text:
Alucinor Productions PRO
User Stats
Profile Images
User Bio
At Alucinor our passion is film making. When we're not working on a project, we're probably either watching a film or discussing one (sometimes heatedly).
We are constantly striving to perfect our craft and make the best possible work that we can. We don't like to make crap. We have high standards for our work, and anything that falls short of those would not only reflect poorly on our clients, it would reflect poorly on us.
Our background and training has been in film and television and this has a significant bearing on the quality that we aim for in every project. We see every project is an opportunity to create some great work.
For those who are curious, Alucinor (pronounced Aloo-sin-or) is Latin and roughly translates to dreaming or wander in the mind. If you want to know more about Alucinor's origins please click on the Alucinor Story video to the right.


text:
For temporary relief of abdominal pain' cramping' nausea' and vomiting.
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These products are not meant to diagnose' treat or cure any disease or medical condition. Please consult your doctor before starting any exercise or nutritional supplement program or before using these or any product during pregnancy or if you have a serious medical condition.
Trombidium 6X
Indol 3X
Skatol 4X
Agaricus Muscarius 2X
Elaterium Ecbalium 1X
Lycopodium 1X
Medicago Sativa 1X
Argemone Mexicana 8X
Silphium 8X
Zigiberis 1X
Carbo Veg.' Carbo Animalis' Arsenicum Album 6C 12C 30C 200C
Enteroccinum' Escherichia Coli' Giardia Lamblia' Fish Pyrogen (SW)' Salmonella' Botulinum' Pyrogen' Streptoenterococcinum 12C 15C 30C 60C 100C 200C
Water' Alcohol 15 %by Volume' 5 % Glycerine by Volume.
Adults: 1-2 sprays under the tongue 1-3 times a day or as directed by your physician. Children: Use half the adult dosage.
As with any drug if you are pregnant or nursing a baby' seek the advice of a health professional before using this product. Do not use if the cap seal is broken or missing. Keep this and all medications out of reach of children. Consult your physician if symptoms persist more than 7 days.
Ratings & ReviewsReview This Item Be the first to review this item.
Questions About This ItemAsk a Question
Please ask any questions you may have about this specific product in the field below.
Your question(s) and our corresponding answer(s) will not be confidential and will be posted publically on this specific product page.
Additionally, PureFormulas is unable to directly recommend products in relation to specific health conditions. Please contact your trusted healthcare practitioner for direct product recommendations.
If you have any general questions regarding orders or our policies and programs, please contact our Customer Happiness Team @ 1.800.383.6008
If you are pregnant, nursing, taking any medications or have any medical condition, consult your doctor before use. Your healthcare professional is the best source for guidance before beginning an exercise or nutritional supplement program.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
F1's currently-dominant team permitted its two drivers to engage in a classic scrap for victory in the Bahrain Grand Prix, in which they overtook each other several times before Hamilton took victory.
Mercedes received praise for not subjecting its drivers to team orders, beyond a vague instruction from race team chief Paddy Lowe not to take each other out.
But Wolff suggested the squad's policy would probably have to shift if more drivers started to become a threat to Rosberg and Hamilton, who have dominated thus far.
"Bahrain was particular because our package worked very well and we had quite a competitive advantage there, so it's easier to take a decision for the sake of racing because you know you're going to have quite a margin to the car in third place," Wolff explained.
"The more narrow that margin gets the more you have to look out for competitors, and our rule number one is that the team-mate is not enemy number one, the competition is, and there might be situations in the race when you have to consider that fact.
"You cannot [afford to] lose lots of time in a battle if you have your enemy right up your back."
Mercedes has now scored three straight one-two finishes, with Hamilton leading Rosberg home in Malaysia, Bahrain and China.
- Sports & Recreation
- Bahrain Grand Prix


text:
Early Spring Snow Sprout 1 oz Box
Exceptionally sweet white tea made up only of the youngest downy buds from the 2016 spring harvest. This limited release tea has flavors of honey, wildflower, and peaches paired with a smooth, savory mouthfeel.
$19.99 / 1 oz
This tea is shipping from Los Angeles
We also recommend
All contents © Copyright Intelligentsia Coffee, Inc. 2013. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Terms of Sale


text:
ok, im not proud of what i did but these are the facts of the situation. i recently got a phone call for work and was informed that i had to pass a 10 panel drug test before i could start, i smoked marijuana about 3 weeks ago and rather be safe than sorry i used synthetic urine in the whizzinator. this product should not have any drugs in it whatsoever. when i got my results back they told be that i recieved a non negative result for OXY and that it was being sent to the lab for confirmation. how could have happened. the syntheic urine should have NOTHING in it that is detectable. im sitting here waiting to here from the lab to see what they find. is there anyway the test strip that they used malfunctioned? will the lab be able to rule out any drugs in the urine? please help. Your answers and opinions mean the world to me and i respect everyones replys
How could I have failed my urine test for oxy?
- Asked
- 20 Dec 2011 by big guy t
- Active
- 21 Dec 2011
- Topics
- drug test, urine test, urine
Responses (1)
The lab will probably confirm that there was no oxycodone in it but they will also probably find out that you used synthetic urine. Test strips do get false positives sometimes but the lab shouldnt if they do a test like a GC/MS test but it will detect the false urine more than likely.
i dont think they can detect the synthetic urine unless they do a DNA test on it. ive been reading all over the web all day to see if the lab can detect the fake urine and found nothing. i also called the company that makes the fake urine and askedn them if it can be detected and theyb said no. only by a exspensive dna test that is super rarely done. what do you think?
I honestly dont know. It is a risk either way. If they detect MJ your job could be in jeopardy and if they detect fake urine they know you are hiding something and you add the offense of trying to falsify results too. I, personally, wouldnt trust something like that and I dont believe in claims that taking a substance can clean your urine either. In my experience only time and metabolism can do that reliably. I have a job where I can have random testing too so I just gave all of that up. That way I dont have to worry about it if the pull a random. I wish you the best of luck! If it were me I'd just stop smoking-it is not worth my job and my families livlihood, ya know? Especially if you get by with it this time-but that's just me.
When you contacted the makers of the fake urine, did you ask them why you'd come up pos for oxy?
yes i did contact the company and they said that there is no way that there could have been oxy in that product. they said that the test strip had to have malfunctioned and that the lab test would confirm that im clean. but they also said that if the urine product was expired, then it would come back as diluted and not positive for oxy. the only way the positive result for oxy could have came up was a bad test/dip stick. could this have happened? what are the chances of that happening?
Search for questions
Still looking for answers? Try searching for what you seek or ask your own question.
Similar Questions
Has anyone had a false positive urine screen drug test for oxycodone (test was positve for oxy),?
Posted 19 Feb 2010 • 1 answer
Can the drug Protonix cause a false positive for marijuana in a urine drug test?
Posted 15 Sep 2010 • 1 answer
Can monistat or vagisil cause a failed urine screen for alcohol?
Posted 10 Oct 2011 • 1 answer
I failed my drug test for benzos I havnt taken any benzos so what can mak me test postiv for them?
Posted 1 Mar 2012 • 1 answer
Can amoxicillin cause a false positive for cannibis on a urine test ?
Posted 22 Apr 2012 • 1 answer


text:
Double 1/2" scale miniature window with dollhouse shutters.
1 13/16"W x 2 15/16"H x 3/8"D
Fits Opening: 1 9/32"W x 2 25/32"H x 5/16"D
Acrylic and interior trim not included.
Scale: 1/24
Assembly Required:
No1/24 scale, also referred to as half-inch scale (or 1/2" scale), means 1/2 inch = 1 foot
miniatures.com is dedicated to bringing you quality items at the best prices, and
we stand behind our products 100 percent. Satisfaction guaranteed. If, for any reason,
you are not completely satisfied with your order from miniatures.com, simply return
it to us within 30 days. We are more than happy to exchange it or provide you with
a credit or refund.


text:
Also there are bad tempered Irishmen with Ipods, who would think nothing about kicking your dogs into the sea. You really need your wits about you when walking dogs.
In reply to:be warned, Dara, in Scandinavia you'd be considered quite creepy if you make conversation with someone on the bus
be warned, Dara, in Scandinavia you'd be considered quite creepy if you make conversation with someone on the bus
One thing I'm gathering from my time at TW is: you foreigners are bloody weird. Here in Ireland, talking is seen as a good thing, a joyful thing, a thing to be encouraged between people, even (or especially) strangers. But now you tell me it's seen as creepy in Scandinavia, and according to Marquis, it's not even acceptable at a (Halloween) party.How do you people ever get to know each other?Slan leat,Dara"Ireland is a great country to go to if you think you're drinking too much. Because it turns out you're not even close"
In reply to:How do you people ever get to know each other?
How do you people ever get to know each other?
They don't -- That's why they're here There's Old Wave TW There's New Wave TW And there's Strawman
Mine's a 60GB Ipod Photo.Totally fucken wasted on me. I can barely be bothered to load stuff on it. In fact, the only time new stuff gets on it is when others do it for me.Still, I'll probably upgrade to a Douglas J. Presidential soon. Because that's what all the cool people have.I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.
Finally lashed out and got an IPOD - the 160 GIG Classic. Essentially, I've been waiting for the capacity to increase to fit my entire music collection - minus bootlegs. So far I have ripped over 13,000 songs and it is not even half full!_________________________________________________________ADAM VS BOWIE MASH UP PROJECT - | - BOWIE DOWNUNDER
I got the 80 gig one a few months ago. Even though I settled with shittier sound quality, I'm running out of space fast!I don't get along with myselfAnd I'm not too keen on anyone else
One of the reviewers for the 160 gig IPOD said something like "who in the hell has 40,000 songs?".....they obviously don't know mad bastards like us. I'm currently ripping my collection at 192 kbps......hopefully I won't regret that further down the track._________________________________________________________ADAM VS BOWIE MASH UP PROJECT - | - BOWIE DOWNUNDER
That's what I told myself when I was feverishly trying to decide which one to buy! Of course, I ended up using the left over money on cds. Well, cds and booze.By the time I had uploaded most of my records on the iPod, I realized that my choice was less than perfect. To make it worse, I ended up getting around 30 (mostly second hand) cds during the holidays. When you study in a crummy little university town, getting back to civilization is promptly followed by a major culture shock that will drain your wallet faster than you can yell "Oh my god, is that the latest LCD Soundsystem album!?"Yeah, I need help...I don't get along with myselfAnd I'm not too keen on anyone else
This is my iPOD:____________________ClaudeMySpace
In reply to:Finally lashed out and got an IPOD - the 160 GIG Classic.
Finally lashed out and got an IPOD - the 160 GIG Classic.
Respec I found with mine though, that I don't want most of my cds on it, except the new ones (which are few and far between). I just played the CDs so much when they were new that I can't listen to them a lot anymore. Even if I miss an album after not hearing it for a while, I can only listen to it on the iPod for a week or two then I'm sick of it again. I just like listening to lots of new music and some cool oldies.Which is why I tend to listen to RRR a lot and am holding off on buying a new iPod for the time being.my face is finished, my body's gone and i can't help but think,standin' up here in all this applause and gazin' down at all the young and the beautiful with their questioning eyes,that i must above all things love myself


