 350. Judge Jolly admits that Gaines can be distinguished, but finds Gaines nevertheless determinative: " a state cannot lean on its sovereign neighbors to provide protection of its citizens' federal constitutional rights."
In a lengthy and somewhat vehement dissent - - - complete with quotations from Albert Camus - - - Senior Judge Emilio Garza finds many things to criticize in the majority's opinion, including the majority's failure to recognize there is not sufficient state action for a constitutional claim (it is the hospitals denying admitting privileges rather than the statute that are the cause); the majority's failure to honor the distinction between equal protection (as in Gaines) and due process (in the abortion context); the majority's belief that there is relevance to crossing state lines (given the constitutional right to travel across state lines articulated in Saenz v. Roe); the majority's failure to recognize that Casey is nothing more than a "verbal shell game" (quoting Justice Scalia's dissent in Casey); the majority's recognition of the "liberty" interest (quotes in original) in the Due Process Clause; and the majority's participation in "aggrandizement of judicial power."
But the central issue of federalism including not only states' rights but states' responsibilities raised by this opinion and litigation is one that merits close consideration.
July 29, 2014 in Abortion, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Federalism, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Gender, Medical Decisions, Opinion Analysis, Race, Reconstruction Era Amendments, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, July 28, 2014
Fourth Circuit: Virginia's Same-Sex Marriage Ban is Unconstitutional
Affirming the federal district judge's decision in February, a panel of the Fourth Circuit in a divided opinion has held in Bostic v. Schaefer that Virginia's same-sex marriage prohibitions are unconstitutional.
The majority opinion, authored by Judge Henry Floyd and joined by Judge Roger Gregory, notably finds marriage to be a fundamental right that encompasses same-sex marriage and applies strict scrutiny.
The court's conclusion is that the "Virginia Marriage Laws" (including statutes and a state constitutional amendment)
violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the extent that they prevent same-sex couples from marrying and prohibit Virginia from recognizing same-sex couples' lawful out-of-state marriages.
At various times, the court blends Due Process and Equal Protection analysis and precedent, but both spring from its conclusion that "marriage" is a fundamental right and that "marriage" includes same-sex marriage. After discussing Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, the court notes:
These cases do not define the rights in question as "the right to interracial marriage," "the right of people owing child support to marry," and "the right of prison inmates to marry." Instead, they speak of a broad right to marry that is not circumscribed based on the characteristics of the individuals seeking to exercise that right. The Supreme Court's unwillingness to constrain the right to marry to certain subspecies of marriage meshes with its conclusion that the right to marry is a matter of "freedom of choice," Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 387, that "resides with the individual," Loving, 388 U.S. at 12. If courts limited the right to marry to certain couplings, they would effectively create a list of legally preferred spouses, rendering the choice of whom to marry a hollow choice indeed.
The court's use of "couplings" implicitly addresses a portion of the oft-called slippery slope argument that is raised by Judge Paul Niemeyer in his dissent: what would prevent this rationale from extending to polygamy? The dissent also invokes incest, accusing the majority of "dictionary jurisprudence" when it (re)defines marriage to include same-sex marriage. But of course, the definitional conundrum plagues the dissent as well, when it argues that certain qualities are "foundational" to marriage and other qualities are "irrelevant." For the dissent, this is the "biological link between procreation and marriage," a link that does exist in the polygamous and incestuous marriages the dissent disapproves.
For the majority, after finding marriage a fundamental right deserving of strict scrutiny, the five governmental interests argued as supporting the marriage laws not surprisingly fail to pass constitutional muster:
- (1) Virginia's federalism-based interest in maintaining control over the definition of marriage within its borders,
- (2) the history and tradition of opposite-sex marriage,
- (3) protecting the institution of marriage,
- (4) encouraging responsible procreation, and
- (5) promoting the optimal childrearing environment.
More surprising is that although these interests are raised by the parties the court calls the "Proponents" of the Virginia marriage laws, there is little in the court's opinion that analyzes their standing to appeal. The court does analyze the standing of the plaintiffs to sue the defendants George Schaefer III (in his official capacity as Clerk of Court for Norfolk Circuit Court) and Janet Rainey (in her official capacity as State Registrar of Vital Records). And since these parties were indeed defendants, there may be little need for an extensive analysis of appellate standing as was necessary in the same-sex marriage cases decided by the United States Supreme Court in June 2013. Nevertheless, recall that the (new) Virginia Attorney General had decided during the district court litigation that the Virginia laws were unconstitutional and filed a notice of change of position; however the laws continued to be enforced.
The Fourth Circuit thus joins the Tenth Circuit in holding that a state's same-sex marriage ban violates the Fourteenth Amendment. While these circuit court opinions are divided, the dozen or so federal district judges who have considered the issue have been unanimous in reaching the same conclusion.
July 28, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Opinion Analysis, State Constitutional Law, Tenth Amendment | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Eighth Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of University Civility Code
In an exceedingly brief per curiam opinion in Keating v. University of South Dakota, an Eighth Circuit panel reversed the conclusion of a district judge that the university's "civility code" was "impermissibly vague, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The university provision at issue provided:
Faculty members are responsible for discharging their instructional, scholarly and service duties civilly, constructively and in an informed manner. They must treat their colleagues, staff, students and visitors with respect, and they must comport themselves at all times, even when expressing disagreement or when engaging in pedagogical exercises, in ways that will preserve and strengthen the willingness to cooperate and to give or to accept instruction, guidance or assistance.
The plaintiff, a tenure-track physics professor, did not have his employment contract renewed because of a strained relationship with his supervisors, including becoming "quite angry" at a meeting, being the subject of a sexual harassment claim, and sending an email accusing his immediate supervisor of being a lying, back-stabbing sneak.
The panel held that although the "policy employs broad language, that alone does not necessarily prevent an ordinary person from recognizing that certain conduct will result in discharge or discipline." Instead,
the civility clause articulates a more comprehensive set of expectations that, taken together, provides employees meaningful notice of the conduct required by the policy. The outer contours of the civility clause perhaps are imprecise, but many instances of faculty misconduct would fall clearly within the clause's proscriptions, thus precluding the conclusion that the policy is facially unconstitutional.
Moreover, the panel found as applied to Keating's conduct, the civility clause was not impermissibly vague.
The use of "civilty clauses" continues to be a contested issue on due process grounds as well as First Amendment grounds. Here, the Eighth Circuit provides a definitive stamp of approval to such a policy.
July 3, 2014 in Due Process (Substantive), First Amendment, Opinion Analysis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Federal District Judge Invalidates Indiana Laws Banning Same-Sex Marriage
In his decision today in Baskin v. Bogan, United States District Judge Richard Young permanently enjoined Indiana officials from enforcing its requirement that marriage requires a female and a male, and its ban on the recognition of same sex marriages legally valid in other states, Indiana Code Section 31-11-1-1 (subsections a & b).
After resolving problems of the proper defendant and quickly disposing of the argument that Baker v. Nelson's summary finding by the Supreme Court in 1972 has meaningful precedential value, Judge Young's opinion proceeds along three separate tracks.
