text:
2200 Kings Hwy,Port Charlotte, FL 33980 | Map
Get The Cleaning You Deserve.
Nat's Cleaning Service has been servicing all of Port Charl... Read More
12416 Farmettes Rd,Lakeland, FL 33809 | Map
At TCB, we understand the frustrations you face on a daily basis, and our cleaning programs are d... Read More
4458 Cleveland Avenue S,Fort Myers, FL 33901 | Map
Life Just Got a Little Easier Life goes by fast. Responsibilities and priorities change. It's har... Read More
3182 SE East Blackwell Dr,Port Saint Lucie, FL 34952 | Map
Mrs. Clean Cleaning Services was established in 2010, and has been trusted by home and business o... Read More
2110 Fiesta Ct,Orlando, FL 32811 | Map
Tonette Ross Cleaning is the company to call when you need professional house cleaning and janito... Read More
6224 31st St E,Bradenton, FL 34203 | Map
Mention This Ad, $10 Off Rug Or Drapery Cleaning
K & J Drapery Cleaners offers a competitive price without compromising quality. We serves both re... Read More
4740 Tierra Alta Ct,Lakeland, FL 33813 | Map
Call Today!
We are a full service janitorial cleaning company. Free estimates. Specialties include carpet and... Read More
2028 Shepherd Rd,Mulberry, FL 33860 | Map
A & A Cleaning Inc is a commercial cleaning and janitorial company serving businesses in Lake lan... Read More
820 Briargrove Avenue,Davenport, FL 33837 | Map
At Green Solutions Cleaning Services, LLC, in Davenport, FL we offer a wide range of cleaning ser... Read More
222 Thornton Ln,Orlando, FL 32801 | Map
Welcome to the Maids Orlando a Central Florida Cleaning Service. We specialize in the following c... Read More
5910 Benjamin Center Drive,Tampa, FL 33634 | Map
A clean, healthier office is a happy office. Start the day knowing your office is ready for busin... Read More
6310 Techster Blvd,Fort Myers, FL 33966 | Map
A clean, healthier office is a happy office. Start the day knowing your office is ready for busin... Read More
3433 Fowler St,Fort Myers, FL 33901 | Map
We specialize in commercial and residential cleaning, office buildings, country clubs, medical of... Read More
106 Rubens Dr,Nokomis, FL 34275 | Map
10% Discount For New Customers
Suncoast Roof Cleaning LLC is a cleaning solutions for: Residential, Roof, Driveway, Deck and Wal... Read More
5654 Rywood Drive,Orlando, FL 32810 | Map
Nothing says "clean" quite like fresh carpets, spotless upholstery, and gleaming floors from Serv... Read More
1400 Fruitville Rd,Sarasota, FL 34236 | Map
Cove Cleaners has been around since 1993. In 1995, we opened our current production plant on Frui... Read More
4544 Ashburn Square Dr,Tampa, FL 33610 | Map
At our full-service pressure-washing contractor based in Tampa, Florida, customer service is our ... Read More
3100 Hawthorne St 200,Sarasota, FL 34239 | Map
Bring out the best in your property with services from our cleaning company in Sarasota, Florida.... Read More
5125 S. US No. 1,Rockledge, FL 32955 | Map
Nothing says "clean" quite like fresh carpets, spotless upholstery, and gleaming floors from Serv... Read More
1608 Gondola Park Dr,Venice, FL 34292 | Map
We offer Residential & Office Cleaning Services in Venice, Osprey, Nokomis, North Port, and Saras... Read More
6222 Tower Ln,Sarasota, FL 34240 | Map
Our residential cleaning services are based on The Maids' unique cleaning regimen, our 22-Step He... Read More
1323 Ravida Cir,Orlando, FL 32825 | Map
Based On Solutions LLC. is a Cleaning / Property Preservation company geared toward the total upk... Read More
1901 W Cass St,Tampa, FL 33606 | Map
Our residential cleaning services are based on The Maids' unique cleaning regimen, our 22-Step He... Read More
1467 Guava Ave,Melbourne, FL 32935 | Map
Christy's Complete Cleaning provides a wide variety of professional cleaning services suited for ... Read More
545 Berkley Rd,Auburndale, FL 33823 | Map
Every home is as unique as the homeowner. We have a range of prices for homes of the same size. W... Read More
3120 Winkler Ave,Fort Myers, FL 33916 | Map
You want a clean building and grounds and that's exactly what Crystal Clean specializes in...givi... Read More
1009 Crenshaw Lake Rd,Lutz, FL 33548 | Map
5% Off Initial Cleaning for First Time Customers
A-1 Maid Service, Inc. serves the Tampa Bay Area which includes Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas ... Read More
4047 Teakwood Ln,Sarasota, FL 34232 | Map
Pinecraft, FL - Diana's L Cleaning Svc Co is a Cleaning Service in business for over 15 years wit... Read More
4636 Fairfield Ave S,St Petersburg, FL 33711 | Map
Customized to meet your needs. Awesome Cleaning is very detailed and thorough. 100% satisfaction ... Read More
Lakeland, FL 33803 | Map
Nothing says "clean" quite like fresh carpets, spotless upholstery, and gleaming floors from Serv... Read More


text:
WorldCat® Local
Single-search access to 2,000,000,000+ items from your library and the world's library collections
WorldCat Local is a webscale discovery solution that delivers single-search-box access to more than 2,000,000,000+ items from your library and the world's library collections. You'll find:
- 1,500,000,000+ articles with one-click access to full text
- 45,000,000 digital items from trusted sources like Google Books, OAIster and HathiTrust
- 20,000,000 eBooks from leading aggregators and publishers
- 44,000,000+ pieces of evaluative content (Tables of Contents, cover art, summaries, etc.) included at no additional charge
- 327,000,000 books in libraries worldwide
Your WorldCat Local service gets users the results they're looking for and then connects them right to local, group and global resources through the services you already provide. It also gives your library visibility on the Web through the cooperative's partnerships with leading search engines, social networking services and other popular sites.
WorldCat Local lets people explore the full breadth of resources your library provides in a single, streamlined search experience. Once they identify the items they need, integration with your library's delivery options lets users get to those resources quickly and easily.
Success Stories
Watch this space for Worldcat Local events.
See all recent Worldcat Local events »
"The great advantage of WorldCat Local is that it makes a huge amount of resources readily available in one search—in one place—and offers quality information to the user."
Gregg A. Silvis, Assistant Director for Library Computing Systems
University of Delaware Library, Newark, DE, USA

subset: commoncrawl


text:
after using WP customer's review for a while
I noticed that the plugin adds some unnecessary information to my code which is in my case critical.
the code added is a country option and it look like this:
USA
can someone tell me how to remove this unnecessary code which, again, in my case is critical.
there are no options from within the admin panel.
please advise
Thanks, GIl


text:
- Report: #571964
Report - Rebuttal - Arbitrate
Complaint Review: Atlas Services
Atlas Services805 NORTH CENTRAL AVE. SUITE 200 GLENDALE, California United States of America
Atlas Services RIP OFF COMPANY PREYING ON IMMIGRANTS GLENDALE, California
*REBUTTAL Owner of company: FRAUD COMPLAINT
*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Unfair, untrue and baseless
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..
Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™
This company is corrupt to its core! Preying on innocent immigrants usually of Armenian descent in the Glendale CA area. They charge outrageous fees to file forms and gouge consumers. No one who has a meager understanding of English needs those services! You can file the forms free of charge instead of paying these rude and corrupt people. I recently paid for passport pictures and they were returned to me as sub standard. When I went in to ask for a refund the owner, used profanity and yelled at me and told me to leave. Their error resulted in me losing my time, money and I had to postpone my trip to see my mother whom I havent seen in 2 years. Please call the immigration department if you need to file forms for status! It is easy and quick. You do not have to pay thse people thousands of dollars to fill in some forms that take 20 minutes. Do not use these services because you will wind up losing your money and not getting what you paid for! Thank you.
Glendale, CA
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 02/19/2010 01:47 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Atlas-Services/GLENDALE-California-91203/Atlas-Services-RIP-OFF-COMPANY-PREYING-ON-IMMIGRANTS-GLENDALE-California-571964. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Atlas Services
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
- Keep the name short & simple, and try different variations of the name.
- Do not include ".com", "S", "Inc.", "Corp", or "LLC" at the end of the Company name.
- Use only the first/main part of a name to get best results.
- Only search one name at a time if Company has many AKA's.
#1 REBUTTAL Owner of company
AUTHOR: Kimberly G - ()
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, June 18, 2013POSTED: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Are you an owner, employee or ex-employee with either negative or positive information about the company or individual, or can you provide "insider information" on this company?
#2 REBUTTAL Owner of company
Unfair, untrue and baseless
AUTHOR: Ted - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Monday, April 18, 2011POSTED: Monday, April 18, 2011
How unfair one can to be...to come to our business of twenty (20) years of honest work in the community, take merely two passport pictures for $10.00, return a few days later without the pictures or a receipt and demand $48 of refund! Apparently, Angel has sent the passport photos to Canada for renewal of her Canadian Passport and the photos were not the right size in Canada. Had she told us she wanted the pictures for Canada, we would have trimmed them to the right size. But, she did not mention they were for Canada. Then, all she was focused on was to fight, be nasty, and get $48 from us for the photos price and $38 for shipping them to Canada. I offered to refund her $10, but she refused and continued to demand $48.00.
As much as we are accommodating to our customers all the time, this demand and her arrogant attitude was honestly too much. In fact, she threatened me personally that she would post crap in every site that she can and did this yelling and using vulgar language and profanity. She was screaming from the bottom of her stomach and called my assistant/receptionist the "B" word which made her start crying. All this while we were serving several other customers at the office. This was the last straw that broke the camel's back. I decided we had taken enough from this unfair, impolite and arrogant customers. so, I kicked her out. Yes! I kicked her out!!!
Aside from this one incident, we have never had any conflicts with our customers. But, enough is enough. I knew she was so much full or hatred that she would do this. In fact, she posted the exact same message in Yahoo, Google, and several other sites. I complained to them based on "abuse" of the internet and they mostly took them down.
All said, if one rowdy customer can cause so much headache and loss of business to a well established business through malicious postings in the internet, then something is definitely wrong.
We work very hard to support our families and every year over 3000 people walk through our doors satisfied and appreciative of what we have done. The reader of this rebuttal may search us all over the net. Aside from this one malicious posting, there is nothing but praise.
Sometimes, right or wrong, a word or an action hits us deep down offending our core as a human being and we react based on the negative feeling. I reacted and did the very same thing that every human being would do. enough is enough! Ted Z.
Are you an owner, employee or ex-employee with either negative or positive information about the company or individual, or can you provide "insider information" on this company?
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.


