text:
Online Class
Patternmaking Basics: The Bodice Sloper
with Suzy Furrer
A slouchy, lacy, light weight hat with high fashion appeal. Originally designed to teach simple lace designs to beginning lace knitters swatching in the round. Available in two sizes~ladies (purple)and Jumbo (blue) for those who have plenty of curly locks and desire a wild Rastafarian look! GAUGE 23 Sts and 32 rows = 4 with size 6 needles in St st blocked. SIZING / FINISHED MEASUREMENTS band is 20(22.5) inches and very stretchy. Height 10.5 (11) Circumference at widest part 21(26) inches.


text: Check out all of Zazzle's amazing array of Flying V aprons! Whether you are shopping for your home, your business or just looking for a gift you'll find a vast selection of Flying V aprons right here. Our Flying V aprons are great for protecting your clothes while cooking in your kitchen, working the barbeque or even doing a little gardening. Available in a number of different sizes for adults and kids, you'll find the perfect Flying V apron in our marketplace. Browse through all of the great designs, artwork and text created by our designer community to spruce up your new Flying V pinny. Shop for yours today!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
(.) (.) Kohinoor Beauties (.) (.)
Feed & Web Facts
Feed Item Count
6 Dec 16 11:27
Last Reading
RSS/XML Version
Feed Language
Feed Encoding
Related Feeds
You could also like to visit these feeds:
Weekly PeopleWeek
(.) (.) Kohinoor Beauties (.) (.)
Show feed | XML | Profile
Newest Posts in Feed
Udita biatch... looks like took up a challenge
Time for an update Udita biatch... looks like took up a challenge... yeh coma patient ka bhi lund khada karne ka And what can be a better way than getting her boobies pressed Looks like mamme dabane se kuch hua nahi... so mudke apni gaand dikha rahi hai Still no effect... so what to do... get his a closeeee look of the booby cleavageNow shez frustrated.. kuch bhi karo.. iska khada hi nahi horaa A...
Maa Zee dumper aunty getting bumped


text:
Toggle navigation
Place an ad
Sign in with Classifieds account
Sign in with Classifieds account
Place an ad
Search All Classifieds
Auctions / Sales
Business Services
Financial & Loans
Garage Sales
Pets & Animals
Real Estate
Funeral Directory
Find a job
Post a job
Find a car
Post a car
Find a home
Post a home
Find a rental
Post a rental
Get stuff done
Make money now
Featured Ads
AKC French Bulldog Puppies
AKC Registered. Very sweet and loving puppies. Great for families with kids. Every puppy comes with a health guarantee, shots, and wormings up to date. We accept cash, credit cards, and pay pal. Appointments only please call 828-397-4881 or 828-238-7687 today to reserve your new baby. To see all...
english cream golden ret. pups
akc reg. vet checked,parents on site. full registration available for $1500.
AKC Miniature Poodle
Beautiful male Miniature Poodle for you! 12 weeks. Dark Apricot. All shots and wormings are UTD.
"Teddy" is so sweet and cuddly you won't want to put him down!
He comes with toys, bed and a Puppy Pack to take to his new home.
Cockapoo Pups
Beautiful Pups! Male and Female available. Raised indoors with family! Rare red and red and white. All shots and deworming up to date. Please call 704-785-9773 for additional information.
CHRISTMAS - English Cream Golden Retrievers AKC
Working Dogs- JUST IN TIME FOR CHRISTMAS !!!Champion Pedigree- Beautiful English Golden Retriever babies ... - Both parents are Great Goldens with very nice temperaments.. .Both parents are OFA hips These puppies will make heads turn. They are ivory/white Goldens very dark pigmentation on their...
Mountain Top Land
71 acres on Mountain Top with 4000 feet of BIG trout stream! Galax, VA. Enjoy wildlife, privacy and relaxing. 90 min from Char,owner $4,200 per acre 336-525-9904
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Puppy for Sale
AKC reg. SPAYED. Beautiful COLOR. She is so cute and perfect for anyone. Every puppy comes with a health guarantee, shots, and wormings up to date. We accept cash, credit cards, and pay pal. Appointments only please call 828-397-4881 or 828-238-7687 today to reserve your new baby. To see all our...
We have expanded the outlet to be bigger and better now with even more fabric by the yard!
Shop our sample section to find completed Pineapple projects that make great holiday gifts!
- Thur. Dec. 8th 9am-5pm
- Fri. Dec. 9th 9am-5pm ...
Bull Terrier Puppies, AKC
AKC registered bull terrier puppies available, black and white male and female and one white male, they are current on vaccines and wormings, puppies have had their dew claws removed, very social puppies, they are $900.00 with limited registration or $1200.00 with full registration, call...
View all featured ads
Recent Ads
AKC Boston Terrier Puppies
AKC registered boston terrier puppies, male and female, father is red, mother is black, puppies are black and white and carry the red gene, they are current on vaccines and wormings, dew claws are removed, $800.00 each, each puppy comes with a food pack, toys, and a health guarantee, call...
South Meck: 11907 Carolina Blossom Ln, Pineville...
girl 3m-3t,Ladies M-XXL,hshld,toddler bed,tv stand,lamps,etc,toys
Church Relocation & Liquidation Auction
LIVE ON-SITE: Friday, December 2nd at 10:00 AM
6151 Sharon Rd, Charlotte, NC: Registration Begins at 9:00 AM. Contents of ±5,800 SF Church Selling at Auction to include alters, pews, fixtures & appliances, chandeliers, commercial doors, pulpit furniture, classroom furniture, storage...
Help center
Give us a call
Request Help
Need a job?
Need to hire some help?
Cleaning a House
Fixing a Car
Handyman Work
Personal Trainer
Running Errands
And More...
Find and hire the help you need!
Log in with your
Email Address:
Forgot your password?


text:
Buffy the Vampire Slayer Sunnydale High School Men's Soft Athletic Heather Gray T-shirt
- Features the logo for Sunnyvale High School from the TV show!
- Officially Licensed Buffy the Vampire Slayer
- Adult men's US sizes, standard fit and length.
- Smooth Lightweight Tri-Blend, soft and durable.
- 50% Polyester, 25% Cotton, 25% Rayon.
- Machine washable. "Preshrunk" makes the fabric less likely to shrink, but it doesn't mean it won't shrink again, so dry low or air dry.
type: T-shirt by: Haunted Flower


text:
You are a fan of emotional syndicate ? Come to discover the best forums emotional syndicate on the internet and share your experience with a community fan of emotional syndicate . You can also build a forum emotional syndicate and create your online discussion.
Free Forum: A little fun community of general sillies who just wanted a place to hang out and have some fun. Anyone is welcome!
gamefaqs, cipher, #syndicate, roleplay, games, free, forum, died, creating, whole, rarar, will, good, site, owner
Official Forums
Lonely people exist throughout the world. This is a fact. For some people, this loneliness leads some to unstable emotional states. It leads us to pizza.
pizza, forums, lonely, people, exist, world, fact, loneliness, leads, unstable, #emotional
Toronto Tuner Syndicate - Get Tuned , Stay Tuned
tuner, #syndicate, club, toronto, tuned, stay, mitsubishi, nissan, skyline, specv, altima, maxima, 240sx, 350z, 370z, 300zx, evolution, lancer, eclipse
For all things related to The Last Synidcate,
#syndicate, synidcate
The Official Forums for the Syndicate Gaming Community.
Gaming Alliance & Social Organizations
Free forum : A real friend in a fake world. A real help in pain. Beyond language, beyond culture, beyond fear, one word: love!
loneliness, suicide, sadness, anxiety, rape, friend, love, lost, home, self-harm, depression
Stars conquer legion
global, star, stabilization, #syndicate, stars, conquer, legion
We are Sang Ye! This organization is a hybrid-asian, Hong Kong based, crime syndicate located in San Andreas & Liberty City. This is were we organize & plan our rule
sang, enterprise, organization, hybrid-asian, hong, kong, based, crime, #syndicate, located, andreas, liberty, city, organize


text:
Hot brunette takes it in her hairy pussy and ass
Cum & Join 3 girls ficklest at Shebang.TV
Punished,used and fucked hot slave girl!