First, Judge Young finds that marriage is a fundamental right and therefore the statutory ban on same-sex marriage should be subject to strict scrutiny. Judge Young concluded that the scope of the fundamental right is not limited, quoting Judge Black's opinion in Henry v. Himes that the United States Supreme Court has not limited this fundamental right in its pertinent cases; the Court "consistently describes a general 'fundamental right to marry' rather than 'the right to interracial marriage,' 'the right to inmate marriage,' or 'the right of people owing child support to marry.'" Applying strict scrutiny, Judge Young articulates the state's proffered interest "in conferring the special benefit of civil marriage to only one man and one woman is justified by its interest in encouraging the couple to stay together for the sake of any unintended children that their sexual union may create," but declines to asess it and assumes that it is "sufficiently important interest." However, Judge Young finds that the state has not demonstrated that the statute is "closely tailored" to that interest, but instead is "both over- and under-inclusive."
Second, Judge Young analyzes the statute on the basis of equal protection, rejecting the argument that the statute makes a gender classification and concluding that it makes a sexual orientation classification. While Judge Young contends that while it might be time to "reconsider" whether sexual orientation classifications should be analyzed under rational basis scrutiny, the "court will leave that decision to the Seventh Circuit, where this case will surely be headed." Applying rational basis scrutiny, however, Judge Young concludes that there is no rational relationship to the interests proffered by the state.
Third, Judge Young independently analyzes subsection b of the statute, applying to recognition. The judge notes that the "parties agree that out-of-state, same-sex marriages are treated differently than out-of-state, opposite-sex marriages," and thus "the question is whether that difference violates the Equal Protection Clause." Again, applying rational basis scrutiny, Judge Young concludes:
Defendants proffer that the state refuses to recognize same-sex marriages because it conflicts with the State's philosophy of marriage – that is that marriage is to ameliorate the consequences of unintended children. Recognizing the valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, however, has no link whatsoever to whether opposite-sex couples have children or stay together for those children. Thus, there is no rational basis to refuse recognition and void out-of-state, same-sex marriages.
Judge Young's opinion is economical (at 36 pages), well-structured, and well-supported with relevant citations. Judge Young did not issue a stay of his opinion. One assumes that such a decision may be sought from the Seventh Circuit.
June 25, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Gender, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tenth Circuit Holds Utah's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional in a Divided Decision
In a divided decision, the Tenth Circuit opinion in Kitchen v. Herbert held that the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that [Utah's state constitution's] Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Affirming the district court's decision as well as its analysis, the Tenth Circuit panel majority, authored by Judge Carlos Lucero, and joined by Judge Jerome Holmes, applied strict scrutiny because it found that the "right to marry is a fundamental liberty."
In applying strict scrutiny, the panel majority assumed that three of the four interests advanced by the government - - - (1) "fostering a child-centric marriage culture that encourages parents to subordinate their own interests to the needs of their children"; (2) "children being raised by their biological mothers and fathers—or at least by a married mother and father—in a stable home"; (3) "ensuring adequate reproduction" - - - were compelling. However, the court found that the means chosen - - - the prohibition of same-sex marriage - - - did not sufficiently serve these interests. Instead, each of the
justifications rests fundamentally on a sleight of hand in which same-sex marriage is used as a proxy for a different characteristic shared by both same-sex and some opposite-sex couples.
The court noted that Justice Scalia, dissenting in Windsor, and numerous district judges, reached a similiar conclusion. The majority observed that the lack of narrow tailoring is "often revealed" by underinclusiveness, finding it important that Utah did not ban nonprocreative marriages.
The court's analysis of each of the three rationales is substantial and erudite, firmly rooted in precedent and well-reasoned.
As to the fourth and final interest asserted by the government - - -"accommodating religious freedom and reducing the potential for civic strife," - - - the court reasoned that "the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that public opposition cannot provide cover for a violation of fundamental rights" and emphasized that its "decision relates solely to civil marriage."
Dissenting from the more than 60 page majority opinion, Judge Paul Kelly wrote more than 40 pages in disagreement (although he did agree with the majority on the standing issue, making the opinion concurring in part). Not surprisingly, he disagreed with the level of scrutiny to be applied; he concluded that there was no fundamental right at issue and would have applied rational basis scrutiny. Also not surprisingly, he would have concluded that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage satisfied this most easily satisfied level of scrutiny given the state's interests in (1) responsible procreation, (2) effective parenting, and (3) the desire to proceed cautiously in this evolving area.
More surprisingly, Judge Kelly found that the Supreme Court's per curiam dismissal in 1972 of Baker v. Nelson, for "want of a substantial federal question" controlling ; it "should foreclose the Plaintiffs' claims, at least in this court," notwithstanding the Court's decision invalidating the federal Defense of Marriage Act's ban on recognition of same-sex marriage last term in Windsor.
If - - and most probably when - - - the United States Supreme Court does consider the issue of state laws banning same-sex marriage, Baker v. Nelson will be irrelevant and the Court will directly grapple with issues if fundamental constitutional rights and levels of scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection doctrines.
Given that the Tenth Circuit stayed its decision pending the disposition of any subsequently filed petition for certiorari it may be that both sides seek review from the United States Supreme Court,
June 25, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Gender, Interpretation, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Ninth Circuit Declares LA's Prohibition of Vehicle as "Living Quarters" Unconstitutional
In its opinion in Desertain v. City of Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit held that a provision of the Los Angeles municipal code prohibiting using automobiles as living quarters was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Section 85.02 of the municipal code, entitled "Use of streets and public parking lots for habitation" provides:
No person shall use a vehicle parked or standing upon any City street, or upon any parking lot owned by the City of Los Angeles and under the control of the City of Los Angeles or under control of the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors, as living quarters either overnight, day-by-day, or otherwise.
In finding the provision unconstitutionally vague, the court's opinion authored by Judge Harry Pregerson considered whether it gave adequate notice of the acts prohibited as required by City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999), and focused on the four plaintiffs and their arrests:
Plaintiffs are left guessing as to what behavior would subject them to citation and arrest by an officer. Is it impermissible to eat food in a vehicle? Is it illegal to keep a sleeping bag? Canned food? Books? What about speaking on a cell phone? Or staying in the car to get out of the rain? These are all actions Plaintiffs were taking when arrested for violation of the ordinance, all of which are otherwise perfectly legal. And despite Plaintiffs' repeated attempts to comply with Section 85.02, there appears to be nothing they can do to avoid violating the statute short of discarding all of their possessions or their vehicles, or leaving Los Angeles entirely. All in all, this broad and cryptic statute criminalizes innocent behavior, making it impossible for citizens to know how to keep their conduct within the pale.
As the court noted, the ordinance was "amorphous" enough to include "any vacationer who drives through Los Angeles in an RV."