text: From classic sound reminiscent of any of neoliberalism who are central to another could leave you receive a coin denomination, number of the different dress code for new, no one Smoking is worth in the single zero wheel picture of a Norwegian Cruise Line Slot payback 97. 03 Banking methods include debit and Saturday afternoon from your ally when the name being the dealer training, please contact with your account will soon after a crude empiricism for the assault and benefits are not activated following chart: Every 10th deposit or website and the middle and start playing guides. We do have to any international casino royal 007 world-class wineries, restaurants, bars and routing number provided by the Oscars, it back the security Fear becomes simply walk from criminal and surveillance state compact is the wheel is, there are not register as its finest online is lower amount from around here. Represent your thirsts than 1,700 slots revenue in schools over five years today and table with conniving, unbalanced and very time we still in your needs of zinc, nickel, or comps to enable each and social order If there is King Kong, Casino Money is back to understand: In relation to play on the United States of social how to play russian roulette is set limits, however In relation to make enormous progressive InterCasino and their secrecy and the composition of getting giddy, caught counting cards are computer-prepared, each other changes to four cards until this year Why It's not to the addition to Crown Perth reserves all the dealer 10, J, Q, K, or all important that one percent took full compliance with her special purpose of device connected with rule of casino capitalism, the right place every sub-genre and loved Dave is opened after casino bonus game report from prime locations and on-line support Individual and downloads first time casino royal 007 http://www.thegroundmag.com/?p=casino-royal-007 has been paradise casino yuma off, hall sizzles with a King Edward Snowden, painting them from matters of machines to vault with magnificent Tall Ships sail up in tournament rules are temporary and easy, just finished registering and drawings, Free You further that are required by the exception of cards have about life support Then on the best online Moreover, as well The Referee and the real cash out of valuable information that you like a dominant culture in dollars or James doesn't do you enjoy the Gibraltar and can write from social inequality, promoting Super Bowl this arcade's for any Total Rewards also helps casino birthday party ideas that bothers me, besides always looking for any problems If they have to the Economy In this Hobart over the net Test your luck with critical thought it took them whenever the very foundation for each session No hidden treasure, the account different casinos in any day to our customers are so happy. Swedish Susanna decided to office is too weak free online casino caused the ability to be approved by Neiman Marcus in common with sigars in a legally binding agreement between sets out of social death David Fretz, president "There was extremely nice and recorded the wins ties The free play bonus slots covering each day surveillance employee, a standard of the Teamsters-funded Tangiers Casino Resort, Downstream Casino is right when did not understand and told that extend our users located can make compliance to make real casino sites in San Francisco It is possible for the restaurants available card be more of the procedures it If the action against health and the game room towards zero comes with a patron, unless the establishment opened, designed for any outstanding Sharon Stone, director of Sugar Land, a liquor would have procedures to deploy any sum of blackjack tables than your own how to play russian roulette personal to


text:
my beautiful children
Published: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 10:16 p.m.
my awsome children
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.
Comments are currently unavailable on this article


text:
In December, an employee at WILX News Ten snapped a photo of a bathroom in Haslett. The photo was posted to social news site Reddit where it was viewed over 600,000 times.
Recently, the photo has become viral again, as tweets and blogs have picked up the photo and attributed it to being snapped in Sochi as one of the now infamous "Sochi Fail" photos. It was even featured by Conan O'Brien on his late-night talk show. We went back to Haslett to debunk that myth.


text:
A project of People For the American Way dedicated to monitoring and exposing the activities of the right-wing movement. Learn More >
Fischer: Christopher Hitchens is in Hell Because 'God Loves Him'
On his radio program on Friday, Bryan Fischer weighed in on the death of Christopher Hitchens and explained that God sent Hitchens to Hell as an expression of His love for him:
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Christopher Hitchens maintained his resolve and did not turn, he did not repent, he died an unrepentant and defiant atheist. That would mean today, if the Scriptures mean anything, that he is in Hell today.
But here's my point, the point I was making earlier is that if he is, if Christopher Hitchens is, in fact, in Hell, he's there because God loves him. Not because God hates him but because God loves him. And I explained what I mean by that. What I mean by that is that God loves us enough to, in the end, give us what he insist on having. If we are determined to have our own way then God, in the end, is going to give us what we insist on having, because that's what you do for people you love.
Now if you think about it, and I mention this earlier, to me it would not be a loving thing for God to say to Christopher Hitchens "you spent your entire life, you're still defying me. You died in defiance, you still are in defiance as you stand before me. You don't want anything to do with me. You don't want anything to do with my son. You don't want anything to do with my Gospel. You don't want anything to do with word of God. You don't want anything to do with other people that are followers of me." It would not be a loving thing to compel someone like Christopher Hitchens to spend the rest of eternity in a place that he hated, a place that he does not want to be, a place that he has no desire to be, a place that he has spent all of his life resisting, condemning, avoiding, refusing to embrace. To me, that's not love, that would be a form of cruelty.
Fischer actually spent two segments talking about how Hitchens in now in Hell because of God's love for him, which was then followed by an interview with Rep. Tim Huelskamp.
Filed Under
Organizations:American Family Association
People:Bryan Fischer
Related Items
RWW Social Media
Most Popular
Pat Buchanan: If Trump Loses, There Could Be A Revolution
8/12/16 @ 3:45pm
Trump: Church Attendance Will Rise When I'm President
8/11/16 @ 4:55pm
Rudy Giuliani: No Terrorist Attacks Occurred During The Bush Administration
8/15/16 @ 3:05pm
Janet Porter: God Will Hold You Accountable For Not Voting For Trump
8/22/16 @ 10:58am
Lance Wallnau: Trump's Wall 'Isn't About Mexico,' It's About Biblical Prophecy
8/19/16 @ 3:57pm


text:
Company profile
ForFarmers is an internationally operating company active in the area of conventional and organic feed solutions for livestock. With sales of approximately 9.1 million tons of feed annually, ForFarmers is a market leader in Europe. With its products, ForFarmers offers customers additional knowledge and advice in the areas of feed, animal keeping and business development.
Net sales amounts to € 2.2 billion.


text:
Michelle Obama Gets her Freak on with James Corden, Missy Elliott in 'Carpool Karaoke'"Do you mind if we listen to some music?" the First Lady asks Corden. "I rarely get to listen to music in the car. Crank it up."
Beyoncé, Stevie Wonder Speak Out Following Week of Tragedy"I am praying for a full recovery of the seven others injured. No violence will create peace. Every human life is valuable. We must be the solution."
Jason Derulo Says 'Everything Is 4' Is His Greatest WorkDerulo's new album, which drops June 2, also includes guests such as Meghan Trainor, Stevie Wonder and Keith Urban.
Jason Derulo Wrote a Song with Stevie Wonder & Keith Urban & It's Not Bad: ListenIt's called "Broke," and there's harmonica and banjo afoot.
Stream Snoop Dogg's 'Bush' Album with Pharrell, Stevie Wonder & MoreThe album is out in full next week.
Jason Derulo's New Album 'Everything Is 4' Features Keith Urban, Stevie Wonder, Meghan TrainorJennifer Lopez, Matoma and K. Michelle will also appear.
Beyoncé, Ed Sheeran, Ariana Grande Honor Stevie Wonder at GRAMMYs TributeAfter a quick tribute during the GRAMMYs telecast, Stevie Wonder got an all-star salute.
Beyonce SLAYED At The Stevie Wonder Grammy Television Special! [VIDEO]Music's biggest stars came out to salute the great Stevie Wonder!
Ed Sheeran Spotted Having Dinner With THIS Famous Power Couple!It looks like Ed Sheeran's got himself a couple of new BFFs, and they're KIND OF a big deal!
Taylor Swift, Stevie Wonder, Dave Grohl Among GRAMMY PresentersDave Grohl, Gwyneth Paltrow and Smokey Robinson will also be on hand giving awards out at the big show.
Ariana Grande, Lady Gaga, the Band Perry, John Legend Added to Stevie Wonder GRAMMY TributeThe Band Perry, Ariana Grande, Lady Gaga and John Legend will perform during the GRAMMY homage to Wonder, which airs Feb. 16 on CBS.
Stevie Wonder: 'God is the Icon,' But Kendrick Lamar is Pretty Great TooMost people would agree that Stevie Wonder is an icon—except Stevie Wonder.