Guy Visits His Moms Home amp Gets Dic Sucd In Computer Room black ebony cumshots ebony swallow inter
My Thai chick playing video game naked
Thai Gay Boy Mike loves stroking his cock
Cole Gartner suck dick to Kenny Coors
Tattooed teen masturbates with dildo
Girlfriend give sexist pig boyfriend a harsh handjob
Kinky tranny gets the whole ride
Fucking my MILF wife on hidden cam
Tight Amateur Babe Having Great Sex with Horny Guy
Busty amateur Wendy playing her pussy
Crystal gets her pussy filled with cum
Naughty blonde gives hardhand job
Hannah Callow Kirsten Halborg Girly Fun
Katie St. Ives and Rico Strong
Black gay sucking and anal fucking
Busty Asian chick Manga got fucked hard
Hot petite latinas Alexis Love, Veronique Vega threesome
United We Bang... Phoenixxx Throws A Memorial Day Orgy Party
Great lezzie teen fun in the garden
Alessandra Marques Vem Com Tudo
Teen punk chick makes herself cum
Asian Amateur Sucks & Gets Fucked
Toy and huge cock deeply in her anal
Sexy married dude gets his ass rimmed 5
Orgy with German blondes and brunettes
Security camera catches another sex act
Hot Babes Love Cumshots And Squirting 2
Sandra Romain Shows Her Great Talent At Sucking Cock
Busty blonde schoolgirl doing everything for grades
Liza Del Sierra and Jasmine Black POV Lesbian Fucking
Hot shemale enjoys playing with 2 cocks
Blowjob so friends would believe
Asian housewife getting shared by her husband
Ultra sexy darkhair on the garden
Ladyboy Noi Reinserted Creampie
Sexy Hot Chicks With Strapon Toy
Sexy Lingerie Babe Rides a Dildo
Anna Alexandre fucks Kayla Coxx in Annas first scene ever
18 yo college girl craving for cock
Amateur couple with great creampie
Threesome with two babes in latex gloves and stockings
Illegal Alien Fucked By Police
Tora Tora Gold Vol84 Kousaka Anna2
Twink fucked hard by a big dick
Russian teenager banged really hard
Mature couple facial 69 sixtynine rimjob rimming asslick oral blo
Just married dida. Cheating lesbian actions. Blonde teen cutie licked and done by this guy? Smoking Lola Getting Herself Off teen amateur teen cumshots swallow dp anal?


text:
your bag
Your bag is empty.
Sorry, this product has sold out!
If you would like ARCHFASHION to try to and find it for you complete the form below.
The effedue suede ankle boots. Made in italy - t.Moro suede by casanova's italian shoes is sold out. We did have


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
United States District Court, D. Columbia.
April 30, 2014
GEORGE R. HUGHES, Plaintiff,v.VINCENT L. ABELL, et al., Defendants
Page 109
For GEORGE R. HUGHES, Plaintiff: Heather M. Latino, LEAD ATTORNEY, LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF DC, Washington, DC; Jennifer Ngai Lavallee, LEAD ATTORNEY, LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, DC.
VINCENT L. ABELL, Defendant, Pro se, Washington, DC.
For WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant: Amy Sanborn Owen, LEAD ATTORNEY, BRIGLIAHUNDLEY, P.C., Fairfax, VA; Benje Allen Selan, LEAD ATTORNEY, COCHRAN & OWEN, LLC, Vienna, VA.
For BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Interested Party: Shaan S Chima, LEAD ATTORNEY, GEBHARDT & SMITH LLP, Baltimore, MD.
For JACKSON & CAMPBELL, P.C., Interested Party: David Howard Cox, LEAD ATTORNEY, Glenn W.D. Golding, JACKSON & CAMPBELL, P.C., Washington, DC.
VINCENT L. ABELL, Counter Claimant, Pro se, Washington, DC.
VINCENT L. ABELL, Cross Claimant, Pro se, Washington, DC.
VINCENT L. ABELL, Cross Defendant, Pro se, Washington, DC.
For MARIA-THERESA WILSON, Intervenor: Randell Charles Ogg, LEAD ATTORNEY, BODE & GRENIER, LLP, Washington, DC.
For ASSET LENDING CORPORATION, Intervenor: John Paul Szymkowicz, LEAD ATTORNEY, SZYMKOWICZ & SZYMKOWICZ, LLP, Washington, DC.
For WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant: Amy Sanborn Owen, LEAD ATTORNEY, BRIGLIAHUNDLEY, P.C., Fairfax, VA.
Page 110
JOHN D. BATES, United States District Judge.
This case arises out of a lengthy dispute about the conveyance of a Washington, D.C., property. Extensive litigation resulted in a settlement agreement, which this Court approved. See Settlement & Dismissal Order [ECF No. 157]. That approval left open one issue: who is entitled to the settlement proceeds? The Court referred that question to a magistrate judge, who issued an order requiring anyone claiming an interest in those proceeds to file a statement of claim. See Jan. 18, 2013 Minute Order. The magistrate judge's commendable efforts in assessing those statements left two parties standing: Maria-Theresa Wilson (" Wilson" ) and Asset Lending Corporation (" Asset" ). Wilson filed a motion for summary judgment and, after a round of briefing, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation granting the motion and finding that she is entitled to the funds. See Report & Recommendation [ECF No. 176] (" R& R" ). Asset objected, and Jackson & Campbell, P.C. (" J& C" ) filed a motion to intervene in order to object. See Asset Objections [ECF No. 177]; J& C Mot. to Intervene [ECF No. 178]. After referring that motion to the magistrate judge, and following even more briefing, this Court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation that J& C not be allowed to intervene--but the Court permitted J& C to file an amicus brief. See Mem. Op. [ECF No. 186]. Now before the Court are [177] Asset's objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation that summary judgment be granted in favor of Wilson, and [188] J& C's amicus briefs supporting Asset. For the reasons described below, the Court will accept the magistrate judge's recommendation and enter judgment in favor of Wilson.
The long history of this case is extensively detailed in several prior opinions of this Court and in the magistrate judge's thorough R& Rs. See, e.g., Mem. Op. [ECF No. 186] 1-4. The details salient to the resolution of Wilson's summary judgment motion are as follows. Under the terms of the settlement agreement reached by the parties and approved by this Court, Wells Fargo deposited $42,000 into the Court's Registry " for the benefit of the Abell Creditors." Settlement & Dismissal Order [ECF No. 157] at 2. When the magistrate judge called for statements from claimants, Wilson moved to intervene. See Wilson's Mot. to Intervene [ECF No. 155]. She did so because, back in 2007, she obtained a $2,060,000 judgment against Abell and others in D.C. Superior Court. R& R at 3. On July 24, 2007, she recorded that judgment with the D.C. Recorder of Deeds, placing a lien on Abell's properties in D.C. Id. Abell sought to stay the execution of that judgment pending appeal, and on June 3, 2008, after the D.C. Court of Appeals conditionally granted Abell's motion, a D.C. Superior Court judge set bond for the stay. Id. at 4. Wilson did not take any steps to alter the notice of judgment she filed with the D.C. Recorder of Deeds. Id. at 5.
While Abell's appeal was pending, Sophia Williams--not a party here--also obtained a judgment against Abell in unrelated litigation. Id. at 9. That judgment was recorded on June 2, 2010, and Asset maintains that it was then validly assigned the judgment, meaning that it has a lien against Abell as well. Id. at 9-10.
Page 111
The D.C. Court of Appeals decided the appeal in Wilson's case on June 3, 2011. Id. at 5. Wilson recorded an amended judgment with the D.C. Recorder of Deeds on November 4, 2011. Id. Later that month, a Superior Court judge ordered that the " stay on execution and enforcement of the Judgment" was dissolved, and that Wilson could immediately proceed to collect on the judgment: hence her claim to the funds in the Court's Registry here. Id.
Wilson and Asset disagree about two things: (1) whether Williams properly assigned her judgment to Asset, and (2) the effect of the Superior Court's June 3, 2008 Order on Wilson's lien priority date. For Asset to be entitled to the funds, it must have been validly assigned the Williams judgment, and Wilson's lien priority date must be later than June 2, 2010 (in other words, it must be November 4, 2011, not July 24, 2007).
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), once a magistrate judge has entered his recommended disposition of a dispositive matter--such as Wilson's motion for summary judgment--a party may file specific written objections. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). The district court then " must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to" and may " accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and the evidence demonstrate that " there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
Objectors [1] find two faults with the magistrate judge's R& R. First, they argue that Asset was validly assigned the Williams judgment in 2010. Second, they argue that Wilson's lien priority date is November 4, 2011, because of the June 3, 2008 Superior Court order. Objectors must be right on both counts for Asset to be entitled to the funds. The Court addresses objectors' arguments in turn.
Asset claims that it has priority because it purchased a judgment against Abell that was originally awarded to Sophia Williams in an unrelated matter before the D.C. Superior Court. R& R at 9. Williams recorded that judgment on June 2, 2010. Id. After realizing the difficulty of collecting from Abell, Williams decided to settle that case. She, Abell, another party called Modern Management Co.,[2] Asset, and JMW Settlements, Inc. (the " settlement servicer" ) signed a settlement agreement on May 3, 2011. Id. Asset, controlled by Abell's father, was involved in the settlement because Abell was already indebted to Asset, and Williams' judgment was purportedly preventing Abell from selling some property in order to pay back Asset.