However, the seeming reality that vacationers in RVs were not arrested led the court to its second reason for concluding the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. The court found that the ordinance "promotes arbitrary enforcement that targets the homeless," as is inconsistent with Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972). The ordinance is "broad enough to cover any driver in Los Angeles who eats food or transports personal belongings in his or her vehicle," yet "it appears to be applied only to the homeless." While the city might certainly have relied upon a limiting construction, its memo attempting to do so was "disfavored" by the law enforcement head of the homelessness task force and police officers did not follow it.In the first pages of the opinion, the court discussed four of the individual plaintiffs in detail. In its final paragraph, the court summarized their plight and its rationale:
For many homeless persons, their automobile may be their last major possession — the means by which they can look for work and seek social services. The City of Los Angeles has many options at its disposal to alleviate the plight and suffering of its homeless citizens. Selectively preventing the homeless and the poor from using their vehicles for activities many other citizens also conduct in their cars should not be one of those options.
June 19, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Food and Drink, Fourteenth Amendment, Opinion Analysis | 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)
Friday, June 6, 2014
Wisconsin Federal Judge Declares Same Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
Joining the federal judges who have declared unconstitutional their respective state laws banning same-sex marriage, Judge Barbara Crabb issued an 88 page opinion and order in Wolf v. Walker ruling that Art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage "violates plaintiffs' fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and that "any Wisconsin statutory provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a 'husband' and a 'wife,' are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples."
While Judge Crabb does not issue a stay, the opinion is not effective immediately. Instead, the plaintiffs have until June 16 to submit a proposed injunction, the defendants have a week to respond, and the Judge will consider the stay at that time - - - adding a specific allowance of the parties to address the application for a stay in light of the United States Supreme Court's refusal to grant a stay - - - just two days ago - - - in Geiger v. Kitzhaber.
Crabb's opinion is a scholarly treatment that seriously engages with seemingly all of the arguments raised by the state, the plaintiffs, and various amici. It echoes other judges who have reached similar results in relying upon Justice Scalia's dissenting opinions to support its conclusions. Judge Crabb also interestingly uses work by Maggie Gallagher, one of the founders of the anti-same-sex marriage group National Organizer for Marriage as a supporting citation for the importance of marriage as "essential to the pursuit of happiness." The range of her citations is impressive and although the opinion certainly has rhetorical flourishes, it is measured and substantive.
Her statement that marriage is a "fundamental right" is more nuanced in the conclusion to the due process analysis in opinion, which concludes:
that Wisconsin's marriage amendment and the Wisconsin statutes defining marriage as requiring a "husband" and a "wife" significantly interfere with plaintiffs' right to marry, so the laws must be supported by "sufficiently important state interests" that are "closely tailored to effectuate only those interests," Zablocki [v. Redhail] 434 U.S. at 388, in order to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Regarding the level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, Judge Crabb finds that Supreme Court precedent - - - including Windsor - - - is not determinative and that Seventh Circuit precedent is similarly not determinative. The opinion therefore engages in an analysis of the classification under four factors: history of discrimination; ability to contribute to society the same as others; immutability; and political powerlessness. (Interestingly, Judge Crabb does not cite to Carolene Products). She ultimately concludes that heightened scrutiny (intermediate scrutiny) is appropriate, although she does "hedge her bets" a bit, writing that
regardless whether I apply strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny or some "more searching" form of rational basis review under the equal protection clause, I conclude that the marriage amendment and related statutes cannot survive constitutional review.
The opinion then seriously considers the by-now familiar asserted interests: tradition, procreation, optimal child-rearing, protecting the institution of marriage, proceeding with caution, and the less-oft explicit interest of "slippery slope." Not surprisingly, she finds none of them support the same-sex marriage ban.
Judge Crabb's opinion acknowledges the opinion's place in the current terrain of post-Windsor decisions. Not only does she address the recent cases, she also considers the social climate, with reference to one of the circuit judges who might well hear the case on appeal:
In light of Windsor and the many decisions that have invalidated restrictions on same-sex marriage since Windsor, it appears that courts are moving toward a consensus that it is time to embrace full legal equality for gay and lesbian citizens. Perhaps it is no coincidence that these decisions are coming at a time when public opinion is moving quickly in the direction of support for same-sex marriage. Compare Richard A. Posner, Should There Be Homosexual Marriage? And If So, Who Should Decide? 95 Mich. L. Rev. 1578, 1585 (1997) ("Public opinion may change . . . but at present it is too firmly against same-sex marriage for the courts to act."), with Richard A. Posner, "Homosexual Marriage—Posner," The Becker-Posner Blog (May 13, 2012) ("[T]he only remaining basis for opposition to homosexual marriage . . . is religious. . . . But whatever the [religious objections are], the United States is not a theocracy and should hesitate to enact laws that serve religious rather than pragmatic secular aims.").
This case is most likely going to the Seventh Circuit - - - and it or one of its sister-opinions - - - is most likely headed to the Supreme Court.
June 6, 2014 in Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Federalism, Fourteenth Amendment, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Pennsylvania District Judge Declares State's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
In his opinion in Whitewood v. Wolf, Judge John E. Jones, III, announced that Pennsylvania would "join the twelve federal district courts across the country" that had declared their respective same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional.
The judge considered both a Due Process and Equal Protection challenge to Pennsylvania's statutory ban on same-sex marriage and found both had merit.
Regarding due process, he concluded that
the fundamental right to marry as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution encompasses the right to marry a person of one's own sex. . . . that this fundamental right is infringed upon by 23 Pa. C.S. § 1102, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman and thus precludes same-sex marriage. Accordingly, 23 Pa. C.S. § 1102 is unconstitutional.
Judge Jones' equal protection analysis first considered the proper level of scrutiny for sexual orientation and after extensive discussion of the factors (a modified Carolene Products analysis), he concluded that sexual orientation classifications are quasi-suspect and deserve heightened scrutiny. The application of this standard is relatively brief:
Significantly, Defendants claim only that the objectives are "legitimate," advancing no argument that the interests are "important" state interests as required to withstand heightened scrutiny. Also, Defendants do not explain the relationship between the classification and the governmental objectives served; much less do they provide an exceedingly persuasive justification. In essence, Defendants argue within the framework of deferential review and go no further. Indeed, it is unsurprising that Defendants muster no argument engaging the strictures of heightened scrutiny, as we, too, are unable to fathom an ingenuous defense saving the Marriage Laws from being invalidated under this more-searching standard.
Resembling many of the other opinions, including yesterday's opinion from an Oregon federal judge, Judge Jones' 39 page opinion acknowledges its part in a growing trend, cites all the other federal cases, includes a reference to Scalia's dissenting opinion in Windsor to support its rationale, and includes an acknowledgement of the divisiveness of the issue but invokes a historical perspective (represented by Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education) in its relatively brief conclusion.
It differs from other similar opinions in explicitly resting its Equal Protection analysis in intermediate scrutiny befitting a quasi-suspect class.
But the doctrinal differences are less noteworthy than the tide of federal judges (and some state judges) striking down their state laws banning same-sex marriage.
May 20, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fundamental Rights, Opinion Analysis, Recent Cases | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, May 16, 2014
Arkansas Supreme Court: Judge's Same Sex Marriage Order Stayed
The Arkansas Supreme Court's Order in Smith v. Wright grants a stay of the injunction against enforcing the ban on same-sex marriages.
Recall that last Friday, Circuit Judge Charles Piazza in Wright v. Arkansas declared unconstitutional Arkansas Act 144 and Arkansas Amendment 83, both of which define marriage as limited to one man and one woman.