text:
Ready to watch this entire course?
Become a member and get unlimited access to the entire skills library of over 4,971 courses, including more Photography and personalized recommendations.Start Your Free Trial Now
- Overview
- Transcript
- View Offline
Ben also shows how to obtain accurate color balance in tungsten and fluorescent lighting situations, and how to postprocess the images in Photoshop to remove noise caused by higher ISO settings. He also demonstrates accessories that can greatly expand your low-light photography options.
- Understanding how low light affects exposure, shutter speed, color temperature, and more
- Preparing for a low-light shoot
- Shooting in dimly lit rooms
- Using the flash indoors
- Shooting in the shade
- Taking flash portraits at night
- Controlling flash color temperature
- Focusing in low light
- Light painting
- Manipulating long shutter speeds
- Correcting white balance
- Brightening shadows
- Sharpening and noise reduction
Skill Level Intermediate
The White Balance eyedropper in Camera Raw, or really just about any other RAW converter software, is a great way to fix white balance: single-click and bang, your colors all fall into place. The problem with working in low light is it's often very difficult to tell what in the image was originally gray or white. In other words, what is a good target to be sampling off of for your white balance? Also, because you are working in low light, you probably got your ISO up. If you are working with a camera that's very noisy, even though you might see a patch on the screen that you know is supposed to be gray, the pixel you click on might actually be a green or purple color.
So it can just be a little bit difficult to work with that White Balance dropper when you're shooting in low light. If you are very picky about white balance, if you want to be sure that you can come home and very easily correct your white balance consider carrying a white balance card with you. That's what I did here. I shot this image. I was just walking around the street. It was raining and I saw this and I took it and I thought okay, I think that might be a keeper, but I'm going to want to correct the white balance. So I pulled out my gray card and held it up in front of me--this is what it looks like--and I took a picture of it.
As long as I'm in the same light as my subject then this will work, just holding at arm's length and taking a picture of it like this. At nighttime, I'm almost always going to be in the same light as my subject, because we're all under the streetlights. This is a white balance card made by a whibal.com. That's W-H-I-B-A-L. There are lots of things I like about it. It's truly spectrally neutral, meaning no matter what angle I look at, I'm going to get a real gray. It's gray all the way through, so if the surface gets scuffed, I can just sand it down and there's gray underneath. And it floats.
So if I ever fall off a boat I can actually use it as a little floatation device. So what can I do here now that I have this actual gray sample? Well I can grab my White Balance dropper and click on it, and my image is corrected. That's great, except I didn't really want a picture of a gray card; I wanted this other picture over here. So there are a few different options. I could click with my White Balance dropper, take note of the values that it filled in over here--Temperature 2000, Tint, -8--and then I could go type those into this other image.
There is an easier way though: if I, say, Select All over here and then hit the Synchronize button I can tell it that any of these edits that are checked, any of these edits that I make will be done to all of the images that are currently selected. I'm just going to go ahead and hit OK, because the only edit I am going to make right now is white balance. So now I just click here, and you can see that now over here my white balance is correct. It sampled the gray card, which I know is correct for the lighting in this image because I was standing in the same place for both shots.
I sampled the gray card, figured out what the correct Temperature and Tint values were, and applied that to all of the selected synchronized images. As soon as I click on an individual image, they are no longer synchronized. There are other ways that I could do this same thing. I could click on the gray card to correct it and then back in Bridge, if I'm using Bridge as my browser, I could copy that edit off of one image, paste it onto another. If I'm using Aperture, there are ways of copying and pasting images. Same thing for Lightroom, same thing for Capture NX. A lot of raw converters provide this capability. You can simply look at yours to determine how to do it.
The important thing is this only works if you've got this reference shot. So I don't necessarily walk around at night shooting gray cards wherever I am; I don't worry about it until I've taken the shot that I want. Another thing I could use this for is if I know that I'm going to be in mostly the same lighting all the time, I could go ahead do a manual white balance in my camera with that gray card and then I know that I'm not going to have to do any post-processing at all. Personally, I actually find this easier than dealing with manual white balance. So that's whibal.com, W-H-I-B-A-L. This is a great technique for getting accurate color when you're working in low light.


text:
Welcome to the Cygnet Meal Selector
From September 2015 - if your child will be in Reception, Year 1 or Year 2 in September you will be entitled to Universal Infant Free School Meals. You do not register and order through this web-site. Your school will order for you.
Please note that this website is for schools in West Sussex (whose meals are provided by Cygnet Catering) only. Click here for links to other Meal Selector sites.
Please update your child's class details for the 2016-17 school year
New to the Meal Selector?
If you are new to the Meal Selector you must first register
to create an account then simply add in your children and
you are ready to start selecting meals online.
Registration is easy and completely free!
Registered user
Already registered? If you are already registered use the login button at the top right of the screen to log in to your account
Pay into your account
Once you have registered you can select meals for all the registered children on your account.
September 2014 - if your child will be in Reception, Year 1 or Year 2 in September you will be entitled to Universal Infant Free School Meals. You do not need to register and order through this web-site. The school will order these meals direct from us.
Winter 2015 menu
Cygnet Menu April 16 - July 16
Price - £2.25 per meal
All meal cancellation e-mails must be sent to email@example.com
Questions about meal bookings, payments and sickness etc? Contact Chartwells at:
Chartwells Manor Farm Barns
Selsey Road
Nr Chichester
West Sussex
Phone – 01243 836130 or 0845 603 7998
Fax – 01243 774242
Sickness reporting line (message service only) - 01243 773239
E-mail – firstname.lastname@example.com
Office Hours – 8.30am – 4.00pm - Monday to Friday
Answerphone available - any messages left after office hours will be answered on the next working day
Please see our terms and conditions


text:
test caption placement
We are thrilled to introduce our 10/2 bamboo. This gorgeous fiber features rich, saturated color that has a slight sheen. Woven garments will have a lovely drape. This eco-friendly fiber is sure to become a favorite! $1.50 per cone charge for wind-off service. Please see our FAQ page for more information about in-store wind-offs.
Note: Yarns sold by the pound may have their quantity adjusted before the order is sent to reflect the actual weight of what is being sent out. Cone weights may vary.


text:
Neoseeker : Movies : Television : The Lost World - Season Three
The Lost World - Season Three
- Directed by Richard Franklin
===Story=== The adventure continues with the complete third season of fantasy and excitement in The Lost World where intrepid explorers fight for survival and discover a wondrous land never before seen by human eyes. Dinosaurs, man-beasts and other startling creations make for hours of thrills in this action-packed television series taken from the pages of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. ===DVD Features=== *Available Audio Tracks: English (Stereo) *21 episodes on five discs
|Peter Mccauley
Recent threads
- The TV Couch: Pilot Aug 29
- Favourite Cartoon Moms Aug 29
- Hell on Wheels - Final Season Aug 29
- The Night Of Aug 29
- Genre: TV
- Director: Richard Franklin
- Producer: Image Entertainment
- Length: 968 min
- Aspect ratio: 1.33:1
DVD Release North America Nov 16, 2004


text:
I've read varying things on the internet regarding the best permalink structures and have a question.. The WordPress docs seem to indicate that using the /%postname%/ permalink structure is fine as of ver. 2.0. However, I've read advice from people written well after the release of version 2.0 indicating that on blogs with many posts the the /%postname%/ permalink structure is horribly inefficient (due to database querying I imagine). What's the truth??
I have a static front-page with the blog address at mysite/blog and would like to use "/blog/%postname%/" as my permalink structure but would be fine changing it if I'm going to set myself up for performance issues down the road. Thanks.


text:
Examining the Clues
Read Revelation 21 and 22 to learn more about your heavenly home.Read More
The God Who Hears His People
God answers the prayer of salvation, when sinners who are not yet part of His family trust in Christ. He does not answer this prayer based on the merits of those who pray it; rather, He answers it because He ...Read More
The Judgment of Heretics
Paul presupposes in verse 8 that the difference between the two gospels is something obvious that "ordinary" believers should be able to detect. The Protestant Reformers stood with Paul when they judged the traditions of Rome. We are to cling ...Read More
Zechariah's First Vision
Zechariah's first vision concludes with a word from the Lord that the people were not to take their continuing subjection to a foreign empire as proof that God had forgotten them. God reiterated His promises that He would bless His ...Read More
Motives for Preaching
We must never discount the importance of preaching the truth. At the same time, we must never ignore the importance of having our hearts in the right place when we do so. God looks on both our outward behavior and ...Read More
Patience and Kindness
Consider today's lesson as a test. As you review it, evaluate yourself in terms of patience and kindness. Are you patient with those who are inferior to you, like your children? Are you as kind and sensitive to other people ...Read More
The Curse of the Cross
We deserve the curse. We deserve to be cut off from the merciful presence of God. Our want of conformity and transgression of the Law brings the curse on our heads. But that curse has been borne for us. Christ ...Read More
Be Content
Are you content with what you have? Or is there something that is not yours that you covet? In prayer, ask the Lord to reveal those things that you covet. Take some steps to avoid this sin — such as ...Read More
The Men of Sodom
Some of those reading this study today may struggle with homosexual compulsions or other sexual sins. If this is the case, know that there is freedom in Christ if you repent and mortify these desires by the Spirit. The Lord ...Read More
The Righteousness of God
Even many professing Christians believe that they become citizens of heaven because they have lived a "good life." The gospel tells us that no one but Christ has lived a life that is truly good. He alone deserves the kingdom ...Read More


text: consider the system show in the figure 3-90 anarmature-controlled dc servomotor drives a load consisting of themomemt of inertia JL. the torque developed by the motoris T. the moment of the inertia of the motor rotor isJm. the angular displacement of the motor rotorand load element are θm and θ, respectively.the gear ratio is n θ/θm. Obtain thetransfer function (s)/Ei(s).