Page 112
See Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 172-12] at 1 (" Williams Settlement" ). Because the settlement involved a minor (Williams), it required court approval, see D.C. Code § 21-120(a); until the court approved the settlement, it was not fully effective. See Williams Settlement at 1-2. In summary, pursuant to the settlement agreement, Asset agreed to purchase the judgment from Williams; Asset would pay $100,000 to a settlement servicer, assigning Asset's obligation to pay Williams in the process; and Williams would assign the judgment to Asset. All of this was to happen after the court approved the settlement. The agreement did not impose any payment obligations on Abell. Id.
The court approved the settlement on July 8, 2011. R& R at 11. Asset paid the new settlement servicer, Metlife Tower Resources Group, Inc. (" Metlife" ).[3] Id. at 13. Then, on November 21, 2011, Williams assigned the judgment to Asset. Id. at 11. Asset thus believes it was validly assigned the judgment against Abell, June 2, 2010 lien priority date and all.
The magistrate judge thought otherwise because of one of the assignments contemplated in the settlement agreement itself. On June 27, 2011, before the parties moved to approve the settlement,[4] Abell,[5] Modern Management, Metlife, and Williams executed a " qualified assignment," which referenced the original settlement agreement. See Qualified Assignment [ECF No. 172-15].[6] Strangely, Asset was not a party to the qualified assignment, even though the settlement envisioned Asset paying a settlement servicer, who would then pay Williams. Id. at 1. The qualified assignment stated that Abell " has liability to make certain periodic payments to or for the benefit of" Williams. Id. This statement, however, did not accurately describe the settlement agreement, which provided that Asset, not Abell, was the only party with an obligation to make any payments to Williams. See Williams Settlement at 1-2.
Under the qualified assignment, Metlife purported to assume " all of [Abell's] liability to make" periodic payments to Williams, but nothing more. See Qualified Assignment at 1. For her part, Williams did not release Abell from all liability; she agreed only to " release[] and discharge[] [Abell] from all liability to make" periodic payments--to the extent he had any such liability. Id. Substituting Asset for Abell, this assignment went as planned: Asset (Abell)[7] assigned its obligations to pay Williams to the settlement servicer; the next step was for Williams to assign the judgment to Asset.
The magistrate judge, however, found that because Abell had an obligation under the settlement agreement to make payments to Williams (which he did not), and because Metlife assumed that (nonexistent) obligation, Abell was no longer liable to Williams for anything. See R& R at 14. Thus, Williams' judgment was somehow rendered nugatory, so that when
Page 113
Williams assigned it to Asset, Asset received nothing. After all, it is elementary that an assignee can have no greater rights than those possessed by the assignor. See, e.g., LeRoy Adventures, Inc. v. Cafritz Harbour Group, Inc., 640 A.2d 193, 199 (D.C. 1994) (citation omitted). But the qualified assignment did not even involve the judgment. See Qualified Assignment at 1-4. It only involved Asset's [8] end of the deal--payment to the settlement servicer, who then assumed an obligation to pay Williams. Williams never assigned her judgment--her right to receive payment of $3,000,000, guaranteed by her right to enforce that judgment--until November 21, 2011, when she assigned it to Asset.[9] See Assignment of Judgment [ECF No. 174-2] at 29. Hence, when Williams assigned that judgment to Asset, Asset received Williams's right to enforce that judgment, along with the lien priority date, because Williams never did anything to extinguish her rights. The settlement agreement itself did not purport to extinguish the judgment or Williams's right to enforce the judgment, and it did not provide that the judgment would be satisfied even upon full execution of the settlement. To the contrary: it explicitly provided for the sale of Williams judgment to Asset. Williams Settlement at 1. And the settlement agreement did not release Abell from any obligation to pay that $3,000,000 judgment. Nor did the misconceived qualified assignment do so.[10]
The magistrate judge also viewed the parties' motion for approval of the settlement as evidence that the judgment against Abell was extinguished before it was assigned to Asset. See R& R at 11. That motion (but not, as the magistrate judge pointed out, the proposed order signed by the judge) stated that under the settlement " Abell shall assign the obligation for the future payments" to Metlife, that Metlife would be the sole obligor " with respect to the future payments," and that " Abell shall be fully released, said release being final." Consent Mot. for Approval [ECF No. 172-13] 4-5 (emphasis added). Once again, Abell had no obligation for future payments under the settlement. And Metlife becoming the sole obligor for " future payments" under the settlement agreement did not affect Abell's obligation to pay the judgment. See Qualified Agreement at 1. Further, the parties' representation in a motion--not an agreement--that Abell would be fully and finally released simply misrepresents the effects of the settlement. As the settlement itself explains, " it is in the best interest of [Asset] to purchase the Judgment from Plaintiffs . . . and [Asset] has offered to purchase the Judgment for the sum of [$100,000]." Williams Settlement at 1. Nowhere does the settlement purport to release Abell from liability for the judgment or to oblige him to make payments. Rather, it was deliberately structured in way that would give Asset the
Page 114
judgment against Abell, and Asset (controlled by Abell's father) presumably would not enforce it--in that way, " releasing" Abell from liability to Williams.
The structure of the settlement also precludes a finding that the judgment was extinguished when Abell " assigned," for tax reasons, an obligation to make future payments. Abell did not offer to compromise the judgment for $100,000 in return for satisfaction of the judgment or for a liability release. Instead, Asset, a third party, offered to purchase the judgment from Williams for $100,000, which it would pay through another third party settlement servicer, who would assume the obligation to pay by executing a qualified assignment. Asset's (or Abell's) sloppy efforts to pay Williams through the settlement servicer--in other words, to hold up its end of the bargain--did not extinguish the very judgment that it was trying to purchase. Those efforts merely gave Metlife the responsibility to pay Williams, who was still obligated to assign the judgment to Asset.
In sum, Williams took no action to extinguish or assign her judgment until November 21, 2011. The qualified agreement made no mention of that judgment and purported only to affect rights under the settlement agreement--but not Asset's or Williams's rights. Abell may have attempted to release himself from his obligation under the settlement agreement to make payments to Williams by executing the qualified assignment, but Asset, not Abell, was the party obligated to pay Williams. And at no point did anyone attempt to assume Abell's obligation to pay the judgment, as opposed to payments under the settlement. Metlife attempted only to assume Abell's (really, Asset's) obligation to pay the sale price of the judgment. Hence, when Williams assigned the judgment to Asset--just as the settlement contemplated--Asset became entitled to enforce that judgment against Abell. Importantly for this case, with the judgment came Williams's lien priority date of June 2, 2010, as will now be explained.
Even though Williams validly assigned her judgment to Asset, giving Asset a lien priority date of June 2, 2010, if Wilson is correct that her lien priority date is actually July 24, 2007, she is entitled to the funds in the Court's registry. See Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Tillerson, 2 A.3d 198, 201 (" It is axiomatic that a prior lien gives a prior legal right ('first in time, first in right') . . . ." ). And she is correct.
Asset contends that Wilson's lien priority date is November 4, 2011, the date she recorded an " Amended Judgment" after the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, not July 24, 2007, the date she first recorded her judgment with the D.C. Recorder of Deeds. If true, Asset has a superior claim to the funds in the Court's Registry because it has an earlier lien priority date. Asset does not dispute that Wilson recorded her judgment with the Recorder of Deeds in 2007. Instead, it argues that the Superior Court entered an order in 2008 that effectively erased her 2007 priority date. If that is true, then Wilson's priority date is November 4, 2011.
Some more background is necessary to understand Asset's argument. In Wilson v. Abell, No. 04-7270 (D.C. S.Ct. 2007), an unrelated matter, the D.C. Superior Court entered judgment for Wilson. She recorded that judgment on July 24, 2007. Abell then moved for the Superior Court to stay the execution of that judgment while he appealed. See Wilson's Mot. for Summ. J. [ECF No. 172] 2; D.C. Ct. App. Rule 8(a)(1).
Page 115
After the Superior Court demanded that Abell post a bond of $1,000,000, Abell turned to the D.C. Court of Appeals. See Aug. 22, 2007 S.Ct. Order [ECF No. 172-2]; Abell's Emergency Mot. for Stay [ECF No. 172-3] (" Emergency Stay Mot." ); D.C. Ct. App. Rule 8(a)(2). That court granted Abell's motion " contingent upon [Abell] posting bond in an amount to be set by the Superior Court after it has reconsidered its previous bond in light of the relevant authorities." See Mar. 10 D.C. Ct. App. Order [ECF No. 172-4]. The Superior Court heard argument and determined that Abell should post a $300,000 bond, and entered an order. June 3, 2008 S.Ct. Order [ECF No. 172-5] (" June 3, 2008 Order" ). The effect of that order is at the core of the parties' dispute. As relevant here, the Superior Court ordered as follows:
o " To the extent [that Wilson's judgment] constitutes a lien on [Abell's] real or personal property . . . such lien shall be, and hereby is, vacated as to all real and personal property . . . in . . . the District of Columbia" ;
o " [Wilson] shall promptly rescind and withdraw any Notices of Judgment or other lien-creating filings in . . . the District of Columbia and shall not take further actions to enforce any judgment against [Abell] until further Order of the D.C. Court of Appeals, or if remanded, this Court" ;
o " Wilson shall not have any lien on any real or personal property of [Abell] arising out of or in connection with this matter until further order of the D.C. Court of Appeals, or if remanded, this Court" ; and
o " Abell shall be authorized and permitted to convey fee simple title to real or personal property in . . . the District of Columbia free and clear of any lien or other cloud on title created or supposed by virtue of [Wilson's] judgment."