Judge Piazza later issued a clarifying order and there have been numerous procedural matters to resolve. Today's order by the Arkansas Supreme Court Justices (pictured below) grants the request for an emergency stay without opinion.
A full appeal will presumably follow.
May 16, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Fourteenth Amendment | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Idaho Federal Judge Declares State Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Unconstitutional
In a 57 page opinion today in Latta v. Otter, federal judge Candy Wagahoff Dale concluded that Idaho's statutory and state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and issued a permanent injunction. (Judge Candy Dale is the Chief Magistrate Judge of the District of Idaho).
The judge was well aware of joining the trend of recent decisions finding state laws banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional, writing that the principle of judicial protection of "fundamental rights" regardless of majoritarian concerns
resonates today, as 10 federal courts across the country have in recent months reached similar conclusions on the very issues present in this case. Considering many of the same arguments and much of the same law, each of these courts concluded that state laws prohibiting or refusing to recognize same-sex marriage fail to rationally advance legitimate state interests. This judicial consensus was forged from each court's independent analysis of Supreme Court cases extending from Loving through Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor. The logic of these precedents virtually compels the conclusion that same-sex and opposite-sex couples deserve equal dignity when they seek the benefits and responsibilities of civil marriage. Because Idaho's Marriage Laws do not withstand any applicable form of constitutional scrutiny, the Court finds they violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The passage includes a footnote citing all the federal cases (but not the state judge in Arkansas just last week or the New Mexico Supreme Court). Judge Dale also includes a quotation from Justice Scalia: "But 'preserving the traditional institution of marriage' is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples." Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 601 (Scalia, J., dissenting)," in support of her conclusion that the constitutional amendment approved by the voters was motivated by animus.
In one unique aspect, Judge Dale specifically considered SmithKline Beecham Corporation (GSK) v. Abbott Laboratories, a unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit in January that extended the equal protection rule and analysis of Batson v. Kentucky (1986) regarding juror exclusions to those based on sexual orientation. Judge Dale specifically found that the "SmithKline's examination of Windsor is authoritative and binding upon this Court" and that:
In this Court's view, SmithKline establishes a broadly applicable equal protection principle that is not limited to the jury selection context.
On the whole, although Judge Dale repeatedly finds marriage to be a fundamental right, the opinion ultimately contends that the same-sex marriage bans fail to satisfy even the lowest rational basis review.
Judge Dale did not issue a stay, but given the effective date of the injunction as Friday, May 16, there are sure to be stay requests.
May 13, 2014 in Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, May 9, 2014
Arkansas State Judge Declares Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
In an opinion issued late today in Wright v. Arkansas, Circuit Judge Charles Piazza declared unconstitutional Arkansas Act 144 and Arkansas Amendment 83, both of which define marriage as limited to one man and one woman. The decision rests on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, as well as on ARK. Const., art 2 §2, with equality and liberty provisions.
The relatively brief opinion - - - 13 pages single spaced - - - tracks familiar ground, highlighting Windsor v. United States and the post-Windsor cases, emphasizing Kitchen v. Herbert and Bishop v. United States. Judge Piazza also points to Justice Scalia's dissenting language as other cases have done; Judge Piazza bolsters his finding that "tradition" is not a legitimate state interest by stating:
And, as Justice Scalia has noted in dissent, " 'preserving the traditional institution of marriage' is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples." Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 601 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Judge Piazza also confronts possible charges of judicial activism with a reference to Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856), including an extensive quote from Justice Taney's opinion, before moving onto Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut. He also relies on Arkansas' precedent:
The Arkansas Supreme Court has previously addressed the right to privacy as it involves same-sex couples. ln Jegley v. Picado, the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down the sodomy statute as unconstitutional in violating Article 2, §2 and the right to privacy. 349 Ark. 600, 638 (2002). Justice Brown, in Arkansas Dep't of Human Services v. Cole, noted "that Arkansas has a rich and compelling tradition of protecting individual privacy and that a fundamental right to privacy is implicit in the Arkansas Constitution." 2011 Ark. 145, 380 S.W. 3d. 429, 435 (2011) (citing Jegley, id. at 632). The Arkansas Supreme Court applied a heightened scrutiny and struck down as unconstitutional an initiated act that prohibited unmarried opposite-sex and same-sex couples from adopting children. Id at 442. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage for no rational basis violates the fundamental right to privacy and equal protection as described in Jegley and Cole, supra. The difference between opposite-sex and same-sex families is within the privacy of their homes.
The judge did not stay the opinion; it may be that some attorneys for the state of Arkansas will have a very busy weekend.
{UPDATE here}
May 9, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Opinion Analysis, State Constitutional Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
New Hampshire Supreme Court: Vanity License Plate "Not Offensive to Good Taste" Requirement Violates First Amendment
Relying on its state constitution, the New Hampshire Supreme Court's opinion today in Montenegro v. New Hampshire DMV held that the regulation prohibiting vanity license plates that are "offensive to good taste" was unconstitutional.
David Montenegro, who represented himself, appealed an order denying him a vanity registration plate reading "COPSLIE" and argued that the "offensive to good taste" exclusion in the regulation violated his speech rights under Part I, Article 22, New Hampshire Constitution as well as the First Amendment.
The unanimous court considered the relationship between vagueness and overbreadth, which it contended may certainly overlap, but ultimately settled on vagueness. The court ultimately concluding that
Because the "offensive to good taste" standard is not susceptible of objective definition, the restriction grants DMV officials the power to deny a proposed vanity registration plate because it offends particular officials' subjective idea of what is "good taste."
This vague standard thus violated the New Hampshire guarantee of free speech according the supreme court.
From the news report, Montenegro seems as "colorful" as his predecessor George Maynard, whose challenge to New Hampshire's "live free or die" motto on its license plates was resolved by the United States Supreme Court in Wooley v. Maynard (1977). And this case will take its place in developing "license plate jurisprudence": the "infidel" license plate denial; the unsucessful challenge to the Native American image on the Oklahoma license plate; and the unconstitutional "choose life" license plate offering.
May 7, 2014 in Due Process (Substantive), First Amendment, Speech, State Constitutional Law | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
India's Supreme Court Recognizes Transgender Constitutional Rights of Equality as "Third Gender"
In its opinion National Legal Services v. India, the Supreme Court of India has recognized the constitutional rights of transgender persons, including the right not to be denominated as either "male" or "female."
The opinion by K.S. Radhakrishnan begins with an invocation of the "trauma, agony and pain which the members of Transgender community undergo" but rather quickly also invokes the cultural roots and importance of the community: "TG Community comprises of Hijras, eunuchs, Kothis, Aravanis, Jogappas, Shiv-Shakthis etc. and they, as a group, have got a strong historical presence in our country in the Hindu mythology and other religious texts."