text:
Charleston, W.Va. (AP) -- If not for a last-minute amendment this year, West Virginia would likely have a partial ban on cell phone use while driving.
Kanawha County delegate Nancy Peoples Guthrie says she doesn't plan to waste that momentum.
The democrat says an interim committee is crafting a bill that will aim at banning texting outright for drivers while possibly restricting talking on cell phones.
Guthrie hopes that a proposal in Washington to make millions of dollars available to states that adopt such laws will help the legislation.
This year, Guthrie's bill passed the house by a wide margin but failed in the senate on the final day of the session.
An unrelated amendment was added to the bill, which effectively killed it as time expired.
(Copyright 2009 by the Associated Press. All rights reserved.)


text:
Definition of overtype in English:
verb[with object]
Type over (another character): overtype it with the correct number and press Return
More example sentences
- This meant that whenever I wanted to hit the 'Delete' key, I ended up pressing 'Insert' instead, and overtyping a bunch of text.
- Overtyping the text (select all and type) wraps the content in p tags.
A facility or operating mode allowing overtyping.
Example sentences
- How do I turn off overtype with the Insert key in Word permanently?
- Overtype is off.
For editors and proofreaders
Syllabification: o·ver·type
Definition of overtype in:
What do you find interesting about this word or phrase?
Comments that don't adhere to our Community Guidelines may be moderated or removed.
= trending


text:
Latin America (en español) | China (中文)
> More search options
> Fewer search options
Author(s): Calavita, Nico and Alan Mallach
Publication Date: July 2010
1 pages; Inventory ID LLA100706; English
Inclusionary housing originated in the United States during the early 1970s, and gradually spread to Canada, western Europe, and more recently to countries throughout the world. The initial intellectual impetus came from the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and the recognition of the close relationship between the pervasive racial segregation in American society and the land use regulation system that perpetuated it through what came to be known as exclusionary zoning. Indeed, the term inclusionary zoning was coined to contrast with the former term, and was first used to refer more broadly to any strategy designed to foster the production of affordable housing in otherwise exclusive and affluent suburban jurisdictions.
Editors Nico Calavita and Alan Mallach present a practical as well as theoretical focus to assess the outcomes of inclusionary housing programs as implemented in seven countries. Their two main objectives are to (1) describe why and how each country chose to adopt inclusionary policies; and (2) make sense of the variety of these approaches and discern what works and under what circumstances. Particular attention is given to the manner and extent to which each country's inclusionary policies create affordable housing, foster social inclusion, and either provide explicitly or result implicitly in the recapture of land value increments for public benefit.
The countries follow this rough typology: • two countries decentralize land use regulation via state or provincial schemes (United States and Canada);• two countries mandate inclusionary housing (Spain and Ireland);• two countries explicitly enable its use (England and France);• one country, until recently, provided for neither, thus prompting inclusionary housing as a local initiative (Italy); and • other countries (South Africa, Israel, India, New Zealand, Colombia, Malaysia, and the Netherlands) offer their own variations of inclusionary housing.
Global political shifts and changes in economic and social policy have all contributed to the emergence of inclusionary housing as arguably the most significant new public policy direction in the realm of social and affordable housing in recent decades. The chapter authors explore both how the cross-national variations in political, social, and economic cultures and conditions have led to different forms of inclusionary housing in the countries studied, and how it is working on the ground to address each country's need for better housing and greater social inclusion.
ContentsForeword, Juli Ponce Sole1. An International Perspective on Inclusionary Housing, Nico Calavita and Alan Mallach2. United States: From Radical Innovation to Mainstream Housing Policy, Alan Mallach and Nico Calavita 3. Canada: Social Inclusion in a Market-Driven Polity, Alan Mallach and Nico Calavita4. England: Affordable Housing Through the Planning System: The Role of Section 106, Sarah Monk5. Ireland: The Sudden Emergence of Inclusionary Housing, Nico Calavita and Alan Mallach6. France: Social Inclusion, Fair Share Goals, and Inclusionary Housing, Alan Mallach7. Spain's Constitutional Mandates: The Right to Housing, Land Value Recapture, and Inclusionary Housing, Nico Calavita, Joaquim Clusa, Sara Mur, and Robert Weiner8. Italy: Political Instability and the Struggle for Planning Equity, Nico Calavita and Giovanni Caudo9. The Global Reach of Inclusionary Housing, Alan Mallach10. Conclusions, Nico Calavita and Alan Mallach
About the EditorsNico Calavita is professor emeritus in the Graduate Program in City Planning at San Diego State University. Contact: email@example.com
Alan Mallach is a nonresident senior fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program of the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, and visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Contact: email@example.com
Inclusionary Housing in International Perspective: Affordable Housing, Social Inclusion, and Land Value RecaptureEdited by Nico Calavita and Alan Mallach2010 / 416 pages / Paper / $30.00ISBN: 978-1-55844-209-2
Ordering InformationContact Lincoln Institute atwww.lincolninst.edu


text:
Watch "America Before Columbus (2009)" Movie Online
It is the year 1491. America is a vast land with vast resources. Millions of bison roam beside huge forests, the waters are teeming with fish, and in the sky huge flocks of birds block out the sun. But America is not a pristine wilderness. It is an old continent, inhabited by a hundred million people. They live in complex urban societies that know little of each other. Some of them are expanding, others declining. On the Upper Mississippi River Valley is Cahokia, one of the continent's largest civilisations. From atop the Andes, the Inca rule a kingdom of six million. In the Amazon basin, the Beni people flourish. They have built a vast infrastructure of earthworks, orchards, canals and causeways. These peoples all have sophisticated agricultural techniques. They grow crops and domesticate animals unknown to the rest of the world.
Share this movie
|HTML code
|Forum code
IMDB page | Add to Favorite | Share
Full-Length Movie Sources Online
100% said link Ok!


text:
Fate and Fortune
Published: Thursday, January 9, 2014 at 12:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 at 11:43 p.m.
I am extremely fortunate. I have never collected unemployment. I have never needed or used food stamps. I have not worked for minimum wage since I was 15.
As a veteran, I have not needed veteran health care benefits. I have never needed or had welfare assistance. I do collect a very small Social Security check. I am on Medicare and have other health care insurance as well. I went to college on the GI Bill and was able to work several jobs at the same time.
Yes, I have been extremely fortunate. I have not needed these programs, and yet I believe they are important for those less fortunate.
I want my congressional representatives to support extended unemployment. Food stamps for poor people are needed and should be increased, not cut.
Veterans benefits should be provided and not cut.
Medicaid for those in need should be made available and not denied for political purposes. I want the minimum wage to be increased.
Social Security should not be cut, nor should Medicare or Medicaid.
This is a country that should be by and for the people, all the people, not just the wealthy people and corporations.
So I will try to get my governor and all congressional representatives to support these things also.
If you share these beliefs, please do what you can to get all of the above to support them too.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
Open Source is global in nature. You can develop a database in, say, Finland or Sweden, and become known in, say, Ukraine or the United States.
This would imply that Open Source knows no borders.
In practice, borders hamper Open Source work a lot. I have been familiar with the hassle involving MySQLers in Russia and the Ukraine trying to get Schengen (European Union) and US visas for meetings. And I have myself gone through a lot of hassle travelling to Russia and once even (out of my own stupidity and carelessness, though) been denied entry to India when I …[Read more...]


text:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:10:53 -0400, DFS wrote:
> "I am kinda new to this whole linux os and so far its not leaving a good
> taste in my mouth
> I have a Prolaint dl580 with 4 zeon 700 mhz processors and 2.5 gigs of
> memory, on board video card Rage i think and an onboard sound card and 4
> compaq 9.1 gb hard drives setup in a raid configuration
> I have tested the memory in blocks of four and the computer locks up no
> matter what 4 i put in it.
> it's almost like clock work every 15-20 mins it freezes up right on the
> head."
> http://forums.suselinuxsupport.de/in...opic=61367&hl=
They need Kelsey over there!!
Nobody can run Linux on ancient hardware like Kelsey!!
She is the expert!
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:


text:
ASPEN " Paparazzi have run Goldie Hawn out of Aspen.
The movie star has been visiting and living part time in the area for more than 25 years, but over the holidays, aggressive celebrity photographers kept her out of the town she loves, she said.
"They're right on top of you," Hawn said Wednesday. "They follow you wherever you go. It's an insult to your being."
Hawn lives with longtime companion Kurt Russell on their Old Snowmass ranch she
called "our safe haven." She won't give up the Snowmass ranch, but she said hoards of paparazzi made her feel "hunted" on two shopping trips to town over the holidays.
"None of us are publicity hounds," Hawn said. She added that paparazzi also stalk her daughter Kate Hudson, who just "wants to do her good work."
In the past, Hawn said, she could wander Aspen at will, adding that the few celebrity-spotters or photographers were once discreet.
"We were free," Hawn said. "But it ain't like the old days anymore."
Hawn noticed more photographers in Aspen in the 2006-07 holiday season, but said the celebrity hunters turned aggressive during the most recent holidays.
"They've come into our little town and they really have done their job: They've shooed us out," Hawn said.
Hawn accused photographers of recently chasing her along Highway 82 and staking out in front of her home.
"You find yourself running and dodging and jumping in your car," she said. "I can't go into my own town. I hurt for my children. It's not fair."
When Hawn gets dolled up for a night on the town in New York or L.A., she expects some attention and said she has some choice about her anonymity, she said.
But not so in Aspen, Hawn said. And being "hunted" by packs of photographers sets off a fight-or-flight response, Hawn said.
"It's now to a point where it's actually damaging to the psyche," Hawn said. "You think for a minute that you're OK or you're alone ... It's a weird feeling."
Hawn said leaving the ranch means she has to wear "protective armor."
"You have to buckle your whole system up," Hawn said. "You have to be made of steel."
It's hard enough for young celebrities like her daughter to deal with the "phenomenon" of fame, but the effects of being hounded by photographers can be damaging, she said.
"Celebrities have always been looked upon as the lucky ones," Hawn said. "I think what people don't realize is that success is much more difficult to deal with than just normal life."
People separate themselves from iconic figures and celebrities, Hawn said.
"It's them and us," Hawn said. "Let's all enjoy and be compassionate to one another."
Celebrity photographers are just out to catch celebs at their worst, whether young and misbehaving or showing their age, Hawn said.
"People want to know the bad news," Hawn said.
Today's paparazzi are not photographers at all, Hawn said, but "guys that just have nothing to do."
It's the many media outlets that spawn what Hawn called a "syndicate" of people scampering to fill websites and TV shows based on celebrity content.
"They use you to fill content," Hawn said. "They're stealing your person."
While the Aspen police have been "awesome" in dealing with incidents, Hawn said she is frustrated that there isn't much they can do.
"If I was mayor, I'd probably tell them they can't come in," Hawn said.
Hawn actually discussed the issue with Mayor Mick Ireland over the telephone Wednesday. Ireland listened, but advised Hawn to turn the tables by photographing the paparazzi.
"Anything we would do would just make it worse," he said after the conversation with Hawn, adding that any anti-paparazzi ordinance would bring out defenders of the First Amendment.
"It is abusive," Ireland said of paparazzi chasing visitors. "It's just inconsiderate."
The days of Aspen as a haven for the likes of gliterati are gone, Ireland said, adding, "There's no safe haven."


text:
Ava previews Harford's Most Beautiful Baby contestUPDATED 9:41 AM EDT May 08, 2012
Ava Marie hangs out in Harford County with some beautiful babies who took part in a race to preview this weekend's Harford's Most Beautiful Baby content that's being held at the Harford Mall starting at 10 a.m. To find out more about it, click here.
More Video
CommentsThe views expressed are not those of this site, this station or its affiliated companies. By posting your comments you agree to accept our terms of use.blog comments powered by Disqus
Latest from WBAL-TV 11
AdvertisingLocal Business Spotlight


text:
2010-04-08 18:33:00
Tom DiPerna, Denver, Colo.
With all of the talk in the hockey world surrounding the final days of Keith Tkachuk, Mike Modano and Mellon Arena, lost in the shuffle of things is the sad truth this may be the last we see of Rod Brind'Amour.
Much like Modano and Tkachuk, Rod "The Bod" was known a leader whose loyalty and dedication to his teams were unmatched. He was rewarded for his grit and tenacity by twice winning the Selke Trophy and by winning a Stanley Cup as the captain of the Hurricanes in 2006.
Throughout his career, Brind'Amour exemplified to young players what it takes to have a long and productive NHL career and his contributions to both the Hurricanes and hockey in general will not be forgotten.


text:
Wanna be a Rock Star?
By user718688 on Feb 16, 2011
We just launched the Oracle PartnerNetwork Specialized Partner Premier site, a new site specifically targeted to customers, partners and Oracle employees. The site is all about "You", our partners, who have achieved one or more of the over 50 specializations available today.
Specialized. Recognized. Preferred.
Yes, that's you - the chosen vendors. And just for you we're going to produce videos starring "You" and your stories which will available everywhere Oracle customers, partners and employees are. Sundance may be over but we're just getting started. This is just one of the new benefits, want more?
Industry Analyst Firm, IDC offers kudos and says Oracle's premier "approach to putting top partners front and center with customers and prospects" has "raised the bar." We'll be advertising this site all over Oracle's major websites to give our specialized partners their deserved recognition. Bring on the buttered popcorn!
Lights! Camera! What are you waiting for? http://www.oracle.com/specialized.
Need to get specialized? Check out how:


text:
DEMY MONDE: The Cinema of Jacques Demy
If you've ever felt that the world would be a better place if people talked less and sung and danced a lot more, then you already have an affinity for the enchanting vision of Jacques Demy. His twin masterpieces are The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and The Young Girls of Rochefort, both starring Catherine Deneuve, operatic melodramas of sorrow and joy, respectively.
Add to these Anouk Aimee in Lola and Model Shop, Jeanne Moreau in Bay of Angels, and Dominique Sanda in Une Chambre en ville, and you have one of the most beguiling careers in cinema.
All newly restored on DCP.
Extra: Kids get in to DONKEY SKIN free, Xmas Eve and Boxing Day.
Films in this Series
No films in this series.


text:
As the temperature rises, ice begins to melt and fall from the 16 WAPT tower onto vehicles below.
No email address was supplied by
To complete your registration on this site, please supply an address.
Please confirm or modify the email address to which you will have subscription offers sent.
For a more personalized experience, please supply the following optional information.


text:
Robot Kits
Compare all products in this category
The Pololu Zumo chassis is a tracked robot platform that is small enough to qualify for Mini Sumo competitions and works with a variety of micro metal gearmotors. You can use this chassis as the base for your custom robot or get one of our more complete Zumo robots, which include electronics designed specifically for the Zumo chassis.
Capable of speeds exceeding 3 feet per second, the Pololu 3pi is a great first robot for ambitious beginners and a perfect second robot for those looking to move up from non-programmable or slower beginner robots. It is designed to excel in line following and maze solving, but this little robot can do a lot more than that!
Tamiya's wide range of affordable, beginner-level robot kits are easy to assemble and require no soldering.
Intermediate to advanced kits that require soldering.
Beginner to advanced kits that do not require soldering.


text:
- News
- Channels
- eLearning
- Community
- Events
- Buyers Guide
- Multimedia
- Magazine
Military Microwaves Supplement
Space Fence Radar
Characterization of Single-Shot Large-Signal Phenomena
Device and PA Circuit Level Validations
Anritsu Company is the American subsidiary of Anritsu Corporation, a global provider of innovative communications solutions for more than 110 years. Anritsu is a global leader in the telecommunications, optical and wireless industries through its diverse product offerings ranging from test and measurement solutions to high-speed devices and components for use in R&D, production and maintenance.
Since incorporating in 1895, Anritsu has been leading the way in innovation. Among the company's advances are the world's first 43.5 GHz 4-channel ultra high-speed error detector, and the V and K connectors. Innovation has stretched into the field, as Anritsu introduced the Site Master™ handheld cable and antenna analyzer nearly a decade ago, which redefined the field measurement market.
Those market innovations have helped Anritsu grow through the years and the company now has more than 3,900 employees and is represented in 90 countries for a global presence. Manufacturing is done in Morgan Hill, CA; Atsugi, Japan; and Stevenage, England. US sales headquarters are in Richardson, TX. Additional sales and service offices are within the US, as well as in Canada, Latin America, Europe, Asia and Japan.
A commitment to developing test and measurement solutions for Next Generation Networks (NGNs) is evident in Anritsu's present product offering. Anritsu unveiled the first operational LTE signaling analyzer earlier this year when its MD8430A conducted 100 Mbps downlink demonstrations at CTIA. Anritsu was also the first company to release field test solutions for Fixed and Mobile WiMAX, and is working with partners to develop other instruments used in the development, manufacturing, deployment and maintenance of NGNs.
Holding a market leadership position is nothing new for Anritsu. Its handheld cable and antenna analyzers are now the de facto industry standard for base station deployment, installation and maintenance. Anritsu has also been the market leader in Bluetooth test for years.
Anritsu continues to be one of the leading test and measurement suppliers to the Department of Defense (DoD) and other branches of the US government, and to the contractors supporting them. As commercial wired and wireless technologies migrate into government applications, Anritsu is leveraging its worldwide industry leadership to provide a full complement of solutions supporting core programs in the Global Information Grid, including MUOS, FCS, and JTRS, and the Department of Homeland Security.
• BER Testers
• Optical Test Instruments
• Bluetooth Testers
• Power Meters
• Conformance Test Systems
• Scalar Network Analyzers
• Handheld Base Station Analyzers
• Signal Generators
• Handheld Cable and Antenna Analyzers
• Signaling Analyzers
• Handheld Vector Network Analyzer
• Spectrum Analyzers
• Jitter Test Solutions
• Vector Network Analyzers
Anritsu Company
1155 East Collins Blvd., Suite 100
Richardson, TX 75081
Toll Free: 1-800-267-4878
Phone: +1-972-644-1777
Fax: +1-972-671-1877
Get access to premium content and e-newsletters by registering on the web site. You can also subscribe to Microwave Journal magazine.