June 3, 2008 Order at 2. Asset argues that the plain language of the order vacated Wilson's lien and, with it, Wilson's lien priority date. Wilson counters that because the order did not vacate the judgment under D.C. Code § 15-502 the lien continued, and hence so did her 2007 priority date.
The magistrate judge found that the Superior Court judge did not have the authority under D.C. law to issue an order vacating the lien, and so the order did not affect Wilson's lien priority date. See R& R at 9. Objectors urge this Court to reject that determination as violative of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Asset also continues to press its theory that the order changed Wilson's lien priority date to November 4, 2011. And objectors contend that upholding the magistrate judge's report and recommendation will cloud the titles of the many properties Abell transferred while his appeal was pending in Wilson v. Abell. Objectors are incorrect on all these points.
a. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
The Court turns first to whether adopting the magistrate judge's determination would violate the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine, while jurisdictional, is statutory rather than constitutional: because 28 U.S.C. § 1257 provides that the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction over appeals from any state's highest court,[11] lower federal courts may not sit in review of state-court judgments. As the
Page 116
Supreme Court recently explained, the " doctrine applies only in 'limited circumstances,' where a party in effect seeks to take an appeal of an unfavorable state-court decision to a lower federal court." Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 466, 126 S.Ct. 1198, 163 L.Ed.2d 1059 (2006) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005)). But here objectors do not argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction or that Wilson seeks to overturn an unfavorable Superior Court decision. Wilson is not a " state-court loser" asking for this Court to reject the Superior Court's judgment; that court simply never addressed the issue that is now before this Court. See Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284. Rather, she asks the Court to reject objectors' analysis of that decision's effects under D.C. law. To determine the narrow issue before it--which party has an earlier lien--this Court must necessarily determine the effect of the Superior Court's order. On its face, then, this case does not fit into the Rooker-Feldman paradigm.
The circumstances are closer to a different situation discussed in Exxon Mobil, but even that situation is distinguishable. There, the Supreme Court recognized that if a federal plaintiff " present[s] some independent claim, albeit one that denies a legal conclusion that a state court has reached in a case to which he was a party . . ., then there is jurisdiction and state law determines whether the defendant prevails under principles of preclusion." Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 293. Wilson has undoubtedly presented an independent claim, the success of which depends on how a " state" court's order affected her rights. But, as she correctly points out, the Superior Court never reached any legal conclusion on the specific issue of lien priority, and it did not decide to erase Wilson's lien priority date. In claiming that she has an earlier lien priority date, then, Wilson does not deny a legal conclusion reached by the Superior Court.
Objectors seem to contemplate that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes a district court from merely interpreting the state-law effect of a state-court order. But analysis of an order's effects is not the same as the appellate review prohibited by Rooker-Feldman. See Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 291. This Court's only task is to determine whose lien takes priority, a narrow issue that has never been decided by any court. It depends on a determination of how the Superior Court's order affected the parties' relative rights--a matter not previously litigated--and does not depend on whether the order was correct, nor does it require that order to be " nullif[ied]," as amicus contends. See Amicus Reply to Wilson's Opp'n Brief [ECF No. 191] (" Amicus Reply" ) 3. Hence, without offending Rooker-Feldman, the Court may permissibly determine whether, under D.C. law, the Superior Court's order affected Wilson's lien priority date.
b. The Effect Of The Superior Court's Order On Wilson's Lien Priority Date
What, then, was the effect of the Superior Court's order? Viewed in the proper context, it operated only as a stay on the execution of Wilson's judgment. Recall that after Wilson won a judgment and recorded it with the Recorder of Deeds, Abell moved the Superior Court for a stay pending appeal. That court set the bond too high for Abell's tastes, and so he moved the D.C. Court of Appeals--at which his appeal was pending--for a stay pending appeal. In his motion, Abell requested " an emergency stay of the execution of any attempts and/or proceedings to
Page 117
execute and/or enforce the judgment . . . ." Emergency Stay Mot. at 1. He cited D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 8, " Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal," id. at 1, and requested a lower bond under Rule 8(b), which permits the court to impose conditions necessary " to prevent irreparable injury" and " [t]o preserve the status or rights of parties until the appeal is concluded," see D.C. Ct. App. Rule 8(b)(1).
The D.C. Court of Appeals granted the motion, " contingent upon the appellant posting bond in an amount to be set by the Superior Court after it has reconsidered its previous bond amount in light of the relevant authorities." Mar. 10 D.C. Ct. App. Order [ECF No. 172-4] 2. Then came the disputed Superior Court order. As relevant here, that order provided that if Abell timely posted the bond, any lien created by Wilson's judgment would be vacated and Wilson would have no lien on any of Abell's property; that Wilson had to remove any lien-creating notice of judgment; that Wilson could not take any actions to enforce the judgment; and that Abell could sell his properties free of any lien created by Wilson's judgment.
Irrespective of the language in the order, the sequence of events makes clear the purpose for which the D.C. Court of Appeals, after conditionally granting Abell's motion for a stay, referred the case back to the Superior Court: to set an appeal bond at an appropriate level. See Mar. 10 D.C. Ct. App. Order [ECF No. 172-4]. Under D.C. law, the Superior Court could not, pursuant to that referral, have modified or vacated the judgment itself, which Abell had appealed. See In re Estate of Green, 896 A.2d 250, 254 n.6 (D.C. 2006) (noting that " appellate jurisdiction only divests a trial court of jurisdiction to hear matters relating to those issues on appeal" ) (citation omitted);
Stebbins v. Stebbins, 673 A.2d 184, 190 (D.C. 1996) (" It is clear, for example, that 'a party may seek disposition in the trial court of other matters which do not result in revocation or alteration of the judgment on appeal.'" (citing Padgett v. Padgett, 478 A.2d 1098, 1100 (D.C. 1984) (per curiam))) (emphasis added);
In re S.C.M., 653 A.2d 398, 403 n.6 (D.C. 1995) (" Although the trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify an order from which an appeal has been taken, it retains jurisdiction to enforce it." (citing Floyd v. Leftwich, 456 A.2d 1241, 1243 (D.C. 1983))). In other words, the D.C. Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the case, but it referred a single issue to the Superior Court for resolution: the level at which to set bond. So even if Abell had asked the Superior Court to alter or vacate the judgment--which he did not--and even if that court's order purported to do so--which it did not--that court lacked jurisdiction to affect the judgment while Abell's appeal was pending.
That absence of jurisdiction turns out to be crucial: under D.C. Code § 15-102, a final judgment constitutes a lien on all real property in the District of Columbia " from the date such judgment . . . is filed and recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of the District of Columbia." § § 15-102(a), (a)(1). That lien remains in effect " as long as the judgment . . . is in force or until it is satisfied or discharged." § 15-102(b). Abell did not ask the Superior Court to vacate, satisfy, discharge, or in any way affect the judgment itself. Instead, he asked the D.C. Court of Appeals to stay Wilson's ability to execute the judgment. See Emergency Mot. at 1. And that is exactly what the Superior Court did: stay the execution of the judgment, without purporting to vacate or in any other way affect the judgment.
Not only that, but Abell specifically represented to the D.C. Court of Appeals that
Page 118
entering a stay " will not irreparably harm [Wilson's rights], as she will simply be delayed from collecting her money damages . . . ." Emergency Stay Mot. at 39; see also D.C. Ct. App. Rule 8(b)(1) (rule under which Abell moved, permitting court to impose conditions necessary " [t]o preserve the status or rights of parties until the appeal is concluded" ). Trading a 2007 lien priority date for a 2011 lien priority date against a judgment debtor with an ever-growing list of creditors is very nearly the definition of irreparable harm, and trading 2007 for 2011 does not preserve the status quo while the appeal is pending.
Examining the language of the order does not change this assessment. Nowhere does the order purport to affect the judgment. It addressed only the execution of the judgment and the lien created by the judgment. But, as section 15-102 confirms, that lien continues so long as the judgment remains in force. See D.C. Code § 15-102; Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Tillerson, 2 A.3d 198, 201 n.13 (D.C. 2010).[12] And Wilson never removed the lien-creating notice that she recorded with the D.C. Recorder of Deeds in July 2007. See R& R at 5.