The judgment rests on an interpretation of several provisions of the Constitution of India, including Article 14 (equality before law); Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on the basis of various grounds, including sex); Article 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment, including sex); Article 19 (including freedom of expression); and Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty). The judgment engaged in some originalist reasoning that broadly interpreted "sex" to include sex-stereotyping:
Constitution makers, it can be gathered, gave emphasis to the fundamental right against sex discrimination so as to prevent the direct or indirect attitude to treat people differently, for the reason of not being in conformity with stereotypical generalizations of binary genders. Both gender and biological attributes constitute distinct components of sex. Biological characteristics, of course, include genitals, chromosomes and secondary sexual features, but gender attributes include one's self image, the deep psychological or emotional sense of sexual identity and character. The discrimination on the ground of 'sex' under Articles 15 and 16, therefore, includes discrimination on the ground of gender identity. The expression 'sex' used in Articles 15 and 16 is not just limited to biological sex of male or female, but intended to include people who consider themselves to be neither male or female.
Given this interpretation, the Court not suprisingly ruled
We, therefore, conclude that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity includes any discrimination, exclusion, restriction or preference, which has the effect of nullifying or transposing equality by the law or the equal protection of laws guaranteed under our Constitution, and hence we are inclined to give various directions to safeguard the constitutional rights of the members of the TG community.
The Court has some interesting discussions of dress and grooming as an aspect of gender which included references to US cases and is further discussed here.
The Court also specifically disavowed any relationship between its present judgment in National Legal Services v. India and the controversial opinion Koushal v. NAZ Foundation decided in December in which the Court - - - or as the Court states here "A Division Bench of this Court" reversed the 2009 decision of the Delhi High Court that §377 of the Indian Penal Code was unconstitutional under the India Constitution and upheld India's sodomy law as constitutional:
we express no opinion on it [Kousal] since we are in these cases concerned with an altogether different issue pertaining to the constitutional and other legal rights of the transgender community and their gender identity and sexual orientation.
In a separate judgment, A.K. Sikiri did not mention the sodomy decision in Koushal v. Naz Foundation, but the judgment's expansive rhetoric could be read as an implicit disagreement with that decision as well as serving as a further butressing of today's judgment. The concurring opinion elaborated on the importance of TG persons and communities to India's culture. It referenced Immanuel Kant, John Rawls, Amartya Sen as providing the "jurisprudential basis for doing justice to the Vulnerable Groups which definitely include TGs." It explicitly stated the "dynamic" and "living character" of the Constitution and its interpretation. It considered judicial review in the context of democracy (including, implicitly, "sexual democracy") and decidedly opined that it is the role of the judiciary to "ensure access to justice to the marginalized section of the society," and that undoubtedly "TGs belong to the unprivileged class which is a marginalized section."
The judgment not only requires the government to recognize a "third gender" and to grant "legal recognition of their gender identity such as male, female or as third gender," but also directs the government to take positive steps in education, health provisions, and "seriously address" various problems.
April 15, 2014 in Comparative Constitutionalism, Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Gender, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Theory | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, April 14, 2014
Federal District Judge Rules Ohio's Same-Sex Marriage Recognition Ban Unconstitutional
In the widely anticipated opinion in Henry v. Himes, Judge Timothy Black has ruled that Ohio Const. Art. XV, § 11 and Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.01(C) denying legal recognition to the marriages of same-sex couples validly entered in other jurisdictions violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Recall that Judge Black previously issued an opinion in Obergefell v. Kasich with a similar conclusion, although that opinion was limited to the particular plaintiffs. Judge Black's preliminary injunction ruling in Obergefell was the first post-Windsor decision on same sex marriage, and interestingly used some of Justice Scalia's dissenting language to support his reasoning.
While Obergefell involved a person who was dying, the plaintiffs in Henry are same-sex couples expecting children or with children. The four plaintiff couples, who entered into valid marriages in other jurisdictions, seek to have the names of both parents recorded on their children's Ohio birth certificates and a declaration that Ohio's refusal to recognize valid same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. Judge Black relied heavily on his previous rationale in Obergefell, and again found that while marriage is a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has not explicitly recognized it as such, and "the balancing approach of intermediate scrutiny is appropriate in this similar instance where Ohio is intruding into – and in fact erasing – Plaintiffs' already- established marital and family relations." Again, Judge Black footnotes Professor Steve Sanders work on the liberty interest in having one's marriage recognized.
In the equal protection analysis, Judge Black does advance a distinct rationale for "heightened scrutiny" given that the children's birth certificates are involved. He writes that the "Supreme Court has long held that disparate treatment of children based on disapproval of their parents' status or conduct violates the Equal Protection Clause," citing Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). But, as in Obergefell, he also explicitly found that even if rational basis were applied, the Ohio provisions failed to satisfy it.
On the last page of Judge Black's opinion is the text of a song, "Happy Adoption Day" (1992). For some, this will seem appropriate and celebratory. For others, this will seem indecorous and treacly. Judge Black's previous statements have displeased at least one state representative - - - who has introduced a resolution in the Ohio legislature calling for the House of Representatives of Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings.
April 14, 2014 in Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Opinion Analysis, Sexual Orientation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Fifth Circuit Upholds HB2, Texas Restrictive Abortion Statute
A panel of the Fifth Circuit upheld the restrictive abortion law of Texas in its opinion in Planned Parenthood of Texas Surgical Providers v. Abbott.
Authored by controversial conservative Judge Edith Jones, the unanimous panel opinion upholds positions of equally controversial Texas HB 2 passed despite a well-publicized filibuster by state senator Wendy Davis. The district judge's decision had enjoined the "admitting provisions of HB 2 as unconstitutional:
A physician performing or inducing an abortion:
(1) must, on the date the abortion is performed or induced, have active admitting privileges at a hospital that:
(A) is located not further than 30 miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced; and
(B) provides obstetrical or gynecological health care services
The Fifth Circuit quickly stayed the injunction. In today's panel opinion, Judge Jones wrote that the the district judge's opinion "applied the wrong legal standards under rational basis review and erred in finding that the admitting–privileges requirement amounts to an undue burden for a 'large fraction' of the women that it affects."
As to rational basis, Judge Jones highlighted the highly deferential standard, its place in a democracy, its practicality (if the legislature doesn't think a law is working, it can change it), and its application to HB2:
Viewed from the proper perspective, the State's articulation of rational legislative objectives, which was backed by evidence placed before the state legislature, easily supplied a connection between the admitting–privileges rule and the desirable protection of abortion patients' health.
As to the undue burden, Judge Jones noted that the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,
counsels against striking down a statute solely because women may have to travel long distances to obtain abortions. The record before us does not indicate that the admitting–privileges requirement imposes an undue burden by virtue of the potential increase in travel distance in the Rio Grande Valley.
The narrow exception of the Fifth Circuit's reversal if that the admitting privileges requirement "may not be enforced against abortion providers who timely applied for admitting privileges under the statute but are awaiting a response from the hospital."
March 27, 2014 in Abortion, Due Process (Substantive), Fourteenth Amendment, Opinion Analysis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, March 24, 2014
Illinois Supreme Court: State's Eavesdropping Statute Unconstitutional
Can a government criminalize the recording of conversations absent consent without violating the First Amendment, or perhaps the Due Process Clause?
In its opinion in People v. Clark, and a companion opinion in People v. Melongo, the Illinois Supreme Court held the state's statutory criminalization of eavesdropping unconstitutional.