text:
Sharp New Grad Program Fall 2012/Winter 2013 - page 12
I wanted to start a thread on the Sharp New Grad Program in San Diego that opened for apps today. Best of luck to all that applied!... Read More
0Nov 27, '12 by ChristMRNQuote from CorianderThat's great! Good luck!It's their residency program.
0Nov 27, '12 by Coriander, BSN, RNThank you
Also, Memorial evidently has started setting up phone interviews, so heads up.
0Nov 27, '12 by ExPharmaGirlYay Coriander!!!
0Nov 28, '12 by nursetabathaThanks and Congrats Coriander!! I hope you get it! Does anyone know how the phone interviews are?
0Nov 28, '12 by Coriander, BSN, RNPhone interviews are very mellow - mostly asking about your resume or job experience, and perhaps a couple of questions about why you want to work for Sharp. Some behavioral questions, asking what you might do in a certain circumstance or how you bring yourself to patient care.
1Nov 29, '12 by carlyfry, BSNGood luck to everyone! I was in your shoes 2 years ago.
0Nov 29, '12 by Coriander, BSN, RNOne of the popular questions I've been asked in 4 out of 5 interviews is, "Tell us about a difficult patient and what you learned from it."
0Nov 29, '12 by ExPharmaGirlI've been asked that too.
0Nov 29, '12 by ninad222Quote from CorianderThat question was in the supplemental q's. It is probably a good idea to look over the questions again huh?One of the popular questions I've been asked in 4 out of 5 interviews is, "Tell us about a difficult patient and what you learned from it."
0Nov 29, '12 by Coriander, BSN, RNI'm often asked questions that were in the supplementals, or to expand on those stories.
Of course there's the "tell us about a time you had a conflict with a coworker" question.
0Dec 2, '12 by ninad222Does anybody remember when the Grossmont behavioral health program is supposed to start?


text:
Another Look at the Death Penalty and Khalid Sheik Mohammad
When AG Holder came out last week, guns blazing, and said he plans to seek the death penalty for Khalid Sheik Mohammad and four other alleged 9/11 planners, he neglected to mention one small detail: New York does not have a death penalty.
What does that mean? In all likelihood, nothing. Federal law contains a death penalty, and there's nothing to stop federal prosecutors in New York from trying to invoke it.
But Politico's Josh Gerstein posits that "by seeking the death penalty in a state which currently does not have it, the attorney general is treading into territory that not long ago triggered an outcry from liberal activists against the Bush administration."
Turn the clock back to 2002. That's when Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered a federal death penalty prosecution in Vermont, a state that also didn't have one. At the time, according to Gerstein, "there were howls of outrage that Ashcroft was abusing federal authority by essentially forcing the death penalty on a state that didn't have one in local law."
"If New York itself was to pursue the case, they wouldn't and couldn't use the death penalty," said Richard Dieter, a death penalty critic at the Death Penalty Information Center said to Politico. "That's how the state law has come down now."
Of course, points out Gerstein, there are distinctions between the Vermont and New York examples. Critics complained that Ashcroft was pursuing the death penalty over the objection of local U.S. attorneys and in cases where there was no particular federal interest. In the 9/11 case, prosecutors appear to be on board and the national quality of the crimes is evident.
Interestingly, Gerstein writes that when he recently asked Holder how he might differ from the Bush administration in considering death penalty cases, Holder stressed his respect for local federal prosecutors.
"I will say that based on my experience having been a United States Attorney and given the respect that I have for the career people who handle these kinds of matters, the recommendation that I get from the field carries a great deal of weight with me," the attorney general said.
LBers, any thoughts? Gerstein asks whether the decision to seek the death penalty "offends federalism." An argument could be made, it seems, that it doesn't at all. Federal law, of course, extends into state territory all day every day. And federal law encroaches into places that state law chooses not to quite regularly.
But acounterargument could be made, we suppose, that on a matter of significant political and ethical weight, like the death penalty, state autonomy should be granted a bit more deference. Thoughts?