text:
Think your friends might be familiar with this merchant? Ask your friends on Facebook to see what they think.
They save the day!!! I had two of my dogs spend a little over a week. Maximus the not so friendly of the 2 was a changed doogie. Terry went as far as to email me videos of him playing in the yard with others dogs. Which to this day I could never bring him to a dog park. I was so happy with the service and felt comfortable leaving my guys there.
I would highly recommend this kennel for your boarding needs. The location is fabulous and easy to access. The staff are friendly, efficient, helpful, and caring. The cost is totally reasonable and worth every penny. I was dealing with an emergency at the time I used their facility and they made it very easy for me and were extremely helpful and genuine. I will definitely be using this service again, and I highly suggest you do as well!
|Closed On Wednesday


text:
Zev Freidus is the Qualifying Broker for Boca Executive Realty, LLC. After relocating to Boca Raton from New York in 1998, Zev began his real estate career by investing in residential properties in Boca Raton. Zev's prior experience includes several notable management positions including Sr Product Marketing Manager with The General Electric Co. After several years working as Realtor and then General Manager of a local residential realty company, Zev obtained his Broker license and founded Boca Executive Realty, LLC, a full service residential brokerage firm that specializes in luxury Boca Raton Real Estate.read more…
Lake Worth: Atlantis: PRICED TO SELL NOW! HANDYMAN SPECIAL WONDERFUL GATED COMMUNITY-SOLD AS IS.THIS HOME IS NESTLED IN A LOVELY COMMUNITY WITH THE POOL SITUATED RIGHT NEXT TO IT-LIKE HAVING YOUR OWN POOL!HUGE FLORIDA ROOM HAS SHUTTERS AND BECOMES AN EXTRA LIVING AREA. Wonderful opportunity to live in a jewel of a community-pool right outside your door-like having your very own pool without the upkeep.park in your carport which is right at your front door.
220 Rio Vista Cir Lake Worth, Florida is a 2 Bedroom, 2 Bathroom Home built in 1968, located in Atlantis. 220 Rio Vista Cir is 2,258 square feet with a Car garage. This Home has Ceramic Tile flooring.
220 Rio Vista Cir Lake Worth, Florida was listed for sale with MLS# R3281117 by Lang Realty. This Home had been on the market since 2012-05-09 00:00:00 and sold on 2012-09-19 for $112,500.
220 Rio Vista Cir Lake Worth, Florida is part of a Homeowners Association, the Semi Yearly homowners fees are $1750.
For more information about the sale of 220 Rio Vista Cir in Lake Worth, please contact your Boca Executive Realty agent who can show you other Homes for sale in Atlantis or elsewhere in Palm Beach county.
The real estate listing data relating to 220 Rio Vista Cir Lake Worth Florida on the Boca Executive Realty website comes in part from a cooperative data exchange program of the multiple listing service (MLS) in which this real estate Broker participates. The homes in Lake Worth Atlantis displayed may not be all of the properties in the MLS's database, or all of the properties listed with Brokers participating in the cooperative data exchange program. Lake Worth Atlantis homes for sale that are listed by Brokers other than this Broker are marked with either the listing Broker's name or the MLS name or a logo provided by the MLS. The Detailed listing page about such properties includes the name of the listing Brokers. Information provided is thought to be reliable but is not guaranteed to be accurate. You are advised to verify facts that are important to you. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the data herein, or for their use or interpretation by the user. The Florida Association of Realtors and its cooperating MLSs do not create, control or review the property data displayed herein and take no responsibility for the content of such records. Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin in the sale, rental or financing of housing. Boca Executive Realty is an equal housing opportunity luxury real estate broker specializing in waterfront homes and country club communities such as Atlantis in Lake Worth Florida. Please contact us if you can not properly experience this site. All listings featuring the BMLS logo are provided by Beaches MLS Inc. Copyright 2013 Beaches MLS. This information is not verified for authenticity or accuracy and is not guaranteed. © 2013 Beaches Multiple Listing Service, Inc. All rights reserved.