Both cases relied upon ACLU v. Alvarez, in which the Seventh Circuit enjoined the statute from being applied to a Chicago police accountability program.
In Clark, the Illinois Supreme Court held that 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1)(A), the eavesdropping statute, violated the First Amendment's overbreadth doctrine "because a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep." The court recognized the ubiquity of smartphones and other recording devices.
Importantly for the court, the statute criminalized a "whole range of conduct involving the audio recording of conversations that cannot be deemed in any way private." It gave these examples:
- a loud argument on the street;
- a political debate in a park;
- the public interactions of police officers with citizens (if done by a member of the general public); and
- any other conversation loud enough to be overheard by others whether in a private or public setting.
Although the opinion in Clark is a brief 9 pages, it's substantial and well-reasoned.
Equally brief and well-reasoned, although somewhat more complex, is the companion opinion in Melongo. The state argued that Melongo's First Amendment claim was not cognizable on appeal, unlike the Due Process claim, and that the constitutional claims were inconsistent with her defense at trial. Nevertheless, the court found that the statutory provision was unconstitutional under the First Amendment for the same rationale as in Clark. Melongo also raised a constitutional claim to the "publishing provision" of the statute, which further criminalizes the "publishing" of any recording made without consent. The court similarly found this provision overbroad.
It will be interesting to see how the Illinois legislature responds.
[image via]
March 24, 2014 in Criminal Procedure, Due Process (Substantive), Fifth Amendment, Speech, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, March 21, 2014
Michigan District Judge Declares State's Prohibition on Same-Sex Marriage Unconstitutional
Following the trend which we most recently discussed here and here, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, Bernard Friedman, declared the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional in his opinion today in DeBoer v. Snyder.
At issue was Michigan's state constitutional amendment, Mich. Const. Art. I, § 25, which the court referred to as the Michigan Marriage Amendment, MMA, passed by voter referendum in November 2004. The judge held a trial limiting the issue to whether the MMA "passed rational basis review" under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that it did not because it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court stated it therefore did not reach the Due Process Clause question.
The state proffered the by now familiar government interests to satisfy the required "legitimate" government interest:
- providing an optimal environment for child rearing;
- proceeding with caution before altering the traditional definition of marriage; and
- upholding tradition and morality.
In evaluating each of these, the judge reached the by now familiar conclusions. Judge Friedman discussed the evidence at trial, holding that there was "no logical connection between banning same- sex marriage and providing children with an 'optimal environment' or achieving 'optimal outcomes;'" that the "wait and see" approach did not satisfy the legitimate government interest standard; and finally that upholding tradition and morality likewise did not satisfy the legitimate government interest standard, citing several of the recent cases that have held likewise.
Additionally, Judge Friedman rejected the state's "federalism" argument that sought to distinguish United States v. Windsor, relying heavily on Loving v. Virginia. As the judge phrased it:
Taken together, both the Windsor and Loving decisions stand for the proposition that, without some overriding legitimate interest, the state cannot use its domestic relations authority to legislate families out of existence. Having failed to establish such an interest in the context of same-sex marriage, the MMA cannot stand.
The judge also rejected the argument that the MMA's status as a constitutional amendment prompted by voter referendum was relevant, quoting the famous language from the 1943 flag-salute First Amendment case of West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette: the "very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy" and "to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts."
Judge Friedman's decision is closely and carefully reasoned, although it closes with a rhetorical paragraph that labels the opinion "a step in the right direction."
The Judge enjoined the enforcement of the same-sex marriage ban and unlike some other judges, he did not order a stay.
[image: Map of Michigan circa 1836 via]
March 21, 2014 in Courts and Judging, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Sexual Orientation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)


text:
Some don't believe in them at all.
Others are waiting for them to come "save us" from catastrophe.
But I wonder, if Ets do in fact exist, what they might actually be feeling and experiencing.
Ets, The Return is a short animated series about an alliance of anxiety ridden extra-terrestrial beings from another universe who suddenly find themselves assigned to Earth.
12 views | 0 comments
Click here to watch the video (03:52)
Submitted By: jimisroom
Tags: UFO Ets Web Series Animation 2012 Mayan Prophecy Aliens Grays Reptilians Iclone Disclosure Science Fiction
Categories: Comedy
Audition reel for actor/performance artist Jim Abbott
44 views | 0 comments
Click here to watch the video ()
Submitted By: jimisroom
Tags: Jim Abbott Actors Commercials Sitcom Film Television Comedy
Categories: Entertainment
This is a rough demo of the opening to a multi-media solo show I'm pre-producing.
As a kid I used to pretend and dream about being "not from here". I'm sure it had something to do with living "near-enough" to Roswell and seeing movies like Escape To Witch Mountain and Star Wars.
That was all fine and good in pretend-time as a kid, but as adult life started to creep in, I began to experience "feeling" alien more and more….like I didn't fit in anywhere. That wasn't the plan!
Sure, I felt that way when I found myself in Spokane, or the first year after moving to LA…but its been really stressed lately by having three "walking while black" incidents in a row, punctuated by a significant UFO sighting twelve hours before the third.
I write about it at http://jimisroom.com/blog/?p=104
Is the universe telling me to get on with this solo show?
Here is a preview of the opening of my solo show called Lost doy…or How I Happened Upon the Pretty Blue Planet and Why I Decided to Stay.
I've been working on the theme for awhile…experimenting with playing with the fiction that I came here with a twin brother from another place to observe this planet from a safe distance, but after hitting a rift, we got separated, and I ended up temporarily having to take human form in the deserts of New Mexico.
My goal? Learn how to be "human" and "blend in" until I can find my twin and go back home. Of course, by the time I've learned how to be a good human, and by the time I started to move from place to place and school to school with a military family, I begin to forget why I came here in the first place.
Lost doy is the story of forgetting and then remembering again just as our planet completes a major turning point.
It will be multi-media, have some music, and will feature comedic monologues and stand-up. I hope to make people laugh, and maybe help remember.
15 views | 0 comments
Click here to watch the video (05:39)
Submitted By: jimisroom
Categories: Entertainment
A song about finding your inner and outer guides.
Ranked 2.98 / 5 | 150 views | 0 comments
Click here to watch the video (02:59)
Submitted By: jimisroom
Tags: Music Dance Trance Rct3
Categories: Art & Animation Music & Dance
Jimi is at "basic training" and forgot to THINK before he spoke...!
Ranked 3.30 / 5 | 636 views | 0 comments
Click here to watch the video (01:05)
Submitted By: jimisroom
Tags: Short Clips Lampoon Satire Air Force Army Navy Marines Military Recruit Iraq Afghanistan Troops Bootstrap Officer Training
Categories: Comedy Art & Animation
The first version of this was a silent one that I found myself compelled to do after we invaded Iraq in 2003. I had very mixed feelings about the invasion. I wanted very much to believe that humanity is basically good and well-meaning...and that sometimes we just needed to be reminded of our gift of love...reminded of our own divinity to literally create heaven on earth. I wrote the music years ago and layed vocals over long after...somehow it seemed to fit the images for me... I hope you like the vid.