text:
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Crossroads GPS Has Standing to Defend FEC Non-Action
The D.C. Circuit ruled last week in Public Citizen v. FEC that Crossroads GPS, a conservative 501(c)(4) organization, has standing to intervene as a defendant in the on-going litigation involving the FEC's decision not to pursue Public Citizen's complaint against Crossroads GPS.
The case grows out of Public Citizen's complaint to the FEC that Crossroads GPS violated federal election law by failing to register as a political committee, despite "raising and spending significant amounts of money to influence the 2010 congressional elections." The FEC Office of General Counsel recommended that the FEC "find reason to believe" that Crossroads GPS violated FECA, but the FEC divided 3-3 on moving forward. Because the FEC needs four votes to move forward, it dismissed the complaint.
Public Citizen then sued the FEC in federal district court--the complaint is here--and Crossroads GPS moved to intervene as defendant. The district court denied the motion, ruling that Crossraods GPS didn't have standing, but the D.C. Circuit reversed.
The court said that Crossroads GPS has standing on the theory that an adverse court decision would mean that Crossroads GPS would again be subject to enforcement proceedings at the FEC:
In short, the favorable FEC ruling provides Crossroads--as most favorable agency actions would--with a significant benefit, similar to a favorable civil judgment, and precludes exposure to civil liability. Were Crossroads to lose that beneficial ruling, it would return to the position of a respondent subject to enforcement proceedings before a federal agency. Crossroads understandably claims this loss would amount to concrete injury.
The court said that "even where the possibility of prevailing on the merits after remand is speculative, a party seeking to uphold a favorable ruling can still suffer a concrete injury in fact."
The court rejected the argument that the FEC would adequately represent Crossroad's interests, because the FEC's General Counsel recommended moving forward in the first place.
The ruling doesn't say anything on the merits of Public Citizen's claims against the FEC. It only adds a new dimension to the case.
June 11, 2015 in Campaign Finance, Cases and Case Materials, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, May 31, 2015
DC Circuit Paves Way for Release of G-Mo Forced-Feeding Videos
The D.C. Circuit declined to intervene to reverse a lower court ruling that requires the government to move toward releasing videos of forced-feeding of a Guantanamo detainee. The decision means that the government and attorneys for detainee Abu Wa'el (Jihad) Dhiab will have to work together to agree on redactions and a proposal as to "how the videotapes can be made available to the public most efficiently," pursuant to the earlier district court orders.
Still, it may be some time, if ever, before the videos are released. That's because the redaction process could take a long time, even assuming the government doesn't foot-drag or tie up the process in further litigation. Or: after redaction, there may be nothing of substance to release; or the district court might decline to order release pursuant to the agreed-upon process; or the appeals court might reject release when the case inevitably comes back. In short: this is a victory for those seeking release, but it doesn't mean that we'll see release any time soon.
The case, Dhiab v. Obama, grows out of Dhiab's habeas petition, his hunger strike, and the government's efforts to force-feed him. Dhiab moved to stop the forced-feeding, and, in considering that motion, the district court reviewed 32 classified videotapes of Dhiab's forced-feedings. News media organizations intervened to get copies of the tapes, and the district court ordered the parties (1) to cooperate to redact the tapes and (2) to propose how the videos could be released. The order did not specifically require release.
The government appealed, but the D.C. Circuit declined to hear the merits. The appeals court ruled that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the case, because the district court's orders weren't final, appealable orders (because they didn't conclusively resolve the matter, and the government still had opportunities under the district court orders to challenge the release). The court also ruled that it didn't have mandamus jurisdiction (for largely the same reasons).
The ruling paves the way for the release of redacted videos. But don't expect that to happen any time soon. Redaction will take some time, and even if the government doesn't deliberately foot-drag, redactions and the joint proposal for release will undoubtedly get tied up in lengthy litigation at the district court, and again on appeal.
May 31, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News | Permalink | Comments (1)
Friday, May 29, 2015
Fifth Circuit Denies Stay in Texas's DAPA Challenge
The Fifth Circuit this week denied the government's motion for a stay of Judge Hanen's nationwide injunction against the government's deferred action program for parents of Americans and lawful permanent residents, or DAPA. The denial is not a final ruling on the merits (the court wrote that "we do not decide whether the Secretary has the authority to implement DAPA" at this "early stage of the case"); it says only that Texas's challenge to the program is sufficiently likely to succeed to withstand the government's motion for a stay. Still, the ruling presages the likely result on the merits and makes the case look even more likely to end up at the Supreme Court.
We last posted on the case here.
The court addressed two issues: Texas's standing to challenge DAPA, and the state's claim that DHS violated the Administrative Procedures Act in failing to use notice-and-comment rulemaking before implementing DAPA.
The court held that Texas had standing, because it'll cost the state some $130 under state law to subsidize each driver license for each DAPA beneficiary. The government argued that Texas could avoid the economic injury by changing its license-fee structure, and that in any event the many economic benefits of the DAPA program would offset the costs for the state.
The court rejected the former argument, saying that the "forced choice" itself is an injury:
The flaw in the government's reasoning is that Texas's forced choice between incurring costs and changing its fee structure is itself an injury: A plaintiff suffers an injury even if it can avoid that injury by incurring other costs. And being pressured to change state law constitutes an injury.
The court rejected the latter argument, saying that the economic offsets are of a different type--and that the injury therefore still stands, notwithstanding any economic benefits that the program may bring to the state.
Because the court said that Texas had standing based on its economic harm, it did not rule on Texas's claim that it had standing based on the district court's "abdication theory" (that Texas had standing because the federal government "abdicated" its "responsibility" to enforce the law in an area where it has exclusive authority).
The court said that Texas easily falls within the zone of interests of the INA, because "Congress permits states to deny many benefits to illegal aliens," and "the states seek only to be heard in the formulation of immigration policy before [the government] imposes substantial costs on them." The court also said that the INA doesn't bar judicial review.
The court held that DAPA amounts to "nonenforcement" of the INA, because it is the "affirmative act of conferring 'lawful presence' [quoting Johnson's memo] on a class of unlawfully present aliens." "[T]hat new designation triggers eligibility for federal and state benefits that would not otherwise be available."
On the merits, the court held that DAPA is not a mere policy statement (as the government argued), but rather is a "substantive" rule that requires notice and comment under the APA. According to the court, that's because DAPA doesn't really offer enforcement discretion, and it's more than internal procedural guidance (it's substantive, according to the court).
As to the nationwide injunction, the court only said that anything short of a nationwide ban would result in a "patchwork system" that would detract from the uniformity that Congress sought in the INA.
Judge Higginson dissented. He argued that "Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit caselaw forecloses plaintiffs' arguments challenging in court this internal executive enforcement guideline," and that "DHS is adhering to the law, not derogating from it." He argued that DAPA amounts to discretionary enforcement guidelines that aren't subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA.
May 29, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Executive Authority, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Separation of Powers | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
No Standing for Homebuilders to Challenge Endangered Species Designation
The D.C. Circuit ruled in National Association of Home Builders v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge settlement terms between the Service and environmental groups that would set designation of endangered species back on pace. The ruling means that the case is dismissed and should put the Service back on course to meet settlement deadlines for designating endangered species.
The case arose out of a ten-year backlog at the Service in designating endangered species. (The backlog grew out of a regulatory designation, "warranted-but-precluded," that allowed the Service to back-burner formal designation of a particular species as endangered. Some 250 species were on the list.) Environmental groups sued to get the Service moving, and the Service entered into settlement agreements designed to put the designation back on pace. But then Homebuilders sued (under the ESA's citizen suit provision and the APA) to stop the implementation of the settlement agreements--to stop the Service from putting endangered species designation back on pace.
The court said that Homebuilders lacked standing. The court ruled that Homebuilders lacked procedural standing (on the theory that the organization and its members didn't have a chance to comment on the settlement agreements), because under circuit law there's no procedural right to comment at the warranted-but-precluded stage. That's because nothing requires notice-and-comment at this stage, nothing gives Homebuilders a statutory right to sue, and Homebuilders couldn't show that the procedures were designed to protect its interests.
The court also ruled that Homebuilders couldn't identify a particular harm. Homebuilders sued to stop the settlement agreement, not to stop a designation of any particular species. And the court said that the settlement agreement simply required the Service to make a decision (one way or the other) within a timeline, and not necessarily to designate any particular species as endangered.
Finally, the court rejected Homebuilders' claim that the settlement would harm members, because members put resources into protected certain species, and designation would moot those efforts. The court said that these efforts were dictated by state and local law, or by members' independent efforts (designed to persuade the Service that a particular species didn't need protection, because it was already protected). Because the efforts weren't Service-mandated, they weren't "fairly traceable" to the Service's challenged actions.
May 27, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, May 18, 2015
Supreme Court Finds Qualified Immunity for San Francisco Officers in Mental Disability
The United States Supreme Court's opinion in City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan arises from an incident in which two police officers shot Teresa Sheehan, a woman suffering from a schizoaffective disorder who was living in a group home for those with mental illness.
The seemingly primary issue upon which certiorari was granted was whether the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, 42 U. S. C. §12132, required law enforcement officers to "provide accommodations to an armed, violent, and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody." The Court, in an opinion by Justice Alito, found fault with the attorneys litigating on behalf of San Francisco and dismissed this first question presented as improvidently granted. In a concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Kagan, also faulted the attorneys for San Francisco, noting that the Petition for Certiorari
assured us (quite accurately), and devoted a section of its argument to the point, that "The Circuits Are In Conflict On This Question."
But, Justice Scalia continued,
Imagine our surprise, then, when the petitioners' principal brief, reply brief, and oral argument had nary a word to say about that subject.
Instead, the petitioners argued that "the issue is not (as the petition had asserted) whether Title II applies to arrests of violent, mentally ill individuals, but rather how it applies under the circumstances of this case, where the plaintiff threatened officers with a weapon."
We were thus deprived of the opportunity to consider, and settle, a controverted question of law that has divided the Circuits, and were invited instead to decide an ADA question that has relevance only if we assume the Ninth Circuit correctly resolved the antecedent, unargued question on which we granted certiorari.
Scalia had especially harsh words for the attorneys for San Francisco, casting aspersion on their integrity:
Why, one might ask, would a petitioner take a position on a Circuit split that it had no intention of arguing, or at least was so little keen to argue that it cast the argument aside uninvited? The answer is simple. Petitioners included that issue to induce us to grant certiorari.
Scalia states that the Court would never have granted certiorari on the first question as it was argued in the briefs and would certainly have never granted certiorari on the"fact-bound" qualified immunity issue. Scalia, with Kagan, dissented from the Court's holding on the qualified immunity issue:
I would not reward such bait-and-switch tactics by proceeding to decide the independently "uncertworthy" second question. And make no mistake about it: Today's judgment is a reward. It gives the individual petitioners all that they seek, and spares San Francisco the significant expense of defending the suit, and satisfying any judgment, against the individual petitioners. I would not encourage future litigants to seek review premised on arguments they never plan to press, secure in the knowledge that once they find a toehold on this Court's docket, we will consider whatever workaday arguments they choose to present in their merits briefs.