To sum up: under D.C. law, Wilson's lien continued so long as her judgment remained in force; Abell did not ask any court to vacate that judgment; no court purported to vacate that judgment; under D.C. law the Superior Court could not have altered the judgment; and in moving for a stay (only of the judgment's execution) Abell specifically represented that Wilson's rights would not be irreparably harmed. Hence, under D.C. law, Wilson's lien continued, and her lien priority date of July 24, 2007 survives. This is not to say that the Superior Court's order was ultra vires; Abell simply misperceives the effect that order had on Wilson's lien priority date under D.C. law.
c. Policy Concerns Raised By Objectors
Objectors fret that affirming the magistrate judge's report and recommendation could create a cloud on the titles of twelve D.C. properties conveyed by Abell to third parties between June 3, 2008, and November 4, 2011. After all, the Superior Court's order stated that " Abell shall be authorized and permitted to convey fee simple title to real or personal property in . . . the District of Columbia free and clear of any lien or other cloud on title created or supposed by virtue of [Wilson's] judgment." June 3, 2008 Order at 2. To begin with, neither Asset nor J& C has standing to assert the rights of those title holders, so this alone cannot be grounds for relief. Cf. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (a " plaintiff must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties" ). Further, this Court holds that Wilson's lien priority date is July 24, 2007, but it does not decide whether those twelve conveyances were nonetheless free and clear of any lien or cloud on title under D.C. Code § 15-102. If that issue ever does arise, it will be for another court
Page 119
to decide.[13] This Court holds only that Wilson's lien, created when the judgment was recorded on July 24, 2007, has priority over the Williams judgment owned by Asset. The Court expresses no opinion on whether Wilson's lien encumbered those other properties. And the Court does not adopt the magistrate judge's finding that the Superior Court's order was ultra vires, nor does the Court in any way " nullify" that order--the Court merely interprets it as not affecting Wilson's lien priority date, nothing more. See R& R at 9; Amicus Reply at 3.
Hence, because Wilson's lien priority date is July 24, 2007, she has priority over Asset (with a lien priority date of June 2, 2010) to the funds in the Court's Registry.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts certain recommendations in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, and hence it will grant Maria-Theresa Wilson's motion for summary judgment. A separate order has issued on this date.
Upon consideration of [176] Magistrate Judge Facciola's Report and Recommendation, the objections thereto, the various memoranda filed by the parties, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that [172] Maria-Theresa Wilson's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Wilson in the amount of $42,000, to be paid from the funds held in the Court's Registry; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall disburse to Wilson $42,000.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
scroll to top
Stuck on your essay?
Get ideas from this essay and see how your work stacks up
2 Pages
The Advantages of Neutering Pets in America
Already a member? Login here
Pages: 2
Word Count: 872
Category: Sociology
Word Count: 872
Pages: 2
What Every Pet Owner Should Know About Sterilization The number of homeless dogs and cats in the United States is unforgivably high Blame for this problem should be appropriately placed on the millions of irresponsible pet owners in the country who refuse to take the time or make the effort to educate themselves of the advantages of having an animal sterilized Neutering an animal is the process of removing its reproductive organs Males are neutered by removing their testicles Females are also neutered although the process of removing the ovaries and fallopian tubes is more commonly called spaying The benefits of having a pet neutered are innumerable Sterile animals will not contribute to the overabundance of strays roaming America are less likely to bite and typically lead longer healthier lives As a nation we claim to love dogs and cats Millions of households have companion animals and billions of dollars yearly are spent on pet supplies and food But as a nation we should be ashamed that another statistic runs into the millions each year the number of dogs and cats given up to shelters or left to die in our streets Stray and homeless animals get into trash containers defecate in public areas and on private lawns and frighten or anger people who have no understanding of their misery or needs The Humane Society of the United States HSUS estimates that each year 12 million strays enter the five thousand animal shelters nationwide Twenty million will be euthanized Humane Society of the United States 1997 Many people want their purebred pets to produce one litter before being sterilized primarily for profit Yet most pets should never be bred And according to the HSUS one fourth of the strays are purebreds HSUS 1997 Even if a breeder finds a home for each baby in the litter there is no guarantee that the new owners will take responsible actions to insure their pets do not mate
@Kibin is a lifesaver for my essay right now!!
- Sandra Slivka, student @ UC Berkeley
Wow, this is the best essay help I've ever received!
- Camvu Pham, student @ U of M
If I'd known about @Kibin in college, I would have gotten much more sleep
- Jen Soust, alumni @ UCLA


text:
K D Groups
RSNot DiscloseGurgaon
Understanding of the local compliances to have a seamless integration. - To understand the local strengths and weakness to create an effective CKD plan. - Mapping of appropriate partners for collaboration. - Planning & making of production Pla...
Key Skills : packaging officer,packaging supervisor,packaging associate,packaging consultant
Packaging Development Manager ( 10 yrs)
Aggarwal Corporate Services
RS20,00,000 To 30,00,000Baddi
we are looking for Packaging Development Manager
Key Skills : packaging development manager,packaging associate,packaging consultant,packaging developer
Required AGM Sales & Marketing Packaging ( 8 yrs)
Appoint Info
RS10,00,000 To 12,00,000Ahmedabad, Mumbai
One of our client, Manufacturer of Paperboard Packaging Products with a strong customer base in the pharmaceutical, food & beverages, cosmetics sectors etc. within and out of India. AGM Sales & Marketing: Proactive and Result Oriented candi...
Key Skills : marketing agent,marketing executive,marketing,marketing assistant,marketing associate
Giftcart Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd.
RS1,00,000 To 3,00,000Gurgaon
Manage overall performance of assigned categories - sales (demand planning), catalog selection, catalog management. Handle all product categories (Consumer Products). Identify new vendors in the assigned product categories. Handle procuremen...
Key Skills : category associate,supply chain management,ms excel,category manager,supply shain,warehouse...
Worlds Window Infrastructure and Logistics
RS3,50,000 To 5,50,000Ghaziabad
- Day to day liaising with CMC for updations, rectifications. - New improvements, developments, etc. - Updation of tariff / special rates. - Generation of reports, development of new reports. - Handling various masters and updation of records. -...
Key Skills : warehouse operations,accounting,warehouse assistant,warehouse associate,...
Not a member as yet ?
Register now to apply to these jobs
Customer Service Manager ( 6 yrs)
Links Forwarders Pvt Ltd
RS4,00,000 To 6,00,000Mumbai
Should Be from Cha/ Shipping Line Only. well Versed with all Export Customer Support Terms. communicating with Clients Through Mails/ Phone Etc communicating with Cha, Freight Forwarders & Transporters Regarding for Freight, Clearance, Etc.
Key Skills : cha,import customer support,freight forwarding,customer service manager,customer service agent,customer service associate,customer service...
Smart Jump Resource Services
RS1,50,000 To 2,25,000Bhiwadi
Handling functions of stores, Inward, GRN, Material Receipt.
Key Skills : inventory management,store executive,store associate,store assistant,supply shain,warehouse operations,packaging,warehouse management,supply chain...
Packing Helpers Required ( Fresher)
Ammss (a Multi Model Service Solution)
RSNot DiscloseNagpur
Opening for Packing Helpers. As Applicable.
Key Skills : packaging helper,helper,packaging,packaging executive,packaging associate,supply shain,warehouse operations,inventory management,warehouse...


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Whiteside County; the Hon.
F.P. PATTON, Judge, presiding.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of Whiteside County after a trial without a jury.
On July 7, 1978, Trooper David Miller of the Illinois State Police set up portable weighing scales along Illinois Route 88 south of the Illinois Route 5 overpass. Signs were placed along the roadway directing southbound truck traffic onto the scales.
The defendant, Gerald R. Franks, heeding the directions of the signs, drove his truck onto the scales which were located on the shoulder of the highway.
Trooper Miller found the Franks truck had a gross weight of 35,740 pounds and issued a traffic ticket for a violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code for operation of a vehicle upon the highways of the State of Illinois when the gross weight transmitted to the road surface through the tandem rear axles was in excess of 32,000 pounds. Franks was tried without a jury, found guilty, and was sentenced to pay a statutory fine.
The sole issue on appeal is whether a police officer must have reason to believe that the weight of a vehicle and load is unlawful before the officer may require a driver to stop and submit to a weighing of the vehicle and load.
At trial Trooper Miller was asked the following questions and gave the following answers:
"Q: Did you follow this truck before it entered the scales?
A: No.
Q: What was he carrying?
A: Rock, I believe.
Q: What reason, if any, did you have to believe that the weight of the truck and load was unlawful?
A: I had no reason at all."
Franks then moved that the complaint against him be dismissed because the proof failed to meet the requirements of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 95 1/2, par. 15-112(a)):
"Any police officer having reason to believe that the weight of a vehicle and load is unlawful shall require the driver to stop and submit to a weighing of the same either by means of a portable or stationary scales. * * *"
Franks argues that since Trooper Miller had no reason to believe that the weight of the truck and load was unlawful, he had no authority to stop the Franks truck. In support of his argument, Franks has cited several Illinois cases which require that the State prove that the officer who made a stop for overweight had reasons which he can articulate for believing that the vehicle was overweight. (People v. Slonski (1976), 40 Ill. App.3d 319, 352 N.E.2d 292; People v. Johanson (1975), 28 Ill. App.3d 82, 328 N.E.2d 331; People v. Cowan (1971), 1 Ill. App.3d 601, 274 N.E.2d 683; People v. Hansen (1966), 74 Ill. App.2d 49, 220 N.E.2d 96; People v. Fraschetti (1966), 73 Ill. App.2d 449, 220 N.E.2d 98; People v. Lafin (1965), 59 Ill. App.2d 489, 208 N.E.2d 105.) The defendant has also cited a United States Supreme Court opinion (Delaware v. Prouse (1979), ___ U.S. ___, 59 L.Ed.2d 660, 99 S.Ct. 1391, involving the stop of a passenger vehicle.