text:
HuffPo has a good write-up of Friday's Fourth Circuit hearing on whether James Risen is entitled to a reporter's privilege in the Jeff Sterling case. It describes Judge Robert Gregory challenging DOJ appellate lawyer Robert Parker's claims that there is no privilege at all. And while Charlie Savage described the two other judges as harder to read, both stories noted Albert Diaz calling Branzburg v. Hayes–the SCOTUS precedent–"clear as mud."
I'm particularly interested in the way Gregory pushed back against Parker. He made a distinction between the crime that reporter Paul Branzberg witnessed–the preparation and consumption of hash–for which he was called to testify to a grand jury, and what Risen allegedly witnessed.
"I don't think there would be a balancing test because there's no privilege in the first place," Parker said. "The salient point is that Risen is the only eyewitness to this crime."
Gregory told Parker that the Supreme Court's Branzburg v. Hayes decision — which Parker cited as precedent for forcing journalists to testify when they had witnessed a crime — involved the witnessing of a different crime, "not the disclosure itself."
Parker said what Risen did was "analogous" to a journalist receiving drugs from a confidential source, and then refusing to testify about it.
"You think so?" Gregory asked, clearly unconvinced.
"The beneficiary of the privilege is the public … the people's right to know," Gregory said. "We need to know what the government is doing," he noted. "The king never wants anyone to disclose."
The challenge is interesting as a threshold level, because the Obama Administration has built a lot of their attacks against leaks on the notion that journalists are witnesses to a crime (Patrick Fitzgerald obtained Judy Miller's testimony on the same basis, though he did so though an application of the balancing test that Parker wants to throw out altogether).
Obama's DOJ has gone further, though: they appear to have approved the use of National Security Letters to obtain journalists' contacts in the most recent update of the DIOG. That would appear to allow them to learn the identity of sources journalists phone or email without any judicial review. Which in turn allows DOJ to determine a crime has been committed and based on that, eliminate journalists' confidentiality because they were "witnesses" to what DOJ has unilaterally determined is a crime.
If Gregory rejected the government's argument based on leaks being a different kind of crime, it would not only protect Risen's sources for his MERLIN story, but it would mean the government would have to curtail its use of NSLs to get journalist contacts (at least in the Fourth Circuit).
But this passage is revealing for another reason. As I said above, Branzberg was subponaed because he witnessed the use of illegal drugs. But Parker, in constructing his analogy, said receiving classified information from a source is like receiving illegal drugs, not just witnessing them. Note what that misapplication of the analogy does: It is not illegal to witness the use of drugs, but it is illegal to possess illegal drugs.
In other words, though no law supports such a suggestion, DOJ is now arguing that journalists who receive classified information are themselves criminals, just like those who possess hash.
Someone's smoking something awful at DOJ.
In his statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Attorney General Holder tried to stave off questions about Fast and Furious by asserting that "gun walking" is wrong.
I want to be clear: any instance of so-called "gun walking" is unacceptable. Regrettably, this tactic was used as part of Fast and Furious, which was launched to combat gun trafficking and violence on our Southwest Border. This operation was flawed in concept, as well as in execution. And, unfortunately, we will feel its effects for years to come as guns that were lost during this operation continue to show up at crimes scenes both here and in Mexico. This should never have happened. And it must never happen again.
It's a statement he repeated a number of times during the hearing.
The emphasis on the problems with the technique of letting illegal guns pass into Mexico to allow the ATF to trace straw buyers represents a shift in the way Democrats are dealing with the Fast and Furious scandal by looking at similar efforts made under Attorney General Mukasey.
For example, to undercut Darrell Issa's efforts on Oversight, Elijah Cummings has asked him to include the earlier instances under Mukasey.
A briefing paper prepared for Attorney General Michael Mukasey during the Bush administration in 2007 outlined failed attempts by federal agents to track illicitly purchased guns across the border into Mexico and stressed the need for U.S. and Mexican law enforcement officials to work together on such efforts using a tactic that now is generating controversy.The information contained in one paragraph of a lengthy Nov. 16, 2007, document marks the first known instance of an attorney general being given information about the tactic known as "gun-walking." It since has become controversial amid a probe by congressional Republicans criticizing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for using it during the Obama administration in an arms-trafficking investigation called Operation Fast and Furious that focused on several Phoenix-area gun shop
Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote to the panel's Republican chairman, Darrell Issa of California, asking that he call Mukasey to testify about his knowledge of the program.
"Given the significant questions raised by the disclosures in these documents, our committee's investigation will not be viewed as credible, even-handed, or complete unless we hear directly from Attorney General Mukasey," Cummings wrote.
It's nice our elected officials are coming to the conclusion that it's not a good idea to intentionally deal guns directly to people with ties to drug cartels.
But then why is Eric Holder's DOJ prosecuting Jeff Sterling for allegedly exposing CIA's practice of dealing nuclear blueprints to Iran (while, at the same time, alerting them to the flaws in those blueprints designed to sabotage their nuclear program)?
After all, if selling guns to cartel members presents unacceptably high possibility for unintended consequences, doesn't passing on nuclear blueprints to Iran present an even greater risk?
And if that's true, and if DOJ agrees that the ATF officers who exposed this program are whistleblowers, then doesn't it follow that Sterling allegedly was, too?
If, as the Attorney General himself maintains, Fast and Furious was "flawed in concept, as well as in execution," then what distinguishes it from Merlin?
While I was away in South Carolina, the government released the redacted copy of Leonie Brinkema's order on several issues relating to the Jeffrey Sterling case (the government immediately appealed aspects of this ruling).
There are several interesting aspects of the ruling. First, Brinkema refused to let the government admit the talking points Condi Rice used to convince the NYT not to publish the Merlin story back in 2003 without Rice testifying herself. Although the ruling will probably have a negligible affect in this case, I nevertheless find it ironic, given that the government gave up prosecuting two former AIPAC employees when their defense attorney Abbe Lowell threatened to call Rice to testify about her A1 cutout habits.
Also, Brinkema is allowing the government to introduce a redacted copy of Sterling's 2000 performance evaluation, presumably so they can argue that Sterling leaked the details about Merlin out of anger that his Equal Opportunity complaint went nowhere. I find this troubling. When that suit was litigated, the government declared state secrets over something, presumably the real performance review. Given the possibility the review referred to Merlin, it seems unfair to allow the government to use the performance review against Sterling without releasing the whole thing (if that is, in fact, what the government invoked state secrets over).
But I'm most interested in what Brinkema's order suggests about the government's effort to deal with CIA witnesses. The government, it appears, wants to keep the names of 10 former and current CIA employees who will testify secret from both the defense and the jury.
[T]he Court will hold in abeyance pending further briefing the Government's request not to disclose, even under seal, to the defendant or jury the true names of these witnesses as they testify.
Brinkema's planned approach–in addition to using screens to hide the witnesses, she plans to delay the time when potential jurors would get a list of potential witnesses–suggests these names might be publicly recognizable.
Specifically, asking potential jurors if they recognize the names of any witnesses will be delayed until a qualified pool of jurors is established and jurors stricken for cause have been excused from the courtroom. Then, as groups of jurors are considered for peremptory challenge, they will be shown an alphabetical list containing the full names of all witnesses, with no other identifying information. Any jurors recognizing a witness's name will be stricken for cause. Because the witness list will contain the full names of many CIA employees whose identities the Government wants to protect, it will remain classified; however, a redacted list will become part of the public record.
Of course, this trial will take place in Northern Virginia; it's quite possible that these CIA witnesses are neighbors or friends of potential jurors. And the government has a clear interest in preventing these potential jurors from learning that their neighbors are actually spooks.
But as the video above makes clear, at least one of the former CIA employees who might be called to testify, Valerie Plame, would be recognizable to a far larger group of people–those who even remotely followed the CIA Leak Case (I think Valerie would have been on maternity leave during the actual events described in Risen's book). And this filing (see PDF 5-6)–an argument laying out Pat Lang's proposed testimony refuting the government's claim that the information Sterling allegedly leaked hurt the country–shows Lang read the FBI interview reports of 22 witnesses; the last name of two of those witnesses, one classified, one apparently not, starts with a "W."
Mind you, I'm not suggesting the government doesn't already have very good reason to want to hide the CIA affiliation of these 10 proposed witnesses–they do, which is part of the reason their case may be in trouble, since these witnesses will be used, in part, to prove Sterling's alleged leaks were serious. Sterling has a clear right to confront his accusers, but the government wants to ensure he doesn't even know their real names (this may be one of the things the government is appealing).
But I wanted to raise the possibility that they want to hide at least one of these identities not because the identity remains classified–Dick Cheney ruined that–but instead out of a desire to avoid confirming that Plame played a role in the Merlin operation.
I was meaning to write a post on this filing in the Jeffrey Sterling case, largely to point out the government is trying to prevent Sterling from arguing that everyone–particularly John Brennan–leaks.
The Court should bar the defendant from presenting any evidence, argument or comments of selective prosecution or that everybody leaks classified information.
Not only is such evidence not probative on the issue of whether the defendant committed the charged crimes, but the introduction of such evidence or arguments would force mini-trials over the similarities and differences between the present prosecution and every other specific instance of leaked classified information. Fights over the classification levels of the information, the potential damage caused to the United States, and a host of other issues would consume and overwhelm the real issues in this case.
The motion is particularly amusing not just because it was submitted at the very same time senior officials–including Brennan, who was involved in the underlying issues in this case–were leaking state secrets for days. And because, a week after this, the Defense did file a still-sealed selective prosecution motion. Moreover, the government's case citations don't address the instant issue: that the prosecuting agency itself–DOJ–leaks with impunity. It's one thing to say other non-governmental criminals commit the same crime without being prosecuted; it's another to say the agency prosecuting Sterling doesn't prosecute people within its own agency that commit the same alleged crime.
Alas, I am going to have to, instead, focus instead on the motion to prevent Sterling from presenting any evidence that the Russian Scientist tasked with handing off faulty blueprints to the Iranians might be James Risen's source.
The court should bar the defendant from presenting any evidence or any argument regarding alternative perpetrators absent some non-speculative evidence of a connection to Risen and some knowledge of or access to Classified Program No. 1. Specifically, absent such nonspeculative evidence, the caselaw forecloses the defendant from presenting any evidence or making any argument regarding the following:
Arguments or comments that Human Asset No. 1 was Risen's source and disclosed the national defense information contained within Chapter 9;
Of course, all this is happening while the government is simultaneously trying to get comments the Russian Scientist made to his case officer when Risen's book came out admitted into evidence, while at the same time trying to prevent Sterling from subpoenaing the underlying documents that might show the Russian had to be Risen's source.
The government, you see, wants to admit evidence that the Russian was scared Risen's revelations put his safety at risk.
On or about January 23, 2006, after having read Chapter 9 and the information contained therein for the first time, Human Asset No. 1 contacted his CIA case officer and requested an unscheduled meeting. Human Asset No. 1 subsequently met with his CIA case officer and reported his fears and personal safety concerns for himself and his family. The case officer contemporaneously memorialized Human Asset No. 1's fears in a cable. See Dkt. 153, CIPA Exhibit 47. That cable demonstrates that Human Asset No. 1 made his statements to his CIA case officer while still "under the stress of excitement" caused by the level of detail identifying him as the asset involved in Classified Program No. 1. In addition, the CIA case officer will testify at trial that he had never seen Human Asset No. 1 so shaken and scared than on that day as Human Asset No. 1 reported his fears and concerns to him.
The government moved to enter this cable after the defense had already apparently (the filing is heavily redacted) pointed out that Risen's book had not identified the Russian scientist–the defense appears to want to call Pat Lang to support this point–but also to note that the Russian would have had as much reason to want to discredit the CIA as Sterling allegedly would after he had been put in the position of dealing bad documents to Iran.
More interesting, Sterling suggests that the Russian may be the only person who had a document mentioned in Risen's book. One possibility is a written report the Russian made of his trip. Another is the content of the cover letter he wrote warning the Iranians that there was something wrong with the blueprints.
But most notably–given the claims and counter-claims about what Risen's narrative style might indicate about his sources–the Defense notes that much of the narrative of MERLIN is focalized through the Russian.
Human Asset No. 1 obviously had knoweldge of almost all of the information that appears in Chapter Nine. Indeed, there are portions of that Chapter that detail actions about which only Human Asset No. 1 had first-hand knowledge and those portions of the Chapter are written from the perspective of Human Asset No. 1. See, e.g. State of War at 194-95 ("I'm not a spy, he thought to himself. I'm a scientist. What am I doing here?"); Continue reading
Let me just say I do not relish seeing William Welch making precisely the point I have made in one of his filings. When you read this,
That Mr. Feldstein's opinions are unreliable and based on no method at all is underscored by their internal inconsistency. He opines that "all statements in Chapter Nine that seem to indicate the potential identity of sources must not be taken at face value," Attachment A at 3. Yet at the same time, he also concludes that "taken at face value, Mr. Risen had multiple sources" for Chapter Nine, including multiple human sources and documentary sources. Id. Moreover, because such testimony has a substantial likelihood of confusing the jury, it is also inadmissible under Rule 403.
You'd almost think Welch had read this,
The filing goes on to suggest that because Risen used this same technique he succeeded in hiding his sources.
Chapter 9 of State of War attributes thoughts and motivations hoth the "the Russian scientist" and to "the CIA case offcer." It is not possible to infer from this attribution whether Mr. Risen spoke directly to both of these individuals, one of them or neither of them, in gathering the information contained in Chapter 9, much less what information, if any, either individual provided Mr. Risen.
Now, in the literary world, scholars are cautious about making definitive statements about the intentionality of the author (particularly as with books like this, which have clearly been edited to make the book a good read). But I'll grant that a good investigative journalist might be (though might not be) a lot more cautious about the legal implications of the narrative voice used than a fiction writer.
But there's another problem. The filing later suggests a reader can draw conclusions from the narrative presentation of evidence.