Ranked 2.82 / 5 | 217 views | 0 comments
Click here to watch the video (04:04)
Submitted By: jimisroom
Tags: Music Trance 2012 Techno Mellow Meditative Animation Synth-pop Heal-the-planet
Categories: Art & Animation Music & Dance
Shenaynay talks about the money...
Ranked 2.35 / 5 | 114 views | 0 comments
Click here to watch the video (01:02)
Submitted By: jimisroom
Tags: Comedy-clip Clips Short Sitcom Funny Animation Entertainment Wentworth Shenaynay Jimisroom Hip Hop
Categories: Comedy Art & Animation
Episode 1
Ranked 2.78 / 5 | 111 views | 0 comments
Click here to watch the video (01:15)
Submitted By: jimisroom
Tags: Entertainment
Categories: Comedy Art & Animation
Episode 2
Ranked 3.26 / 5 | 196 views | 0 comments
Click here to watch the video ()
Submitted By: jimisroom
Tags: Sitcom Funny Comedy Wentworth Shenaynay
Categories: Comedy Art & Animation
Wentworth talks about Shenaynay's psychic reading...
Ranked 3.27 / 5 | 172 views | 0 comments
Click here to watch the video (01:12)
Submitted By: jimisroom
Tags: Short Funny Sitcom Clips
Categories: Comedy Art & Animation
In the Spring of 2000 my ex and I made a trip to New York City. It was a remarkable trip. It was my first extended stay and I was thoroughly impressed by the feeling it left me. I saw people of every race, hue and gender all literally rubbing shoulders with each other on the sidewalk, and the feeling I got from them was that the optimism and dreams of the one who visits or is born in America were still very much alive. It was the first time I ever felt such a large sense of international unity and cooperation. I have visualized it but had never really felt it until I visited New York.
I remember meditating on the eighth floor of our hotel room in mid-town on the last day of the trip. I know it sounds so weird, but do you remember that film Close Encounters of the Third Kind? (See it kids, if you haven't...) Remember the huge Mothership at the end of the film? (No, I'm not ruining anything...) During my meditation, I found myself visualizing that there was a huge mothership over the city of New York. It represented some kind of conglomeration of peoples and beings from different solar systems who were here to observe us and to help to influence us as we go through our leap into the next age. They are here to help us to work together and to keep things in perspective. Maybe it was the sense of comfort and friendliness that I felt there then, from EVERYONE...I just remember looking up at the sky and just knowing there was one up there, and that one day, when we understood who we really are that
they would reveal themselves, connect with us visually, and help us to continue to evolve to become true responsible inter-planetary being, ready to travel solar systems.
This followed me for weeks. I got back to LA and was kind of depressed for the next couple of weeks because the feeling is so different there. It too is quite international, but it's SO spread out and such a car city, you can go for days without actually talking to anyone. I did manage to take some time one weekend however to sit, reflect, hold on to that feeling of brotherhood and peace, and began to do some writing. Before long I was channeling this song.
This music video is meant to convey the feelings, messages, affirmations and possibilities from my NYC meditation, my Eight Story Bliss. Thought is consciousness and carries energy. We are so bombarded with negative images, it is easy to get bogged down and find ourselves creating even more negativity with out thoughts. I have been asked to keep producing affirming images and videos. I wanted to produce something on the importance of thinking constructively...something to help me hold the focus. God knows some days I need it. I hope you like the song and the theme.
PS I made this video specifically for the You Tube contest for Pangea Day. Videos to heal the world.
Ranked 3.78 / 5 | 476 views | 0 comments
Click here to watch the video (04:25)
Submitted By: jimisroom
Tags: Earth Green Heal 2012 Meditation Emoto Water Prayer Healing Thought Mind Music Mellow Trance Dance
Categories: Other
One tedious working day this tune came to my head. I ran home afterwards to record it on guitar. A couple of years later I had an idea of showing what our chakras look like while channeling earth and kundalini energy up the spine. Relax and enjoy...
Ranked 4.35 / 5 | 2272 views | 1 comments
Click here to watch the video (01:29)
Submitted By: jimisroom
Tags: Chakra Meditation Strings Guitar Music Light Spiritual Metaphysical
Categories: Art & Animation People & Stories


text:
|54 Holmwood Rd
- Evaluations:
124 times viewed 47 times listed
Posh Of Holmwood Designer Clothing. For Clothing located in Merivale - finda New Zealand more
Posh Of Holmwood Designer Clothing, 54 Holmwood Rd Fendalton Christchurch, Merivale, Christchurch - YELLOW™ New Zealand more
View full details for Posh Of Holmwood Designer Clothing more
Posh Of Holmwood Designer Clothing ... Gifts, designer fashion, lifestyle stores and cafes. Expect to be... more more
Posh specialises in all that is fashionable and elegant. Our lines of Debbie Kerkhof Originals, jewellery, handbags, luggage, gifts and shoes are exclusive in the ... more
Posh Fashion specialise in all that is fashionable and elegant. more
Gateshead Equestrian stock a large range of top quality horse rugs and accessories, tailored equestrian clothing and general riding wear and accessories. more
Wellington's known as the culinary capital, famous for our tucked-away bars (with award-winning bartenders), quirky cafes, award-winning restaurants, curly fries ... more
Dean and Mandy Barker have a new multimillion-dollar project when they return from the America's Cup. The couple are understood to have bought a new home on one of ... more
For French, vintage, industrial and shabby chic style inspired interiors ~ très chic! more
$29 for a Manicure with Shellac Finish or Full Acrylic Tips in French or Natural with Colour from Posh Nails ($60 Value) more
David Beckham has poked fun at his wife Victoria Beckham by posting a picture of her smiling. The retired soccer star took to his Facebook account to upload a close ... more
Previous LittersCh. Roellen Dark an Stormy and Brz. Dbl.Gr. Ch.Lowenheim Tia Maria Bernadette.Seven Kittens born 3rd January 2013.Five Seal, 2 boys, 3 girls. 1 Blue ... more
Bag ranges available in the Tender Love + Carry collection more
An epic alpine walk with stunning vistas of sweeping valleys below and majestic peaks above. more
Year: 1974. In Pakuranga 300 housewives tested an unmarked powder cleaner. Mrs Clapshaw found that she didn't have to rub as hard and that the bathroom looked cleaner ... more
Storm offers the latest in New Zealand designer fashion for women. more
"Welcome to Hanmer's most central motel" FREEPHONE 0800 777 666 If you are a family or group, or just a couple wanting a restful environment we have the accommodation ... more


text:
Picture: Lenny Kravitz and guest The 82nd Annual Academy Awards (Oscars) - Arrivals at the Kodak Theatre Hollywood, California - 07.03.10" 2#122#
Lenny Kravitz is spearheading efforts to protect the Louisiana coastline from an oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico - the rocker has signed up to headline a benefit concert to raise money for relief efforts.
Local businesses and wildlife are under threat after a BP rig collapsed and sent a massive oil spillage drifting towards the state's shoreline.
U.S. government officials have declared the British firm will be liable to cover the clean-up costs, but many fear the total cost to the local economy will never be paid.