Each of the cases cited to us involved the random stop of a motor vehicle. None of the cases involved a routine stop of every motor vehicle of the same type and class. The instant case involves the routine stop of all second division vehicles.
If the instant case had involved a random stop we would agree with the defendant that since Trooper Miller had no reason to believe that his truck was overweight he had no authority to stop the truck and require it to submit to weighing. However, we believe that the systematic stopping of every truck is permissible even though an officer has no reason to believe that a particular truck is overweight.
The scales upon which a truck is weighed may be portable or stationary. Portable scales may be set up where convenient to weigh second division vehicles. The Department of Law Enforcement may request that the Department of Transportation, "* * * erect appropriate regulatory signs on any State highway directing second division vehicles to a scale. * * *" (Ill. Rev. Stat. (1977), ch. 95 1/2, par. 15-112(c).) This is done where stationary scales are located. We do not believe, however, that only the Department of Transportation may erect regulatory signs when portable scales are used. We believe that this would place such a great burden on the use of the portable scales that it would make their use unfeasible.
The defendant, in his reply brief, has attempted to raise a constitutional issue based upon Delaware v. Prouse. In the Prouse opinion issued by the United States Supreme Court, the court found that there must be "* * * at least articulable and reasonable suspicion * * *" that the motorist or his vehicle is in violation of the law before a particular vehicle may be randomly stopped. However, nothing in the opinion prohibits the stopping of vehicles as long as the stops are not unreasonably intrusive on the privacy of the motorist and his passengers and do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion by the police officer. Nothing in that opinion was meant to be interpreted as prohibiting roadside truck weigh stations. (See Delaware v. Prouse (1979), ___ U.S. ___, ___ n. 26, 59 L.Ed.2d 660, 674 n. 26, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1401 n. 26.) We find no difference in whether the scales are portable or stationary.
We therefore hold that a police officer need not have a reasonable belief that a particular second division vehicle is overweight before he requires that the vehicle submit to a weighing when he stops all vehicles of that particular type and class and requires that they submit to a weighing.
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Whiteside County is hereby affirmed.
ALLOY and BARRY, JJ., concur.
© 2002 VersusLaw Inc.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Master Stolen Painting
There are no tags set for this game!
Played 109 times
Master Stolen Painting game information:
Master is a talented artist. He painted many pictures are going to run an exhibition. But his assistant turned against him. The assistant stole paintings and held an art exhibition in the name of him. Angry master is determined to make his assistant pay for it.
How to play:
to move;
space to create ladder; space to create ladder.
Add this game to your website or blog!
Popular Tags
Latest Games
- Bart Shootout
- The Hulk Differences
- Princess doll house 2
- American Trucks Memory
- Sailor Ship Escape
- Defend Kindom Wars
- Deadpool Jigsaw
- Offroad Race Truck
- House Cleaning
- Kings Castle 20
- BMW F32 Jigsaw
- Art Gallery Escape
- Fairy Beauty Salon
- Daredevil Jigsaw
- Semi Truck Jigsaw
- Lexus RS 350 Jigsaw
- Land of the Monsoon
- Kings Castle 19
- Italy Palazzo Escape
- Kings Castle 18
- Steven Adventure 2
- The Flowers of Paris
- Hendersons House
- Cindrella Hidden Objects
- Abandoned Theater Escape
- Phantom Jigsaw Truck
- Silverado Jigsaw
- Fireman Kids Western
- Elsa's Cuisine
- Dora Find Flying Castle


text:
Tipi Valley is the music of Swansea, UK, songwriter Ed Toft. Here's what Ed had to say about this video:
This song is written exclusively for CXCW and was recorded on my toilet as this reminded me of my Glastonbury experience in 1997…
We hope that whatever happened in Glastonbury, you were kind to the bear!
CXCW 2013: You Know


text:
Written by Bad English on 16.11.2015 at 19:43
I am ancient astronaut theorist ....Erich Von Däniken influenced me. Now I became true believer
Written by Bad English on 22.12.2015 at 00:07
I cant pack xmass gifts , it looks ugly and weird, I am not a woman
Written by nightwica on 25.12.2015 at 23:55
Written by Bad English on 22.12.2015 at 00:07
I cant pack xmass gifts , it looks ugly and weird, I am not a woman
Well-well, I am a woman and actually 2015 was the first year I properly wrapped my Christmas gifts. It turned out more or less okay, but I had trouble with thick books
Written by Kennoth on 07.05.2016 at 05:00
If it wasn't for music, I'd probably blow my brains out by now.
(And food. And alcohol. And masturbation. And the fact that I don't own a gun)
Written by Arcanewind on 04.11.2016 at 20:30
Haven't really talked about myself much here, apart from my attempts to become a musician, but maybe people would be surprised to know that I grew up in a religious family and a very religious environment. Have been an agnostic / atheist for years now, though.
Also, I am one of the most opinionated douchebags out there, I just don't let that part of me make an appearance on the interwebs, because the internet is a bad place for discussing serious subjects in my experience. Too often - almost always - we begin to think of our conversation partners or opponents in a discussion / debate as nothing more than a name on the screen that disagrees with our own views. This is absolutely fucking stupid, it shouldn't be like this. When I was younger, 16 or 18 or so, I'd get into arguments all the time and they always ended in a clusterfuck of namecalling and ad hominems. I am ashamed of that and would like to think that I would never sink to that level again.
Also, on a lighter note, I sometimes imagine what my answers might be, if I became famous as a black metal musician and someone on MS would interview me
You know what they say: if people don't laugh at your dreams, then your dreams aren't big enough.
Written by no one on 04.11.2016 at 20:45
Yeah, I think most over opinionated people who argue on the internet don't actually argue in real life.
Written by Dima on 05.11.2016 at 15:33
I'm an accountant *yawn*
Written by BloodTears on 19.08.2011 at 18:29Like you could kiss my ass
Written by Milena on 20.06.2012 at 10:49Rod, let me love you.
Written by Mr. Doctor on 06.11.2016 at 14:37
I take pictures of sick people for a living.
Written by no one on 06.11.2016 at 19:10
Written by Mr. Doctor on 06.11.2016 at 14:37
I take pictures of sick people for a living.
Really? are you a paid photographer?
Written by 3rdWorld on 10.11.2016 at 05:44
I sleep.
Written by no one on 10.11.2016 at 07:35
I don't believe you
Written by no one on 05.11.2016 at 18:43
Written by Dima on 05.11.2016 at 15:33
I'm an accountant *yawn*
That's awesome.
Written by Dima on 12.11.2016 at 13:35
Written by no one on 05.11.2016 at 18:43
Said no one
Written by no one on 05.11.2016 at 18:43


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
August 6, 2014
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appelleev.JAMAR SMITH, Appellant
Argued June 24, 2004.
Page 783
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-51-CR-0003587-2012. Before COLEMAN, J.
Anthony J. Petrone, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Joan Weiner, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and STABILE, J. OPINION BY GANTMAN, P.J.
Page 784
Appellant, Jamar Smith, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial conviction for aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person and possession of an instrument of crime.[1] We affirm.
The trial court opinion sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal as follows:
At a waiver trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Complainant, James Kedra, Philadelphia Police Officer, Robert Bakos, and Northeast Detective, Robert Schill. Additionally, they admitted into evidence photos, medical records, bloody clothing and a box cutter, and a 911 audiotape, which captured a portion of the incident between Appellant and [Mr. Kedra].
On February 29, 2012, at approximately 11:15 p.m., an altercation occurred on the 3400 block of Aldine Street, on the
Page 785
corner of Aldine and Leon, in the city and county of Philadelphia. [Mr. Kedra] believed Appellant was following him in his vehicle. Both men parked their vehicles; Appellant's vehicle was originally behind Mr. Kedra's, but Mr. Kedra later moved his vehicle to be further away from Appellant. At the same time that Mr. Kedra left his vehicle, Appellant also left his, and a conversation between the two men ensued. Although Mr. Kedra wanted to avoid Appellant, the two were forced to cross paths because of the position of their cars, and Mr. Kedra wanted to make sure that Appellant was not behind him while walking. Mr. Kedra asked Appellant why he had been following him, whereupon Appellant took a fighting stance, only to then strike Mr. Kedra in his forehead and lip. Mr. Kedra saw an object in Appellant's hand, and believing that Appellant was going to stab him, Mr. Kedra used his arm to try and prevent any contact; the altercation was pushed closer to a nearby fence. The two then spun into a car, as Mr. Kedra tried to get Appellant off of him. Despite Mr. Kedra's attempts to block Appellant's advances, [Mr. Kedra] was stabbed several times with a box cutter. Mr. Kedra sustained injuries to his forehead and lip, had a piece taken out of his ear, and had stab wounds in the back of his head and in his back. The fight was brief and only lasted for a few minutes, however, Appellant apparently had threatened to kill Mr. Kedra during the confrontation. Several others, including Mr. Kedra's friends, arrived at the scene in the midst of the altercation.