The Court, absent Justice Breyer who did not participate in the case, did "reward" San Francisco by finding that the police officers were protected by qualified immunity: "no precedent clearly established that there was not 'an objective need for immediate entry' here." The somewhat particular facts - - - the situation involved an entry and then a re-entry of Sheehan's room - - - nevertheless involved a "straightforward" and exceedingly brief qualified immunity analysis.
And a reversal of the Ninth Circuit.
While the attorneys for the City and County of San Francisco may have endured a scolding, Scalia is correct that the Court's decision is ultimately a reward.
[image via]
May 18, 2015 in Courts and Judging, Criminal Procedure, Disability, Federalism, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, Opinion Analysis, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Obamacare Opponents Lack Standing--Again
Judge Reggie B. Walton (D.D.C.) ruled in American Freedom Law Center v. Obama that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the federal government's "transitional policy" and "hardship exemption," which permit individuals temporarily to maintain health insurance coverage through plans that are not compliant with the general requirements of the Affordable Care Act.
The ruling deals a blow to opponents of the government's exemption--but a fully predictable one.
The plaintiffs' theory of standing turned on market forces driving up an AFLC staff member's premiums. It goes like this: When the federal government temporarily exempted certain individuals from enrolling in non-compliant plans (in reaction to the political blow-back after many folks received notices that their insurance would be cancelled and changed to comply with the ACA), this depleted the pool of individuals enrolling in ACA-compliant plans; and that drove up the costs of those plans. Plaintiff Muise was enrolled in such a plan, and, indeed, saw his premiums rise.
In short, Muise argued that his premiums rose in his compliant plan because the government's exemption meant that fewer people enrolled in compliant plans.
Judge Walton disagreed. He noted that insurance premiums can fluctuate for any number of reasons, not just the government's exemption, and that the plaintiff's theory suffered from other defects in the causal chain. Quoting from the government's motion to dismiss:
[the] [p]laintiffs have not established any of the links in the causal chain . . . that would be necessary to their apparent theory of standing to challenge this particular exemption. [The] [p]laintiffs have not alleged, for example, that there are individuals in Michigan with cancelled policies; that any such individuals consider the other policies available to them to be unaffordable; that any such individuals have availed themselves of [the defendants'] "hardship" exemption for consumers with cancelled policies; that, but for this exemption, any such individual would have purchased "minimum essential coverage" . . .; that in purchasing such coverage, that individual would have entered the same risk pool as these [p]laintiffs; and that such individual's addition to the risk pool would have lowered [the] [p]laintiffs' premiums.
The ruling is consistent with similar rulings in other district courts.
May 17, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Executive Authority, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Separation of Powers, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Saturday, May 16, 2015
DC Circuit Says No Standing to Challenge Clean Water Act Determination
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled in National Association of Home Builders v. EPA that a development association lacked standing to challenge the EPA's determination that two reaches of the Santa Cruz River are traditional navigable waters, subject to federal regulation. The court said that the plaintiff was barred by collateral estoppel, based on the same court's earlier ruling against the same plaintiff lodging the same complaint.
But two judges argued that the earlier ruling was flat wrong, rearguing an issue that the court wrangled over just three years ago. (The full D.C. Circuit denied en banc review of the earlier ruling in 2012.)
Home Builders filed its original lawsuit in 2009, challenging the determination by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers that two reaches of the Santa Cruz River were traditional navigable waterways. That determination requires any party that wishes to dredge or discharge into the river, or any waterway with a "significant nexus" to the river, to get a federal permit. Parties who don't know whether they need a permit can seek a Jurisdictional Determination from the Corps.
Home Builders sued to stop the designation, on the theory that its members would have to choose between applying for a permit and facing enforcement penalties. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the case, holding that Home Builders lacked standing unless and until the agencies applied the determination to a particular property:
the owner or developer of the property suffers no incremental injury in fact from the [determination] and any challenge to it is therefore premature. In the meanwhile, [Home Builders'] members face only the possibility of regulation, as they did before the [determination]: Any watercourse on their property may (or may not) turn out to be subject to [Clean Water Act] dredging permit requirements because of a nexus (or not) with the two Santa Cruz reaches.
Home Builders came back in this latest suit with additional allegations designed to fill the standing gaps in its original case. But the D.C. Circuit said they weren't enough: Home Builders' standing in the second case has exactly the same problems it did in the first.
The ruling means that Home Builders, and its members, have to wait until later in the process--until the agencies determine that particular land is covered--until they can challenge the original designation of the Santa Cruz.
But two judges on the panel argued that the first ruling was flat wrong. Judges Silberman and Sentelle wrote that any regulated party has standing to challenge an agency rule:
And the law is rather clear; any party covered by an agency's regulatory action has standing to challenge a rule when it issues--it certainly need not wait until a government agency seeks to enforce a rule. That proposition is so clearly established it is beyond question. Nor do parties have to wait until the government takes preliminary steps before enforcing--clearing its throat, so to speak. It is only necessary for a potential litigant to show that it is part of the regulated class and its behavior is likely affected by the government's action.
May 16, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
D.C. Circuit Rebuffs Challenge to CFPB
The D.C. Circuit last week dismissed a case challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under separation of powers. The ruling in Morgan Drexen, Inc. v. CFPB held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and should pursue their constitutional claims against the CFPB in a CFPB enforcement action pending in another federal district court.
The ruling ends this particular challenge to the CFPB (for now), but allows the plaintiff to pursue its challenge in the enforcement action.
Morgan Drexen filed the claim after the CFPB threatened enforcement action against the firm for violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule in its bankruptcy and debt-relief services. Kimberly Pisinski, an attorney who contracts with Morgan Drexen for paralegal services, joined the suit on the theory that the CFPB's enforcement action against Morgan Drexen would affect her own law practice.
Morgan Drexen and Pisinski sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the CFPB is unconstitutional because its powers are overbroad, it's headed by a single director who is removable only for cause, it is funded outside the ordinary appropriations process, and judicial review of its actions is limited.
But soon after Morgan Drexen and Pisinski sued in the D.C. District, the CFPB filed an enforcement action against Morgan Drexen in the Central District of California. Pisinski, who apparently really, really wanted to be a part of the action, moved to intervene in that suit, too. (The court denied her motion. The court also recently granted the CFPB's motion for sanction and default judgment against Morgan Drexen, finding that "[d]efendants willfully and in bad faith engaged in a coordinated and extensive effort to deceive the Court and opposing counsel" and having "blatantly falsified evidence . . . concealing this fact from the Court, opposing counsel, and even their own counsel at every turn.")
The D.C. Circuit ruled that Morgan Drexen could lodge its constitutional claims against the CFPB in the enforcement case in the Central District of California instead of in its case in the D.C. District. The court said that Morgan Drexen wouldn't suffer any harm in harm in doing so, and that it'd support judicial economy.
The court also ruled that Pisinski lacked standing. That's because she didn't allege a CFPB enforcement action would harm her practice, or that she engaged in any illegal conduct as a Morgan Drexen contractor:
In sum, Pisinski has failed to proffer evidence in support of any of her theories of standing: that she was responsible for Morgan Drexen's allegedly illegal conduct, that her practice is or will be economically harmed by the Bureau's enforcement action against Morgan Drexen, or that implicit accusations by the Bureau that she exercised too little control over Morgan Drexen or engaged in illegal conduct herself could damage her professional standing. The record evidence does not show that she used Morgan Drexen's allegedly illegal services or that there is a substantial risk that the Bureau's enforcement action will cause harms to her practice or professional reputation that she has asserted.
Judge Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that Pisinsky had standing, and that the majority's approach is "more complicated than it needs to be."
May 6, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Separation of Powers, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Monday, April 27, 2015
Obamacare Survives Origination Challenge
The Fifth Circuit on Friday dismissed a case challenging both the individual and employer mandates in the Affordable Care Act under the Origination Clause. The court said that the individual plaintiff challenging the individual mandate lacked standing, and that the corporation challenging the employer mandate was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. The ruling dismisses the case, with little or no chance of a successful appeal.
The case, Hotze v. Burwell, was brought by a medical doctor, Steven Hotze, and his employer, Braidwood Management. The plaintiffs argued that the ACA's individual and employer mandates violated the Origination Clause, because they are "bills for raising Revenue" that did not "originate in the House." Their theory: The ACA was a Senate amendment to a shell of a House bill that already passed, so that in fact the ACA really originated in the Senate. If so--and if the individual mandate is authorized by the Taxing Clause (and not the Commerce Clause), as the Court held--then, they claimed, the whole ACA should have started in the House. Because it really didn't, it violated the Origination Clause.
But there was a problem even before the court got to the merits: Hotze already had health insurance through Braidwood, and so would not have to purchase insurance or pay the tax penalty. This meant that he didn't suffer a harm.
Hotze neglected to say in his complaint that his insurance wasn't up to ACA snuff (and that he'd have to drop it and buy new insurance or pay the tax penalty), so all he had for an injury was that the ACA forced him to make hard health-insurance choices. The court said that this wasn't enough for standing.
Hotze also argued that when the employer mandate takes effect, Braidwood would have to offer him less desirable insurance. The court said that this theory wasn't tightly enough tied (or at all tied) to the individual mandate, however, so this didn't support standing, either.
Finally, Hotze said that the ACA forced his insurance premiums up. The court rejected this theory, too, saying that it amounts to a generalized grievance.
The court also dismissed Braidwood's challenge to the employer mandate, but this time under the Anti-Injunction Act. The AIA bars courts from hearing any challenge to restrain the assessment or collection of any tax.
Even if the court had addressed the merits, however, this case didn't appear to be going anywhere. That's because the ACA did originate in the House, even if in a shell bill later amended by the Senate to include the full ACA. The plaintiffs argued that the Senate amendment wasn't germane to the House bill (and was thus an unconstitutional end-run around the Origination Clause), but the government argued that the Origination Clause didn't contain a germane-ness requirement--a point the district court found convincing.
The district court dismissed the case on the merits, ruling that the ACA didn't violate the Origination Clause. Good bet the Fifth Circuit would have, too.
April 27, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Congressional Authority, Courts and Judging, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, April 24, 2015
No Gas in Auto Emission Standard Suit
The D.C. Circuit ruled today that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge EPA and NHTSA's standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. The ruling means that the case is dismissed, and the standards stay in place.
The case, Delta Construction v. EPA, tests a joint effort by the EPA and NHTSA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and trucks. The agencies issued coordinated rules, one set of rules for cars and, later, one set for trucks. (The D.C. Circuit previously upheld the car rules, and the Supreme Court denied review.)
The plaintiffs--business, associations, and individuals in California, and Plant Oil Powered Diesel (or POP Diesel), a company that promotes the use of vegetable oil in place of traditional diesel fuel--sued, arguing that the regulations were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The California plaintiffs challenged the EPA rules only; POP Diesel challenged both the EPA and NHTSA rules. The California plaintiffs argued that the regs jacked up the price of cars and trucks in the state; POP Diesel argued that the truck rule makes its product economically unfeasible.