Taken at face value, Mr. llsen had multiple sources for the portion of Chapter 9 of State of War that discusses a CIA operation to provide flawed information to Iran's nuclear program. These sources include multiple human sources as well as documentary sources, which may have been provided to Mr. Risen by persons who also gave oral information to Mr. Risen or by others in addition to those who gave him oral information. Mr. Feldstein bases this opinion, in part, on the following examples: 1) page 197 of the book attributes information to a "secret CIA report"; 2) the material quoted at pages 204-05 of the book appears to have been quoted from a documentary source; 3) page 208 attributes views to unnamed "offcials": 4) page 211 cites "several former CIA offcials"; and 5) page 211 indicates that the Senate Selcct Committee on Intellgence received information about the program from the "CIA case offcer," but states the Committee took no action.
Sterling's team is trying to have it both ways, drawing on Feldstein's amateurish identification of narrative voice to suggest one cannot draw conclusions about sources, then showing Feldstein doing just that based on the clear indications given in the narrative.
Say, Bill Welch? In case you're reading this post, you made almost as stupid an error in your request to preclude the defense's use of narratology at the Jeffrey Sterling trial as the defense did in trying to have it both ways. You try to argue that the typical juror would understand this stuff already. Trust me, I've taught this subject to literature majors and honors students at a good state university, and it is not commonly understood, even among uncommonly smart people.
But even funnier is the way you make this argument.
In addition to inadmissible speculation regarding sources, the defendant also intends to call this expert to testify regarding the fact that State of War is written in the "third-person omniscient narrative style." Attachment A at 1-2. The concept of a narrative voice, including the "third-person omniscient" narrative voice, does not require expert explanation. It is a common feature of high school reading curricula. See, e.g., English Standards of Learning in Virginia Public Schools 2 (2010), available at http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/english/ 2010/stds_english9.pdf; English Standards of Learning Curriculum Framework 2010: Grade Nine 12 (2010), available at http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing/sol/standards_docs/english /review.shtml. Because the concept of "point-of-view" is within the common knowledge and education of the average juror, it is inadmissible and properly excluded.
First, here are the correct links, in case Judge Brinkema wants to see the original references and gets lost by the 404 errors the URLs in the filing pull up.
But what the curriculum document you've linked to–and you yourself–are referring to is "point of view," not "third person omniscient" narrative.
The student will read, comprehend, and analyze a variety of literary texts including narratives, narrative nonfiction, poetry, and drama.
e) Explain the relationships between and among elements of literature: characters, plot, setting, tone, point of view, and theme.
i) Explain the influence of historical context on the form, style, and point of view of a written work.
Neither the word, "omniscient," nor the phrase "third person" appears in that curriculum document.
As even Wikipedia will tell you, "point of view" and "narrative voice" are different things. Both a first person and a third person narrative can use the same point(s) of view. The points of view (actually, focalization) James Risen used in the chapter in question is generally that of the Russian scientist and the case officer. We don't, for example, get access to the feelings of the "senior CIA officer," who might have been thinking that the "case officer" was being a big wuss about the doctored nuclear blueprints and should just suck it up and go on with the operation; we only get that person's statements. And in spite of the fact that Risen uses some fairly interesting narrative techniques to convey the thoughts of the Russian (as I noted in my last post), this is not told in a first person narrative in the voices of the two: we (generally) get not only the narrator's description of who said and thought what, but also a great deal of background about things like the IAEA, Russian nukes, and Nunn-Lugar that Risen is pretty damn knowledgeable about all by himself.
In other words, in the passage of the filing claiming that this stuff is known to VA's high school freshmen, Welch makes an error, incorrectly conflating two aspects of narrative (and frankly, the two that would need to be distinguished for anyone, government or defense, to make an argument at trial about what the style of Risen's text means about his sources).
Apparently, your average VA juror can be expected to know this stuff, but not a fancy government lawyer with degrees from Princeton and Northwestern.
Now, as I've said, I think this use of narratology in the court room is inappropriate, regardless of whether the defense or the prosecution attempts to use it (and both are trying to do so). I hope the defense responds to this filing by counter-filing that if their expert is precluded, the government should also be prevented from presenting their claims about what Risen's narrative techniques mean, since the lawyers involved are obviously incompetent to do so.
But I will say I'm having a bit of fun watching the debate about it.
You know, I very much want Jeffrey Sterling to defeat the government's attempt to criminalize whistleblowing. I very much want James Risen to succeed in avoiding expansive testimony in the Sterling case.
Sterling's lawyers plan to call Professor Mark Feldstein to make silly claims about a tie between the narrative voice an author uses and the sources he may or may not have relied on.
Mr. Feldstein wil testify that he has read Chapter 9 of State of War, authored by James Risen, and that based on his training, education, and experience as a working journalist and an academic studying journalism, will opine that it is written in the third person omniscient, a narrative style in which the reader ís presented the story by a narrator with an overarching perspective, seeing and knowing everything that happens within the world of the story, regardless of the presence of certain characters, including imputing to the characters' internal voices what they are thinking and feeling. This style has become increasingly popular with mainstream journalists in recent years, as exemplified by books authored by Bob Woodward. One effect of the third-person omniscient narrative style is that it tends to mask the identity of a story's sources, protecting both the anonymity of sources and disguising the number of sources. It is not uncommon using this style for an author to ascribe thoughts or motivations to particular "characters," whether or not the author has actually spoken directly to the individual to whom thoughts and motivations are being ascribed. Indeed, it is not an uncommon practice to ascribe thoughts and motives to an individual to whom the author has not spoken intentionally to obscure who the actual source(s) for a story were.
I have a number of problems with this.
First, the narrative voice is, in places, more nuanced than a simple "third person omniscient" voice–as when Risen interjects the direct speech (in this case, thought) of the Russian scientist without quotations:
The Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) wasn't the easiest office in Vienna to find.
They could have at least given me good directions.
As he stumbled along into Vienna's north end, in the unglamorous neighborhood surrounding the Parterstern U-Bahn station, the same question pounded in his brain again and again, but he couldn't find an answer.
What was the CIA thinking?
That doesn't negate the larger point–that Risen intersperses "characters'" thoughts with omniscient narrative. But it sort of makes the point seem amateur from a narratological standpoint.
Then there's the invocation of Woodward, that magic journalist's name, to obscure the point. Woodward made this style of reporting popular, the filing suggests, so it must be acceptable journalism.
But that suggests two things that are not in evidence. Woodward never really hides his sources. Why bother, when there is an unwritten "Woodward rule" that says he, and perhaps only he, will never be prosecuted for reporting top secret information? Thus we–at least I–am safe assuming Woodward spoke with precisely whom it appears he spoke with, not just because we know he is systematically accorded that kind of access, but because we know sanction for participation in his semi-official histories comes straight from the top.
Woodward uses this style to make it clear (or at least suggest) that these top officials are his sources, not to obscure the kind of top-level access everyone knows he has. It's his brand.
The filing goes on to suggest that because Risen used this same technique he succeeded in hiding his sources.
Chapter 9 of State of War attributes thoughts and motivations hoth the "the Russian scientist" and to "the CIA case offcer." It is not possible to infer from this attribution whether Mr. Risen spoke directly to both of these individuals, one of them or neither of them, in gathering the information contained in Chapter 9, much less what information, if any, either individual provided Mr. Risen.
Now, in the literary world, scholars are cautious about making definitive statements about the intentionality of the author (particularly as with books like this, which have clearly been edited to make the book a good read). But I'll grant that a good investigative journalist might be (though might not be) a lot more cautious about the legal implications of the narrative voice used than a fiction writer.
But there's another problem. The filing later suggests a reader can draw conclusions from the narrative presentation of evidence.
Taken at face value, Mr. llsen had multiple sources for the portion of Chapter 9 of State of War that discusses a CIA operation to provide flawed information to Iran's nuclear program. These sources include multiple human sources as well as documentary sources, which may have been provided to Mr. Risen by persons who also gave oral information to Mr. Risen or by others in addition to those who gave him oral information. Mr. Feldstein bases this opinion, in part, on the following examples: 1) page 197 of the book attributes information to a "secret CIA report"; 2) the material quoted at pages 204-05 of the book appears to have been quoted from a documentary source; 3) page 208 attributes views to unnamed "offcials": 4) page 211 cites "several former CIA offcials"; and 5) page 211 indicates that the Senate Selcct Committee on Intellgence received information about the program from the "CIA case offcer," but states the Committee took no action.
Sterling's team is trying to have it both ways, drawing on Feldstein's amateurish identification of narrative voice to suggest one cannot draw conclusions about sources, then showing Feldstein doing just that based on the clear indications given in the narrative.
And there's one more problem with the filing (that may not be problematic for Sterling's lawyers, per se, but should be for Feldstein).
The filing suggests that the profession of journalism tolerates when reporters use omniscience to hide their sources.
But the profession does not approve when journalists use omniscience to invent details they have no way of knowing. Witness the criticism of John Heilemann and Mark Halperin for doing just that in Game Change. One of the most prominent critiques–from the NYT–specifically took Heilemann and Halperin to task for not doing what Woodward does–showing some of his work.
They proceed in these pages to serve up a spicy smorgasbord of observations, revelations and allegations — some that are based on impressive legwork and access, some that simply crystallize rumors and whispers from the campaign trail, and some that it's hard to verify independently as more than spin or speculation on the part of unnamed sources. The authors mix savvy political analysis in these pages with detailed reconstructions of scenes and conversations they did not witness firsthand (like an exchange that Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton had on a beach in Anguilla). They employ the same sort of technique Bob Woodward has pioneered in his best-selling books: relying heavily on "deep background" interviews, along with e-mail messages, memorandums and other forms of documentation to create a novelistic narrative that often reflects the views of the authors' most cooperative or voluble sources. Unlike Mr. Woodward's last two books this volume has no source notes at the end.
To succeed, this defense effort has to basically argue that either Risen or his sources may have simply invented what the Russian scientist and the case officer said. It has to argue that Risen is the same kind of hackish reporter that Heilemann and Halperin are, evidence to contrary notwithstanding.
Now, suggesting Risen engaged in bad journalism is totally within the right of Sterling's lawyers as they mount a defense. And if it keeps him off the stand, I'm sure Risen won't be that bothered by the suggestion he either made shit up or allowed his sources to.
But the entire effort seems legally pointless, given that they're trying to use Feldstein both to point to other possible sources for Risen while at the same time claiming that Risen's narrative voice makes it impossible to do just that.
As Josh Gerstein reported, back in June, Jeffrey Sterling asked the government for details about which parts of James Risen's account of Merlin are true and which are false. His lawyers argue that Sterling cannot be guilty of disseminating national defense information if what he disseminated–as the government claims–was actually not true.
Now, at first glimpse, this seems to be a graymail attempt: an attempt to demand information from the government it will ultimately refuse to turn over.
In addition to details of the alleged operation, the defense is entitled to know if, as a result of the publication of State of War, the identity of Human Asset No. 1 was learned by any foreign power at all. It is entitled to know if because of the publication of State of War, the Iranians shelved plans to use the blue prints that they allegedly learned, due to the publication of State of War, were allegedly flawed. The defense is entitled to know if this "Rogue Operation," as described by Mr. Risen, did help the Iranian nuclear program in any way.
Some of this information, after all, would be the information Risen's sources would have been trying to get out in the first place; this is precisely the kind of information the government is trying to suppress by prosecuting this case. And the emphasis on whether Iran (or another country) learned this information from Risen's book–or from the operation itself–would make for an interesting question (though I suspect the government would retreat to a claim they've made before: that part of the damage comes in letting other countries know about this op).
But I'm also interested in Sterling's focus on expert witnesses: as of June 22, when this was filed, the government had not yet revealed to the defense what expert they would call to verify that this information was actually national defense information. I suspect part of what the defense is trying to do is force that issue–and in particular, learn whether that expert will be someone who was actually involved in the operation (and therefore could refute Sterling's version of what happened) or someone else, who would rely on second-hand information.
At a minimum, it must allow the defense to challenge the accuracy of that testimony by confronting the witness called by the government with the truth of what actually occurred.
I hope to come back to this issue in the coming days.
just as interesting as this attempt to get more information on what the government claims happened with the Merlin program is the timing. At one level, it seems very late in the process, almost a second swipe at a Bill of Particulars (the government responded to the first one by giving Sterling the chapter of Risen's book).
But remember that this filing also came before most of the filings on whether or not Risen will have to testify. I noted that in addition to everything else the government has said to support its subpoena of Risen, they also said he cannot protect a source who passed false information. Of course, they haven't proven that, they've simply gotten a grand jury to buy off on that.
It seems the stakes on whether information Sterling allegedly provided Risen was true or not have gone up. But that seems to be precisely the kind of information the government will want to keep out of court.
As Josh Gerstein reports, Leonie Brinkema has unsealed her November 2010 ruling quashing the government's subpoena of James Risen to testify before the grand jury. Gerstain describes several interesting details revealed in the ruling–including that the government withheld information, including details surrounding the 2005 testimony of, apparently, a Senate staffer. Go check out those details.
There are a couple of things I wanted to add to Gerstein's analysis, though.
First, when the subpoena was first announced, I suggested that it appeared that the government's inclusion of ticky tack charges like mail fraud seemed like an effort to invent a reason to require Risen's testimony.
It appears likely they planned to [subpoena Risen again] all along and crafted the charges against Sterling accordingly. For example, they claim they need Risen to testify, in part, to authenticate his book and the locale where alleged leaks took place.
Risen can directly identify Sterling as the individual who illegally transmitted to him national defense information concerning Classified Program No. 1 and Human Asset No. 1. Because he is an eyewitness, his testimony will simplify the trial and clarify matters for the jury. Additionally, as set forth below, Risen can establish venue for certain of the charged counts; can authenticate his book and lay the necessary foundation to admit the defendant's statements in the book; and can identify the defendant as someone with whom he had a preexisting source relationship that pre-dated the charged disclosures. His testimony therefore will allow for an efficient presentation of the Government's case.