Appellant's mother heard the commotion between the two men and called the police to the scene. Officers Quinn and Bakos were on duty at 3400 Aldine Street and responded to a person with a weapon. As the officers approached, Officer Balms observed several unidentified males, Appellant's mother, and Mr. Kedra, who was covered in blood. Officer Bakos inquired as to what had occurred, placed Appellant in the police car, and found the box cutter that Appellant admitted to having used to stab Mr. Kedra. Mr. Kedra was then taken to the hospital to be treated for multiple lacerations to his face, including his head, mouth area, puncture wounds to the back and a stab wound to the chest. Appellant was arrested by Officer Bakos and secured in the back seat of the police car. During trial, Appellant made out a vague claim of self-defense and that he was not the initial aggressor, however, these claims were [ultimately] found not credible by this court.
(Trial Court Opinion, filed December 16, 2013, at 2-4) (internal citations to the record omitted). The court sentenced Appellant to five (5) years' probation on January 31, 2013. Appellant did not file any post-sentence motions. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on February 27, 2013, and a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) on March 1, 2013.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
Page 786
(Appellant's Brief at 4).
In his first issue, Appellant argues he has no obligation to prove his claim of self-defense. Rather, the law requires him to provide only some evidence of self-defense, and the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim lacks merit. Appellant contends the court erroneously shifted the burden of proof to Appellant when the court evaluated his claim of self-defense. Appellant points to his timely objection during closing arguments when this error occurred, but insists the court did not correct the mistake. Appellant cites the court's Rule 1925(a) opinion as evidence of the probable error, where the court omits explanation of why it did not take corrective action in the face of Appellant's objection. Appellant blames the court's use of improper standards for this erroneous rejection of Appellant's self-defense claim. Appellant concludes the trial court erred as a matter of law in evaluating the evidence, and this Court should vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial. We disagree.
The Pennsylvania Crimes Code governs self-defense in relevant part as follows:
§ 505. Use of force in self-protection
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.
The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.
(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.-
* * *
(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:
(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating....
* * *
(2.3) An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession of a firearm and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii) has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:
(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;
(ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and
(iii) the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses:
(A) a firearm or replica of a firearm as defined in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712 (relating to sentences for offenses committed with firearms); or
(B) any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use.
Page 787
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 505(a)-(b) (emphasis added).[2] According to our Supreme Court, the justified use of deadly force requires:
a) the actor was free from fault in provoking or continuing the difficulty which resulted in the use of deadly force; b) the actor must have reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, and that there was a necessity to use such force in order to save himself or others therefrom; and c) the actor did not violate any duty to retreat or to avoid the danger.
Commonwealth v. Harris, 542 Pa. 134, 137, 665 A.2d 1172, 1174 (1995).
The defendant has no " burden to prove" his self-defense claim.
The defendant has no " burden to prove" his self-defense claim.
Commonwealth v. Torres, 564 Pa. 219, 224, 766 A.2d 342, 345 (2001).
The Supreme Court explained the evidentiary burdens as follows:
While there is no burden on a defendant to prove the [self-defense] claim, before that defense is properly at issue at trial, there must be some evidence, from whatever source to justify a finding of self-defense. If there is any evidence that will support the claim, then the issue is properly before the fact finder.
Id. (internal citations omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Bullock, 2008 PA Super. 83, 948 A.2d 818, 824 (Pa.Super. 2008) (stating same standard). If the defendant properly raises " self-defense under Section 505 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, the burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's act was not justifiable self-defense." Commonwealth v. McClendon, 2005 PA Super. 164, 874 A.2d 1223, 1229-30 (Pa.Super. 2005).
The Commonwealth sustains this burden if it establishes at least one of the following: 1) the accused did not reasonably believe that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury; or 2) the accused provoked or continued the use of force; or 3) the accused had a duty to retreat and the retreat was possible with complete safety.
Commonwealth v. Hammond, 2008 PA Super. 128, 953 A.2d 544, 559 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 743, 964 A.2d 894 (2009) (quoting McClendon, supra at 1230). The Commonwealth must establish only one of these three elements beyond a reasonable doubt to insulate its case from a self-defense challenge to the evidence. Commonwealth v. Burns, 2000 PA Super. 397, 765 A.2d 1144, 1149 (Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 657, 782 A.2d 542 (2001). The Commonwealth can negate a self-defense claim if it proves the defendant did not reasonably believe he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury and it was necessary to use deadly force to save himself from that danger. Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 618 Pa. 262, 289, 55 A.3d 1108, 1124 (2012).
The requirement of reasonable belief encompasses two aspects, one subjective and one objective. First, the defendant must have acted out of an honest, bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger, which involves consideration of the defendant's subjective state of mind. Second, the defendant's belief that he needed to defend himself with deadly force, if it existed, must be reasonable in light of the facts as they appeared to the defendant, a consideration that involves an objective analysis.
Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 617 Pa. 527, 551, 53 A.3d 738, 752 (2012). As the Mouzon Court observed, the use of deadly force itself " cannot be viewed in isolation
Page 788
with [the victim] as the sole physical aggressor and [the defendant] acting in responsive self-defense. [T]his would be an incomplete and inaccurate view of the circumstances for self-defense purposes." Id. at 549, 53 A.3d at 751. To claim self-defense, the defendant must be free from fault in provoking or escalating the altercation that led to the offense, before the defendant can be excused from using deadly force. Id. (emphasis added). Likewise, the Commonwealth can negate a self-defense claim by proving the defendant " used more force than reasonably necessary to protect against death or serious bodily injury." Commonwealth v. Truong, 2012 PA Super. 8, 36 A.3d 592, 599 (Pa.Super. 2012) ( en banc ).
When the defendant's own testimony is the only evidence of self-defense, the Commonwealth must still disprove the asserted justification and cannot simply rely on the jury's disbelief of the defendant's testimony:
The " disbelief of a denial does not, taken alone, afford affirmative proof that the denied fact existed so as to satisfy a proponent's burden of proving that fact." The trial court's statement that it did not believe Appellant's testimony is no substitute for the proof the Commonwealth was required to provide to disprove the self-defense claim.
Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 2003 PA Super. 400, 835 A.2d 720, 731 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting Torres, supra). If there are other witnesses, however, who provide accounts of the material facts, it is up to the fact finder to " reject or accept all, part or none of the testimony of any witness." Commonwealth v. Gonzales, 415 Pa.Super. 564, 609 A.2d 1368, 1370 (Pa.Super. 1992). The complainant can serve as a witness to the incident to refute a self-defense claim. Reynolds, supra See also Commonwealth v. Hall, 574 Pa. 233, 242, 830 A.2d 537, 542-43 (2003) (holding defendant's own testimony that shooting was accidental was ineffective because there was adequate circumstantial evidence to prove he pointed gun in direction of victim and discharged it). " Although the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense arising from any source beyond a reasonable doubt, a [fact-finder] is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim." Commonwealth v. Bullock, 2008 PA Super. 83, 948 A.2d 818, 824 (Pa.Super. 2008).
A number of factors, including whether complainant was armed, any actual physical contact, size and strength disparities between the parties, prior dealings between the parties, threatening or menacing actions on the part of complainant, and general circumstances surrounding the incident, are all relevant when determining the reasonableness of a defendant's belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to protect against death or serious bodily injuries. See Commonwealth v. Soto, 657 A.2d 40, 441 Pa.Super. 241 (Pa.Super. 1995) (concurring opinion by Olszewski, J.) (collecting cases for this general proposition). No single factor is dispositive. Id. Furthermore, a physically larger person who grabs a smaller person does not automatically invite the smaller person to use deadly force in response. Commonwealth v. Hill, 427 Pa.Super. 440, 629 A.2d 949 (Pa.Super. 1993).
Finally, a trial court, acting as the finder of fact, is presumed to know the law, ignore prejudicial statements, and disregard inadmissible evidence. Commonwealth v. Dent, 2003 PA Super. 457, 837 A.2d 571 (Pa.Super. 2003).