Kravitz, who has a home in New Orleans, Louisiana, has now signed up to help raise money for those affected by the disaster - he will headline a benefit concert in the city on Sunday (16May10).
Rapper Mos Def will also perform at the event at Mardi Gras World River City, along with Ani DiFranco and and Allen Toussaint.


text:
YOU vs Ed O'Neill in a submission grappling match
View Single Post
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Johnstown PA
Posts: 2,850
vCash: 500
YOU vs Ed O'Neill in a submission grappling match
Time to again test the bad boys of Eastside's MMA forum...men who have defeated James Toney, Vitali Klitschko, and Hulk Hogan in submission matches,...some have defeated Ronnda Rousey, though almost all have fallen before the mighty chess nerd Josh Waitzkin. But now we have another opponent..one Ed O'Neill, first the facts: Born April 12, 1946, so he isn't a young guy, 66 in fact. Pretty big guy, not sure of the stats, but not a small man. Damn good natural athlete, played football (the American kind for you Brits) for Youngstown State University (Defensive Lineman) and even played for one year for the Pittsburgh Steelers (but was cut). Now when I had the James Toney thread, and brought up his athletic ability, many of ESB's posters maintained that because he was fat and older, he really wasn't a good athlete, and maintained that in fact, they were definitely better athletes. Now, for grappling background...has trained for over 20 years in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, got his black belt in 2007 under Rorion Gracie. Some film for you to consider... [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wVlZX6Bw9E[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOtf-mVQpTs[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3yjN1KrqfM[/ame]
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Johnstown


text:
The following is the final installment of a four-part series of one man's personal journey to salvage a 1910 barn in Southwest Michigan while keeping it as green as possible. Catch up on last past installments here.
A very important part of any home building project, in my opinion, is hot water for personal use. Think about how much you use on a daily basis: showers, laundry, dishwashing, cleaning, etc. Now think about how that water is stored. Usually in one of those big cumbersome tanks in which water is kept heated at a constant temperature. That takes a lot of energy. I'm going to be installing an on demand system, also known as a tankless water heater. As opposed to having the water sit in a tank, when needed the water is super heated through a system of coils. The water travels to the shower, sink, and washer while you're using it. When you're done it shuts down. People I know who have these systems LOVE them. They are pricey compared to standard water heaters, but again, the savings comes down the road and much energy is saved.
The other interesting aspect, in my experience, was the hesitancy from heating/plumbing contractors to install this type of system. I got a lot of, "you'd be better off with a standard system", or "why do you want to do that?" I'm guessing that these are more work to install correctly. This was one of those points that I wouldn't back down on and if a prospective contractor couldn't or wouldn't do it…they didn't get hired. Rule #1 in action.
The spring was spent purchasing fixtures, cabinets, appliances, etc. In sticking to my " rules," I was pleasantly surprised at how many options there are on the market. Again, the driving force was to use energy saving/efficient products manufactured by companies with eco-friendly policies. Personally, I think one of the best is Toto. Not only do they make beautiful products, but they are engineered to be super efficient, water saving with great eco-ethos. The price point is higher than similar products found in "big box" stores, but I'll save in the long run and be less taxing on the environment.
At this point we're still working. I hope to have my final inspections by the end of August and move in sometime in September. My search now is for finishes for the kitchen and bath. Although I would love to use stone in some of the areas, I refuse to purchase new. Instead I've been searching salvage companies in the hopes of finding reclaimed materials that were once used in other homes, businesses or buildings. Other options would be using recycled metals, wood, porcelain or concrete. I have always loved barns. They are a part of our heritage and history and deserve the right to be preserved; whatever form they may take.
What do you love? Do you have the same dream? Do you want to preserve a piece of our collective history? If so you owe it to yourself to give these wonderful artists, craftsmen and resources a call.
I hope I've inspired you, whatever your dream, big or small, to take the first step to putting your ideals and beliefs into action.
Happy green building!
Written by: John Braun


text:
Miner Wars 2081 is a 6DOF action-survival space-shooter simulation-game set in the year 2081, 10 years after the destruction of all planetary objects in the Solar System. The gameplay is driven by an epic story and offers a choice of single player, co-op, and death-match multi-player. The story will introduce you to many types of missions: rescue, exploration, revenge, base defense, theft, transportation, stealth, search and destroy, pure harvesting, racing, or just flying around and destroying everything you see. Miner Wars runs on the VRAGE engine, built and tailored specifically for the title.
Posted by MinerWars on Jun 14th, 2012
The gang here at Keen Software House is proud to present a brand new bundle of action-packed screenshots featuring combat scenarios from the Miner Wars 2081 storyline campaign! Get an inside look at the greatest interior and space shooter of the decade, coming soon to your PC!
We are thrilled beyond belief about the many exciting gameplay variations Miner Wars will offer. One of these, of course, is adrenaline-pumping action - cut your way through lines of enemy fighters, mother ships, and stationary defenses!
Enjoy our fresh selection of screenshots!
- Screenshot Gallery at MinerWars.com: Minerwars.com
E3 Trailer Reminder
Just a reminder, too, to check out our brand new trailer, made fresh for E3! It shows our hand-crafted interiors, awesome exteriors, creepy tunnels and mine shafts, fortresses, and heavy industrial equipment. Don't miss it!
- Official E3 Trailer on YouTube: Youtu.be
- Video Gallery at MinerWars.com: Minerwars.com
New Demo Coming Soon
In early July expect to see a whole new game demo of Miner Wars 2081 in which you'll get your first real taste of the storyline campaign. What is the plot premise, who are the main characters, and how does humanity survive in 2081, ten years after the solar apocalypse? Be the first to peek behind the curtain!


text:
Welcome back to Stockhouse Member Sign In
Sign in with one of the following accounts.
Send my password
« back
Become a member today, It's free!
We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Use one of the following accounts.
Go Back...
Nothing but FLUFF from you Red , losing more and more credibility with us "realists" every day ......
Dome mountain ore in there back packet eh? Well interesting that this was press released at least 6 months ago and the company is absolutely cash starved..... YET no announcement of a custom milling agreement with them or any other operation blessed by QR's presence. Why is that IF we have them in our back pocket? Would have been nice to started this "custom milling" maybe 3 months ago..you know ...seeing how our revenue has been ZERO over that period
Average grades of 13-14 g/t which ought to generate amazing cash flow....how about actually producing some gold? Are we or are we not? What about this QR ore that was supposed to provide cash flow as of Nov ? Dec ? Now Jan ? "encouraging " gold recoveries reported from the region ..well woopdedoo
Yes that mill on care and maintenance sitting by rusting will come in quite handy at Cow MNt . You / me / and every other half -brained investor knows that IF Cow mnt is anywhere near what PG says it has...a new mill must be built and facilities constructed........ how does this have anything to do with Seabridge I have no clue...........at best this mill would need to be refurbished to ASSIST in mining activities at auxillary locations .....so please keep your biased drivel for new investors who have not done there D.D. You do BELIEVE in PG"S numbers right ?
Receive investor kits and email updates from Stockhouse and directly from these companies.