Locale issues stem from mail fraud charges that appeared ticky tack charges up to this point. But the government is now arguing that that information–as distinct from whether Sterling served as a source for the information at issue–is critical to these ticky tack charges. Which, it seems they hope, would get them beyond any balancing test on whether Risen's testimony is crucial for the evidence at question.
As it turns out, Brinkema's opinion makes it clear that the biggest window she left the government to call Risen at trial was authentication.
Although the government might have a plausible argument that such authentication may be necessary at trial, it cannot argue that the government has a compelling interest in authenticating chapter 9 during grand jury proceedings.
But given that she has rejected the government's venue articles, it appears the mail fraud charges are a cheap attempt to enlarge the possible window of necessity of calling Risen for authentication.
In other words, it appears likely that Welch is just using a gimmick to try to force Risen to testify.
Which brings us to Risen's claim the government is harassing him. Of note, Brinkema dismisses the claim that a new Attorney General couldn't harass Risen, because some of the other lawyers on the case might be Bush dead-enders.
The issuance of the 2010 subpoena under a new Attorney General does not remove the specter of harassment, because we do not know how many of the attorneys and government officials who sought Risen's testimony in 2008 are still in their jobs and to what extent, if any, they advised the new Attorney General about approving the subpoena.
She also notes that requesting all his book proposals supports a harassment charge; I would suggest it does so more so when you consider the possibility they were harassing Risen for the warrantless wiretap story that would also have been in the book proposal. But Brinkema doesn't consider the way the Obama Administration has made some crazy ass arguments to defend Bush against illegal wiretap charges, which shows Obama's DOJ is protecting the program itself as fiercely as Cheney did. In addition, she doesn't consider Welch's history of being a sloppy, overly aggressive prosecutor (though her disapproval of the broad scope of the Welch subpoena suggests she'd be open to such an argument).
But given my suspicion that a community of interest subpoena in this case might have served as a fishing expedition for the government's investigation in the warrantless wiretap case, I'm particularly interested in the date the grand jury was convened in this case.
A grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Virginia began investigating the disclosures about the [MERLIN] operation in
or about March 2006.
That's not surprising, mind you. But it does date when a grand jury subpoena asking for a community of record might have been issued. And it does suggest that this investigation started at the same time as the government was going apeshit over their exposure on the illegal wiretap front.
The government appears to hope three time's a charm. The last two times they subpoenaed James Risen in the case of Jeffrey Sterling, Judge Leonie Brinkema quashed the subpoena. But they're trying again, this time to get him to testify at Sterling's trial.
It appears likely they planned to do this all along and crafted the charges against Sterling accordingly. For example, they claim they need Risen to testify, in part, to authenticate his book and the locale where alleged leaks took place.
Risen can directly identify Sterling as the individual who illegally transmitted to him national defense information concerning Classified Program No. 1 and Human Asset No. 1. Because he is an eyewitness, his testimony will simplify the trial and clarify matters for the jury. Additionally, as set forth below, Risen can establish venue for certain of the charged counts; can authenticate his book and lay the necessary foundation to admit the defendant's statements in the book; and can identify the defendant as someone with whom he had a preexisting source relationship that pre-dated the charged disclosures. His testimony therefore will allow for an efficient presentation of the Government's case.
Locale issues stem from mail fraud charges that appeared ticky tack charges up to this point. But the government is now arguing that that information–as distinct from whether Sterling served as a source for the information at issue–is critical to these ticky tack charges. Which, it seems they hope, would get them beyond any balancing test on whether Risen's testimony is crucial for the evidence at question. They also point to mentions in the indictment of an on-the-record article Risen did with Sterling, suggesting that at the very least they ought to be able to ask Risen about this at trial since he would not be protecting an anonymous source.
In other words, they crafted the indictment to be able to argue to Brinkema that on some matters, Risen's testimony is crucial, and on others, it qualifies for no privilege.
Of course, they also have to argue that this subpoena is not harassment. If I were Risen's lawyer, I'd argue crafting the indictment in such a way as to carve out areas to get Risen into court is itself harassment.
But that's not all. The government tries to argue for the necessity of Risen's testimony in one other way, one that is of particular interest. They say that Risen told his publisher that he relied on more than one CIA source for his work on MERLIN.
In addition, Risen's own representations to his publisher demonstrate the importance of his testimony regarding the defendant's identity. In his book proposal, Mr. Risen represented that, in writing his book, he spoke with more than one CIA officer involved in Classified Program No. 1. Consistent with these representations, moreover, the chapter of Mr. Risen's book that includes information about Classified Program No. 1 appears to reflect the private conversations and inner thoughts of more than one individual.11 See, e.g., Exhibit A at p. 203. Risen's testimony is therefore relevant to identifying Sterling as a source and to identifying the specific items of national defense information in his book for which Sterling was his source. Put simply, Risen's testimony will directly establish that Sterling disclosed to him the national defense information about which he sought to write in a 2003 newspaper article, and which he ultimately included in his 2006 book. The jury should be permitted to hear that evidence in assessing whether the Government has met its burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
While this might support the necessity of Risen's testimony on one hand (to identify what he got from Sterling and what he got from other sources), wouldn't it also admit a selective prosecution defense? That is, if the government itself is arguing that Risen spoke to more than one CIA officer about MERLIN, then why are they only charging Sterling?
The answer may be because of the dispute about the accuracy of Sterling's testimony. Remember, the government claims that Sterling lied to Risen about some aspect of MERLIN, presumably about whether or not the blueprints we gave to Iran had an obvious flaw that the Russian defector immediately identified. And they're trying to use that claim–that Sterling lied–to argue that Risen doesn't have an obligation anymore to protect his source.
Finally, whatever interest Risen has in keeping confidential his source for the national defense information at issue here, it is severely diminished by the fact that the defendant characterized some of that information in a false and misleading manner as a means of inducing Risen to write about it. See Ind. ¶ 18, 19(d). In short, the Indictment charges that the defendant perpetrated a fraud upon Risen. If "[s]preading false information in and of itself carries no First Amendment credentials" in the civil context, see Lando, 441 U.S. at 171, then it should carry no greater weight in a criminal prosecution.
They say that even while conceding that some of the information Sterling allegedly leaked to Risen is true.
The Indictment alleges that some of the information that appears in Risen's book is national defense information – and thus is implicitly true – but also notes that some of the information contained therein is characterized in a false and misleading manner. See Ind. ¶¶ 18,19(d). The Government is not here either confirming or denying the accuracy of any particular fact reported in the book.
There's a lot we can conclude from this filing–not least that the government seems to be abandoning the intent of the Attorney General guidelines on subpoenaing journalists (the guidelines are not mentioned once in the filing). But most of all, it seems we can conclude that the government doesn't care so much that Sterling allegedly leaked this information–because they're not charging the other CIA officers they appear to know leaked to Risen–but that Sterling was critical of the operation while he leaked the information.
Via Jeff Stein, the St. Louis Beacon reports that DOJ not only (unsuccessfully) subpoenaed James Risen in their pursuit of alleged MERLIN source Jeffrey Sterling, but they successfully subpoenaed Sterling's one-time lawyer, Mark Zaid.
Mark Zaid, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who handles national security cases, was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury to discuss events surrounding his representation of Sterling in a race discrimination case he filed against the CIA, say sources with knowledge of the case.
As both pieces lay out, the guidelines on subpoenaing a lawyer are–at least in theory–as limited as subpoenaing a reporter (never mind that the government wiretaps lawyers representing alleged terror suspects). But they appear to have used Zaid to get to other interactions–including Sterling's testimony to a congressional committee–apparently to hone in on an alleged motive.
Prosecutors questioned Zaid about Sterling's motive in allegedly leaking classified information about an intelligence operation in Iran to James Risen of The New York Times, a source said. The indictment alleges that Sterling leaked the information to retaliate against the CIA for its refusal to settle his race discrimination claim and to approve a memoir he was writing.
The prosecutors' questions focused on motive and dealt with the circumstances of Sterling's case and contacts Zaid had with third parties, a source said. Zaid had tried to negotiate a settlement of Sterling's issues with the CIA. In addition, prosecutors questioned Zaid about actions he had taken on Sterling's behalf that led to testimony to a congressional committee and that promoted his racial discrimination case through the media, a source said.
Zaid's testimony was entirely about his contacts with third parties on Sterling's behalf and was outside of the attorney-client privilege, a source said. [my emphasis]
Now, there are several interesting implications of this. For starters, Zaid probably represents more disgruntled CIA officers than Risen publishes CIA-related scoops. Subpoenaing him–even with the understanding he didn't testify about protected conversations–may chill others who would seek out Zaid for assistance.
But I'm particularly interested in the way this seemingly links conversations with third parties–notably a Congressional Committee–and motive. Because one of the weakest parts of the indictment is the CIA's effort to dismiss the possibility that Sterling came forward as a whistleblower.
The indictment describes testimony Sterling gave to two staffers at SSCI on March 5, 2003. This happened two weeks before the start of the Iraq War, but after CIA had rejected the employment discrimination settlements Sterling had proposed through Zaid:
On or about March 5, 2003, consistent with his secrecy and non-disclosure agreements with the CIA, defendant STERLING met with two staffers of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and disclosed classified information about Classified Program No. 1 and Human Asset No. 1. However, in doing so, defendant STERLING falsely characterized certain facts and circumstances relating to Classified Program No. 1, falsely reported that he had believed Classified Program No. 1 to have been flawed from its inception based solely upon his mischaracterization of a single remark by a participant in Classified Program No. 1, and claimed, based upon that false information, that Classified Program No. 1 may have enhanced the weapons capability of Country A.
Importantly, the indictment admits that Sterling was entitled to share this information "consistent with his secrecy and non-disclosure agreements." While the indictment doesn't ascribe a motive to Sterling in this meeting, it does say Sterling claimed MERLIN had enhanced Iran's weapons capability. In other words, by all appearances, it seems that Sterling made a legally-allowable effort to alert Congressional oversight staffers that the CIA had engaged in a boneheaded operation that had helped one of the Axes of Evil acquire nukes.
That is, by all appearances, Sterling was acting as a whistleblower.
Note how the indictment claims Sterling misrepresented something to the Committee (which was then headed by Pat Roberts, noted for his efforts to protect Cheney's gaming of intelligence and the CIA's use of torture), but it doesn't provide any evidence that Sterling intentionally misrepresented it. He was wrong, the indictment claims, but it doesn't claim he knew he was wrong.
If Roberts didn't squelch any interest in MERLIN himself, then we can probably assume the CIA told SSCI the same thing they're claiming here, that Sterling was wrong about what he told SSCI.
Now look how the details change as soon as Sterling goes to Risen. Whereas with the meeting with SSCI, the indictment doesn't attribute a motive and doesn't explicitly claim Sterling intentionally provided false information, they claim Sterling made false representations about the operation to "induce" Risen to publish a story on it.
Defendant STERLING caused [Risen's first call to the CIA's Public Affairs director about MERLIN] to occur by having disclosed certain information relating to Classified Program No. 1 to Author A and providing false and misleading information about Classified Program No. 1 to Author A in order to induce Author A to publish a newspaper article about Classified Program No. 1.
Claiming Sterling's alleged misrepresentation was part of what Sterling did to induce Risen to publish this attributes a motive to the allegedly false information. Presumably, they're arguing that without the risk that MERLIN gave Iran nukes, Risen wouldn't have found it as interesting a story (though given that this happened just as it was becoming clear Cheney had lied about Iraq's nukes, I'm not so sure).
And, too, the indictment provides a clear motive behind Sterling's attempts to get Risen to publish information on MERLIN.
Defendant STERLING's anger and resentment towards the CIA grew over time as the CIA rejected the defendant's settlement offers and made other legal decisions. In retaliation for the CIA's refusal to settle on terms favorable to defendant STERLING, as well as other decisions made by the CIA, defendant STERLING caused and attempted to cause the publication of classified information about Classified Program No. 1 and Human Asset No. 1 that defendant STERLING characterized in a false and misleading manner.
So it seems likely to me the government went to the trouble of subpoenaing Zaid to try to smooth this transition between what appears to be legal whistleblowing to what they claim to be retaliatory, misrepresentative leaking. I would imagine they're very interested in why Zaid (apparently) negotiated the testimony to SSCI.
Mind you, there are three more interesting details of timing. The indictment alleges that Sterling was the source for this November 4, 2001 article revealing that the 9/11 attacks had destroyed CIA's New York office. As the indictment lays out, it appeared just days after the CIA had rejected Sterling's second employment discrimination settlement attempt. So they lay the ground work for retaliation motive early.
Also, the indictment claims that Sterling called Risen on February 27, 2003, two weeks after CIA rejected his last settlement offer, putting it before Sterling told SSCI CIA had had him help deal nuclear blueprints to Iran.
But perhaps the most interesting set of dates appear in a paragraph in Sterling's suit–filed March 4, 2003, so the day before he testified to SSCI–regarding CIA's refusal to let him publish details in his memoir.
By letter dated January 3, 2003, the CIA notified Sterling of additional decisions regarding his October submission [to the Publication Review Board]. Sterling was not only notified that the CIA considered certain information in his manuscript to be classified, which also conflicted with earlier decisions, but the CIA informed Sterling that he should add information into the manuscript that was blatantly false. Upon information and belief, the CIA instructed Sterling to knowingly include false information within his manuscript solely to maintain a litigation advantage against Sterling in the unrelated discrimination lawsuit. [my emphasis]
That is, it appears that Sterling, not the CIA, is the first party to claim the other was lying (though they may be about entirely unrelated issues).
It seems likely one of the biggest weaknesses of this indictment is the possibility that Sterling will argue he legitimately worried about our government dragging us to war against Iran based on false claims and went to Risen as a whistleblower. That doesn't make it legal, but it's an extenuating circumstance that, 4,300 deaths into the Iraq War, might well make a jury pause before they convict him for leaking this information. And if Sterling can make that case at all credibly, then it'll get into the mother of all CIPA fights over whether Sterling can get information to prove the CIA right or wrong about MERLIN.
So it seems like the government dragged Sterling's lawyer into the Grand Jury to try to rebut the whistleblower excuse from the start.