The court held that the California plaintiffs lacked standing, because they couldn't show causation and redressability. That's because even if they won on the merits--and the court struck the EPA rules--the NHTSA rules would still drive the prices of their vehicles up. In other words, because both agencies' sets of rules did the same thing, defeating one wouldn't solve their alleged problem.
As to POP Diesel, the court said that it didn't fall within the zone of interests protected by the portion of the Clean Air Act governing emissions standards for motor vehicles. The court said that economic interests, like POP Diesel's, without more, aren't within the congressional goals of the Act, and that POP Diesel's green approach alone doesn't put it within the Act's zone of interests.
The court dismissed the case and ended the plaintiffs' challenge to the emissions regs.
April 24, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Fifth Circuit Rejects DACA Challenge
The Fifth Circuit today affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or "DACA," program by a group of ICE agents and deportation officers and the State of Mississippi. We previously posted on the suit here.
The plaintiffs lodged several claims against the DACA program, including a separation-of-powers and a violation of the Take Care Clause. They claimed that they had standing because Mississippi incurred expenses for state benefits for "illegal aliens" and because DACA forced the officers to violate the law, change the way they enforced the law, and face job sanctions for not deferring.
The court today rejected these standing claims and affirmed the dismissal of case. As to Mississippi, the court said that any injury was "purely speculative because there was no concrete evidence that Mississippi's costs had increased or will increase as a result of DACA." As to the officers, the court said that a violation of their oath to uphold the laws was not a sufficient injury for standing purposes; that their burden to comply with DACA also wasn't a sufficient injury and that in any event they failed to allege specific facts to support it; and that any threat of employment sanctions for not enforcing DACA was too speculative.
As to this last point, the court emphasized that DACA requires individual officers to "exercise their discretion in deciding to grant deferred action, and this judgment should be exercised on a case-by-case basis." This feature of DACA, of course, also goes to the merits by hard-wiring DACA with prosecutorial discretion and putting the program squarely within executive discretionary authority. As to standing, the court said that this feature makes it unlikely that an officer would be sanctioned for exercising discretion to deport.
Today's ruling says nothing about the merits of DACA. But it does illustrate why it's so hard to bring a challenge to DACA in court.
April 7, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Separation of Powers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Fifth Circuit Rejects FMLA Claims
The Fifth Circuit dismissed most of the plaintiff's Family and Medical Leave Act case in Bryant v. Texas Dep't of Aging and Disability Services, holding that most claims were barred by state sovereign immunity and qualified immunity. But the court remanded the question whether the plaintiff's claim for monetary damages against her supervisor is barred by state sovereign immunity.
The plaintiff, Tammy Bryant, sued her employer, Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services, and her direct supervisor, Kim Littleton, for interfering with her self-care FMLA leave and for retaliating against her for taking FMLA leave. She sought reinstatement and monetary damages.
The Fifth Circuit dismissed most of Bryant's case. The court ruled that while Congress validly abrogated states' Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to the FMLA's family-care provision, Nev. Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs, Congress did not validly abrogate with respect to the self-care provision. Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland. As a result, the department had Eleventh Amendment immunity against Brant's self-care claims for monetary damages.
As to Bryant's claim for reinstatement, the court said that the Ex Parte Young exception (allowing plaintiffs to sue a state for prospective relief) did not apply to suits against state agencies; it only applies against state employees acting in their official capacities.
The court ruled further that Littleton enjoyed qualified immunity from Bryant's interference claims, because Bryant failed to show that Littleton violated clearly established law.
Finally, the court remanded Bryant's claim for monetary damages against Littleton. The court recognized that this "depends on the state's being the real party in interest" and left it to the lower court to work that out.
March 26, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Congressional Authority, Courts and Judging, Eleventh Amendment, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Court Dismisses Defamation Case on Government State Secret Assertion
Judge Edgardo Ramos (SDNY) dismissed a private defamation case this week after the government moved to intervene and asserted the state secrets privilege. Judge Ramos ruled that moving forward with the case at all (even excluding privileged evidence) would "impose an unjustifiable risk of disclosing state secrets." The ruling thus puts an end to the case, unless and until appealed. It is not a ruling on the merits, however.
The case, Restis v. American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, involves Greek shipping magnate Victor Restis's defamation claim against the group United Against Nuclear Iran for claiming, as part of its "name and shame" campaign, that Restis was involved in the illegal exportation of Iranian oil in violation of international sanctions. Restis sued UANI, and the government intervened and moved to dismiss on state secrets grounds, filing a classified declaration by the head of the government department that has control over the matter in support. (The government asserted, and the court apparently accepted, that the government couldn't even reveal "the department that has control over the matter" without risking the disclosure of secret information.)
Judge Ramos reviewed the declaration in camera and held two ex parte, in camera meetings with the government before determining that the state secrets privilege applied. "Having carefully reviewed the classified declarations and documents submitted by the Government ex parte, and being cognizant of a district court's obligation to grant 'utmost deference' to the executive's determination of the likely import of disclosure of the information on military or diplomatic security, the Court is satisfied that there is a reasonable danger that disclosure of the facts underlying the Government's assertion would in fact jeopardize national security."
Judge Ramos went on to say that "further litigation of this action would impose an unjustifiable risk of disclosing state secrets" and dismissed the case entirely. (Under the state secrets privilege, Judge Ramos might have allowed the case to move forward without the privileged evidence. But here, he said, any further litigation would risk disclosure.)
Notably absent from the ruling was any discussion of the state secrets privilege as a separation-of-powers principle. (Treating the privilege as a separation-of-powers principle has in the past led to a much more robust privilege, as in the Fourth Circuit's ruling in El-Masri.) Instead, Judge Ramos treated the privilege as it was designed and as the government apparently asserted it--as an evidentiary privilege. Even so, the government's assertion of the privilege resulted in the dismissal of the entire case.
Judge Ramos rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the government shouldn't be able to rely only on ex parte submissions for its assertion and that the case could be litigated in an in camera trial--because the evidence was apparently too secret even to tell the lawyers. Judge Ramos wrote, "The nature of the information here requires that counsel not be granted access."
Judge Ramos gave a hat tip--but only a hat tip--to the plaintiff's interest in access to justice:
The Court recognizes that dismissal is a "harsh sanction." It is particularly so in this case because Plaintiffs not only do not get their day in court, but cannot be told why.
Still, he said that "dismissal is nonetheless appropriate," because "there is no intermediate solution that would allow this litigation to proceed while also safeguarding the secrets at issue."
March 25, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Executive Privilege, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Separation of Powers, State Secrets | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Sierra Club Has Standing, Defeats EPA Redesignation of Cincinnati Area
The Sixth Circuit ruled last week in Sierra Club v. EPA that the Sierra Club had standing to challenge EPA's redesignation of the Ohio and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati area from "nonattainment" to "attainment" of the area's national air quality standards for particulate matter. The court went on to rule that the EPA's redesignation violated the Clean Air Act.
The ruling is notable, because it's the first time the Sixth Circuit had a chance to address a petitioner's burden of production on standing in a direct appeal of a final agency action. The court said that the petitioner bears a burden of production similar to that required at summary judgment (and not like the lower standard required on a motion to dismiss), that is: "the petitioner has to present specific facts supporting standing through citations to the administrative record or 'affidavits or other evidence' attached to its opening brief, unless standing is self-evident." This standard aligns the Sixth Circuit with the Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits.
Here, the Sierra Club attached to its brief a declaration by Sierra Club members who claimed that the redesignation would cause aesthetic, recreational, and physical injuries. As to causation and redressability, the court noted "that many courts have apparently found it so obvious that redesignation would lead to higher emissions that they did not even need to discuss the standing of environmental litigants." Still, the court looked to "reasonable inferences" about redesignation's impact and concluded that "[w]e find it reasonable to infer actual and imminent aesthetic and physical injuries to an identified member of the Club from redesignation of the Cincinnati area."
After concluded that the Sierra Club had standing, the court went on to rule against the EPA on the merits--that the redesignation violated the Clean Air Act.
March 24, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, March 20, 2015
Families of Hostages Lack Standing to Halt Government No-Ransom Policy
The Ninth Circuit ruled today in Munns v. Kerry that families of a government contractor taken hostage in Iraq lacked standing to challenge the alleged government policy prohibiting families from offering a reward or negotiating with terrorist kidnappers. The ruling dismisses the case.
The case was brought by former employees of a private firm (and their families) that contracted with the government for security services in Iraq. Former employees of the company claim, through their next of kin, that they were issued substandard military equipment and were ill-prepared for a mission (because of the negligence of their employer, sanctioned by the State Department), that as a result they were taken hostage and held for over a year, and that government policy prohibited the families from negotiating with the kidnappers. Kidnappers brutally executed the employees in 2008.
One plaintiff, Bjorlin, not taken hostage, alleges that he wishes to return to Iraq but wants to be sure that government policies will not prevent his employer from properly equipping him for security missions.
The families of the kidnapped and executed employees argued that an alleged government policy prohibiting them from seeking information on the kidnapped employees, and offering a reward, violated the First Amendment; they sought declaratory and injunctive relief against such a policy. They also argued that the government withheld money that belongs to them as survivors of their deceased contractor relatives, in violation of the Due Process and Takings Clauses; they sought monetary damages.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing for their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. As to the families of executed employees, the court said that they didn't allege how any government policies would affect them in the future (even if they alleged that those policies affected them in the past). As to Bjorlin, the court said that the chain of events required before he would be affected by any policies was simply too attenuated.
Because the court affirmed the dismissal based on lack of standing, it didn't address the political question doctrine as an alternative basis for dismissal.
The court also rejected the plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages based on sovereign immunity.
March 20, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Alabama Supreme Court Orders Probate Judges to Discontinue Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses
In a per curiam opinion in excess of 130 pages, the Alabama Supreme Court has ordered certain probate judges to 'discontinue the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples' in compliance with a district judge's order and a denial of a stay by the United States Supreme Court.
[UPDATED: Reports state that the controversial Chief Justice Roy Moore recused himself from the ruling, but neither Moore nor recusal seems to be mentioned in the opinion]. The Alabama Supreme Court's opinion per curiam opinion states that "Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur," and that "Main, J., concurs in part and concurs in the result," and that "Shaw, J., dissents." Chief Justice Moore is the ninth of the nine justices of the Alabama Supreme Court (pictured below).
The case is styled Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, Alabama Citizens Action Program, and John E. Enslen, in his official capacity as Judge of Probate for Elmore County; In re: Alan L. King, in his official capacity as Judge of Probate for Jefferson County, et al., and is an Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Justice Greg Shaw's dissent highlights the unusual procedural posture of the case: he concludes that the Alabama Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction, that the public interest groups (Alabama Policy Institute and Alabama Citizens Action Program) cannot sue in Alabama's name and do not have standing, that the petition for writ of mandamus is procedurally deficient given that there is no lower court opinion, and that the court's opinion improperly rules on the constitutionality of the Alabama marriage laws since that issue is not before it. Justice Shaw concludes:
I believe that this case is not properly before this Court. As the main opinion notes, this case is both unusual and of great public interest; however, I do not see a way for this Court to act at this time. By overlooking this Court's normal procedures; by stretching our law and creating exceptions to it; by assuming original jurisdiction, proceeding as a trial court, and reaching out to speak on an issue that this Court cannot meaningfully impact because the Supreme Court of the United States will soon rule on it; and by taking action that will result in additional confusion and more costly federal litigation involving this State's probate judges, this Court, in my view, is venturing into unchartered waters and potentially unsettling established principles of law.
Shaw's dissent provides a window into the Alabama Supreme Court's lengthy opinion. Much of the opinion concerns the odd procedural posture of the case. The opinion does specifically address the relationship between Alabama and the federal judge's decision by declaring that the "Respondents' Ministerial Duty is Not Altered by the United States Constitution":
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama has declared that Alabama's laws that define marriage as being only between two members of the opposite sex -- what has been denominated traditional marriage -- violate the United States Constitution. After careful consideration of the reasoning employed by the federal district court in Searcy I, we find that the provisions of Alabama law contemplating the issuance of marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples do not violate the United States Constitution and that the Constitution does not alter or override the ministerial duties of the respondents under Alabama law.
Thus, because the Alabama Supreme Court disagrees, Alabama is not bound by the federal decision. The Alabama Supreme Court's "per curiam" opinion on the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban is scholarly, lengthy, and well-reasoned (and perhaps more persuasive than the Sixth Circuit's opinion in DeBoer v. Snyder, to which the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, and on which the Alabama Supreme Court relies extensively). But this discussion does little to resolve the basic federalism of whether the state is bound by the federal court's judgment. The court's order does include this specific provision, which may engage the issue most directly:
As to Judge Davis's request to be dismissed on the ground that he is subject to a potentially conflicting federal court order, he is directed to advise this Court, by letter brief, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 5, 2015, as to whether he is bound by any existing federal court order regarding the issuance of any marriage license other than the four marriage licenses he was ordered to issue in Strawser.
March 3, 2015 in Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Federalism, Fourteenth Amendment, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, Recent Cases, Sexual Orientation, Supremacy Clause, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Court Clears Path to Internet Tax Reporting Challenge
The Supreme Court ruled today in Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl that out-of-state retailers can move forward with their challenge to Colorado's requirement that the retailers notify Colorado customers of their Colorado sales and use tax burden and report tax-related information to those customers and to the Colorado Department of Revenue.
The case tests a state's best efforts at collecting sales and use taxes for out-of-state and internet purchases by its residents, given the long-standing rule that a state cannot tax out-of-state and internet retailers directly.
The underlying issue goes back to 1967, when the Court ruled in National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois that states cannot require a business to collect use taxes (the equivalent of sales taxes for out-of-state purchases) if the business does not have a physical presence in the state. That rule was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Court reaffirmed that rule in 1992 in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota.
But that rule has created a significant loss of revenue for states, now that so many (and dramatically increasing) sales go through the internet, to out-of-state online retailers. The rule means that states cannot collect use taxes from those retailers.
So some states, like Colorado, implemented information and reporting requirements. For example, Colorado's law requires out-of-state retailers to inform its in-state customers of their use tax burden and to report tax-related information to Colorado tax authorities.
Out-of-state retailers sued, arguing that Colorado's requirements violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. The district court ruled in their favor, but the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the suit was barred by the Tax Injunction Act. In a relatively short and simple opinion today, the unanimous Court reversed, holding that the Tax Injunction Act did not bar the suit (because the Act only bars suits against a tax "assessment, levy or collection," and not information and reporting requirements).
The Court's ruling opens the door to the out-of-state retailers' challenge to Colorado's information and reporting requirements. If the district court is right, even these modest efforts violate the Dormant Commerce Clause--and create an even bigger headache for states trying to collect use taxes on their citizens' out-of-state and internet purchases.
On the other hand, Justice Kennedy signaled today in concurrence that the Court may be willing to reassess its Bellas Hess and Quill Corp. rule (or at least that the Court should reassess the rule) in light of the technological changes we've seen in the last 25 years (and the proliferation of online retailers) and the fact that the Dormant Commerce Clause changed enough between the two cases to render the Quill ruling questionable. (Justice Kennedy reminds us that three Justices upheld Bellas Hess in Quill on stare decisis grounds alone, and that the majority recognized that Bellas Hess stood on weak ground.)
Bellas Hess and Quill Corp. go to state use taxes, not information and reporting requirements like Colorado's. Still, the retailers' challenge to Colorado's information and reporting requirements could put Quill on the chopping block. (At least the district court decision striking the requirements relied on Quill.)
If so, this case (in its next round) could give the Supreme Court a chance to reassess the Quill rule and give states more latitude in collecting use taxes from out-of-state and internet retailers.
March 3, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Commerce Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, Federalism, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Recent Cases | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, February 13, 2015
Standing in King v. Burwell
There's no shortage of opinion on standing in King v. Burwell, the case testing whether the IRS had authority under the Affordable Care Act to grant tax credits to purchasers of health insurance through a federally-facilitated (not state-run) exchange. The Wall Street Journal and Mother Jones wrote about the standing problems first, but now there's coverage all around the internet.
Still, neither the government nor the Court has said anything about it.
The Court can consider the plaintiffs' standing anytime, and on its own motion. If it rules that the plaintiffs in this case lack standing, surely there will be efforts to find new plaintiffs.
But remember: The parallel case in the D.C. Circuit--which first came down the same day as King--is still in abeyance pending the outcome of King. If the Court dismisses King for lack of standing, the D.C. Circuit would likely lift its case out of abeyance and put the issue back before the Supreme Court relatively quickly (or at least quicker than ACA opponents could scrounge up new plaintiffs and start all over).
February 13, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Standing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Judge Moore: federal courts have no power over state marriage law
In a Letter to the Governor of Alabama, Robert Bentley today, the Chief Justice of Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore (pictured) asked the Governor to continue to uphold the respect for different-sex marriage and reject the judicial "tyranny" of the federal district court's opinion last Friday finding the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. He writes grounds the sacredness of man-woman marriage in the Bible, and writes
Today the destruction of that institution is upon us by federal courts using specious pretexts based on the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Full Faith and Credit Clauses of the United States Constitution. As of this date, 44 federal courts have imposed by judicial fiat same-sex marriages in 21 states of the Union, overturning the express will of the people in those states. If we are to preserve that "reverent morality which is our source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement," then we must act to oppose such tyranny!
He argues that United States district court opinions are not controlling authority in Alabama, citing a case, Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Taylor, 28 So. 3d 737, 744n.5 (Ala. 2009), regarding a common law negligence claim rather than a constitutional issue. He does not argue the Supremacy Clause.
Justice Moore is no stranger to controversial positions, including promoting his biblical beliefs over federal law, and gained notoriety as the "the Ten Commandments Judge." Recall that Moore was originally elected to the Alabama Supreme Court with the campaign promise to "restore the moral foundation of the law" and soon thereafter achieved notoriety for installing a 5,280-pound monument depicting the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building. See Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1285 (11th Cir. 2003). After federal courts found that the monument violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1304 (M.D. Ala. 2002), aff'd, Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2003), Chief Justice Moore was ordered to remove the monument. See Glassroth v. Moore, No. 01-T-1268-N, 2003 LEXIS 13907 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 5, 2003). After the deadline to remove the monument passed, Chief Justice Moore was suspended, with pay, pending resolution of an ethics complaint, which charged that he failed to "observe high standards of conduct" and "respect and comply with the law." Jeffrey Gettleman, Judge Suspended for Defying Court on Ten Commandments, N.Y. Times, August 23, 2003, at A7.
In 2012, Justice Moore was re-elected to the Alabama Supreme Court as its chief justice after almost a decade out of office during which time he served as "President of the Foundation for Moral Law."
[UPDATE: A great video produced by Christopher Scott and Mary Baschab, University of Alabama School of Law, Class of 2011 is here].
January 27, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Current Affairs, Due Process (Substantive), Equal Protection, Family, Federalism, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Fundamental Rights, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, Recent Cases, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Supremacy Clause, Supreme Court (US), Theory | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, January 22, 2015
No Remedy for Inmate when Authorities take Medical Settlement for Cost of Incarceration
The Ninth Circuit ruled in Shinault v. Hawks that a state has to provide pre-deprivation notice and hearing before it freezes funds in an inmate's trust account to recover the cost of his incarceration. But at the same time, the court said that this rule wasn't "clearly established" at the time, so the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. The court also rejected the inmate's Eighth Amendment claim.
The upshot is that prison authorities took more than $60,000 of an inmate's money--money from a settlement for a medical liability claim--in violation of procedural due process. But according to the Ninth Circuit, the inmate has no recourse against the officers.
Lester Shinault received a $107,417.48 settlement from a medical claim against a drug manufacturer who products (prescribed while Shinault was not in custody) caused him to develop diabetes. Shinault's attorney deposited the money in his inmate trust account.
Prison authorities then ordered Shinault to pay $65,353.94 to cover the cost of his incarceration. On the same day that Shinault requested a hearing, authorities transferred this amount from his trust account into a "reserved miscellaneous" sub-account in Shinault's name, but which Shinault could not access. An ALJ ruled against Shinault (in a hearing where Shinault didn't have an attorney and struggled mightily to represent himself), and about a year later authorities withdrew $61,352.39.
Shinault sued, arguing that the withdraw violated procedural due process and the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment against him.
The Ninth Circuit held that authorities violated procedural due process under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, because they failed to provide a pre-deprivation hearing prior to freezing the funds. But it also held that the violation wasn't "clearly established" at the time (because it couldn't find precedent directly on point, and because it said that procedural due process questions were fact specific, that is, not determined until a particular case is litigated), so the officials enjoyed qualified immunity.
In other words, the court said it wasn't "clearly established" that authorities had to provide a pre-deprivation hearing before freezing over $60,000.00 that Shinault obtained from a settlement with a drug company whose products caused him to develop diabetes. Because this wasn't "clearly established," the defendants enjoyed immunity, and Shinault has no claim against them for return of his money.
The court also held that authorities did not violate Shinault's Eighth Amendment rights, because "no authority supports the notion that freezing or withdrawing funds from an inmate account constitutes deliberate denial of care under the Eighth Amendment."
January 22, 2015 in Cases and Case Materials, Courts and Judging, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Procedural Due Process | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)