text:
WEBS, American's Yarn Store America's Yarn Store
The Chic.a Quick Draw Project Bag started it all! Tired of stuffing your knitting project into a plastic ziplock bag? This bag is the perfect place to keep your project! This dependable bag is colorful and fun, making it easy to find. 5" x 7" x 12"
REVERSIBLE for double the value!
REVIEW SNAPSHOT®by PowerReviews
Reviewed by 1 customer
Indispensable Accessory
By Mèmè Kate
from Coleman, PE, Canada
About Me Experienced, Travelling Knitter
Best Uses
Comments about Chic.a Quick Draw Project Bags - Large:
This project bag is super for knitting small items, but is equally efficient for medium sized projects. I truly loved the waterproof, easily cleaned bottom, so I don't have to worry about setting it down. It is the perfect size to slip over a wrist to knit while waiting in line, or to hang over the arm of my rocking chair at home. One of its best features is the roomy pocket on the inside, which keeps things handy, and the size which neatly accommodates patterns in most sizes, along with the project and an extra ball or two of yarn.
Bottom Line Yes, I would recommend this to a friend
Was this review helpful? Yes / No
- You may also flag this review


text:
Motorcycle rider killed in crash in Bay Park
SAN DIEGO A 51-year-old motorcyclist was killed early Tuesday in a crash in San Diego's Bay Park neighborhood.
The man was riding his Yamaha motorcycle south on Morena Boulevard just north of Paul Jones Avenue about 5:50 a.m. when a driver in a Mitsubishi Eclipse made a U-turn in front of him, authorities said.
The man on the bike was unable to avoid a collision and crashed into the side of the car, the Medical Examiner's Office said.
The rider, a married man from San Diego, was taken to Scripps Memorial Hospital in La Jolla, where he died at 6:40 a.m., officials said. His name has not yet been released.
No details about the driver in the other car were released, and police did not say if that person will face charges. The investigation is ongoing.


text:
The Department of Health and Human Services say the WIC program can be funded for at least another 15 days thanks to reserve funds. WMTW News 8's Meghan Torjussen reports.
No email address was supplied by
To complete your registration on this site, please supply an address.
Please confirm or modify the email address to which you will have subscription offers sent.
For a more personalized experience, please supply the following optional information.