In the instant case, the trial court reasoned:
Although Appellant contends that the trial court erred in placing upon him the burden of proving self-defense, the burden did not shift from the Commonwealth
Page 789
throughout the trial. Once the issue of self-defense had been vaguely raised by Appellant, the Commonwealth sustained its burden of proof by demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant did not reasonably believe that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury and that his response was improper. Even if Appellant feared Mr. Kedra, the court found that Appellant's use of deadly force, after he claimed Mr. Kedra had pushed him, was unwarranted and unreasonable.
Despite the fact that the court believed Appellant's character evidence, this does not negate the fact that the court ultimately found Appellant's response in this situation to be completely inappropriate and that the use of a deadly weapon in the altercation was unreasonable. Based upon all of the evidence, the court concluded that [Appellant] could not have reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury, in order to justify the use of a box cutter, where there was no threat of deadly force. Therefore, the Commonwealth satisfied its burden by establishing that the accused did not reasonably believe that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury.
(Trial Court Opinion at 5). We agree. The court found Mr. Kedra's testimony was more credible than Appellant's testimony. The trial court, as trier of fact, decided the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant unreasonably escalated the altercation when he attacked Mr. Kedra with a box cutter. This finding is consistent with the proper burdens of claiming and disproving self-defense. Drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, we conclude the trial court applied the correct standards and there was no improper shifting of burdens. Appellant's reliance on Commonwealth v. Eberle, 474 Pa. 548, 379 A.2d 90 (1977) is misplaced. See id. (stating mere threat of imminent attack from larger, drunken, and violent individual can justify use of deadly force; pattern of destructive or abusive behavior could justify use of deadly force for purposes of self-defense against larger person in drunken rage). Here, we see no evidence that Mr. Kedra was in a drunken rage, or that he had a history of abusing Appellant, such that Appellant reasonably felt justified in using a response that escalated the encounter. Finally, we observe that the trial court sitting as trier of fact is presumed to know the law and correctly apply the burden of proof. See Dent, supra. Nothing in this record indicates the contrary. Accordingly, Appellant's first issue merits no relief.
In his second issue, Appellant asserts the Commonwealth failed to disprove Appellant acted in self-defense. Specifically, Appellant claims that as a 130-pound, 18-year-old high school student, he reasonably feared serious bodily injury when a 215-pound, 28-year-old man (who had been drinking) unexpectedly accosted Appellant as he returned home after work, late at night. Appellant maintains the court mischaracterized the incident as a mere " fistfight" when it ignored the many real dangers associated with violent encounters on the street during the late hours of the night. Appellant argues the Commonwealth failed to prove Appellant did not reasonably believe he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm as a matter of law, given the disparity in weight between Appellant and the complainant and the time of night. Appellant concludes this Court should vacate the convictions/sentence and discharge him. We disagree.
Appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence implicates the following principles:
Page 790
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying [the above] test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the [finder] of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Barnswell Jones, 2005 PA Super. 166, 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005) (quoting Commonwealth v. Bullick, 2003 PA Super. 285, 830 A.2d 998, 1000 (Pa.Super. 2003)).
Instantly, in response to Appellant's sufficiency challenge, the court stated:
In this case, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to convict Appellant of possession of an instrument of crime and recklessly endangering another person. Although both sides presented evidence, the testimony of Mr. Kedra, Officer Bakos, and Detective Schill was found to be credible and believable. Although all versions presented by the witnesses were fairly consistent, this court found the evidence presented by the Commonwealth to be dispositive. Even though the court did believe the character evidence presented by Appellant, this does not change the fact that there was sufficient evidence to find that Appellant had not acted reasonably in this situation and had escalated a physical altercation into deadly violence. Furthermore, the second prong of Appellant's contention has previously been addressed here, where his actions were found to be unjustified for the situation.
Viewing the facts of this case in the light most favorable to the [Commonwealth], the conviction should be upheld. This [c]ourt made a determination of fact and there is nothing in the record to warrant overturning that determination.
(Trial Court Opinion at 6-7). We agree. The record supports the court's decision, and we see no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Ski condo near Pico Mountain w/ slope views, access to a shared pool!
From $99 / night
Description from the manager
Description from the manager
Bedrooms: 3/
Bathrooms: 2/
Sleeps: 6/
Type: House
Book this 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom house in Killington today! A total of 6 people can sleep here comfortably.
Guests can enjoy a pool, parking space, and dishwasher among other amenities offered by this rental.
No travelers have shared a review of this property yet.
The owner last updated the property's calendar today.
About the manager
About the manager
Vacasa - Vacation Rentals of Vermont
Vacasa - Vacation Rentals of Vermont
- Response rate: n/a
- Response time: n/a
- Calendar updated: today
Overall rating:
4.0 / 5.0
Proximity to TripAdvisor's Top Killington Attractions
Proximity to TripAdvisor's Top Killington Attractions
Reviews (0)
Also consider
- FlipKey has rentals in over 11,000 destinations around the world:
- Colorado vacation rentals- 9,998 rentals from $115/night
- Vermont vacation rentals- 989 rentals from $126/night
- Bryson City vacation rentals- 272 rentals from $100/night
- Franklin vacation rentals- 132 rentals from $85/night
- Lake Arrowhead vacation rentals- 5 rentals from $250/night


text:
Talk:Rate Your Music
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rate Your Music article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
|WikiProject Websites / Computing
|This page was nominated for deletion on November 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was The result was Keep.
Proposed for deletion[edit]
Confirm that the article is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that it has:
* not previously been proposed for deletion
Sources were given at the time of the original AfD. That these sources have not been incorporated into the article is not a valid reason to place a deletion proposal on RYM.
-ClockworkLunch (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Related websites?[edit]
I'm surprised that I had never heard of this site before. I believe it pulls some of its data from MusicBrainz.org... Are there related, more popular user-edited music review sites out there that you can recommend or add to "See also"? Metacritic.com is comparable, but they don't do individual tracks like RYM. The Online music databases category has a few sites, but nothing comparable to RYM, in my opinion. See my album ratings on RYM if you're curious. --J. J. 19:55, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
- I've been a registered member for three years. A very good site. I'd ask the users over at the forum there if there's any good related sites, I know some have been brought up, but I really don't think any are superior. Nagelfar 19:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
RateYourMusic is a fine site that is made even better via the presence of the renowned Obbop.
The "advertisment free" information was outdated, so I removed the paragraph, replacing it with a basic description of the new pay-per-click system, incorporated in 2006. Cravenmonket 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
Hi, I am the lovely, talented, non-pareil and lithe Obbop. My presence at Rate Your Music provides a pleasing panache that the Antique Road Show folks would drool over. My modesty extends across the Web, providing a winsome frolicsome banality that reaches out and grabs the masses by their proverbial furry nodules and causes their hearts and minds to follow. In udder words, Rate Your Music is a darn good site and grows daily. 22.214.171.124 20:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The wondrous Obbop again. Hi. Recent changes at Rate Your Music. Additional neato goodies added that allows more information about bands and artists to be displayed. Site users input the vast majority of the content. SOme is apparently of the copy-and-paste variety but there is also a lot of unique content created by the large user base.126.96.36.199 15:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are there so many metal bands on this site?
- Because - this is music for music lovers.
- Are there? I haven't been registered for even a week, but my general impression is that there's a decent mix of genres to be found? Of course, I enjoy several different metal genres (and something tells me that's not the case when you're concerned, anonymous contributor ;) ) so I guess I might not think twice about it if metal's indeed being slightly over-represented. I kind of doubt it, though. Calanor 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Musician which play on music instruments? Nowadays only site for music lover.Classical and modern ,symphonic and metallic.
No doubt down to the fact Americans users of the site outnumber Brits, for example, 3-4 to 1. Vauxhall1964 17:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
A wiki?[edit]
I don't think it's a wiki. Here's what it says in the lead: "It is a wiki in the sense that users can add, edit and remove content; however, the majority of new, edited content must be approved by a moderator."--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC
- I mean, it obviously doesn't use MediaWiki, but something else altogether.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, RYM does allow, "easy creation and editing of any number of interlinked Web pages", which is part of the definition of a wiki, according to Wikipedia. It isn't a standard wiki though. Hmm... Adammanifold (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Site documentation operates as a wiki (http://rateyourmusic.com/wiki/). The main database probably shouldn't be thought as one. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, RYM does allow, "easy creation and editing of any number of interlinked Web pages", which is part of the definition of a wiki, according to Wikipedia. It isn't a standard wiki though. Hmm... Adammanifold (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Rym20.jpg[edit]
Image:Rym20.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


text:
Top Definition
Means you're too late. Like if a guy likes you and then another one asks you out before him, you say to the first guy, "sorry, day late and a dollar short." So basically, you waited and screwed yourself over.
Guy: Hey, will you go out with me?
Girl: Sorry, day late and a dollar short... Guy 2 just asked me out yesterday.
Girl: Sorry, day late and a dollar short... Guy 2 just asked me out yesterday.
by Pretty Emily October 24, 2004
The Urban Dictionary Mug
One side has the word, one side has the definition. Microwave and dishwasher safe. Lotsa space for your liquids.Buy the mug
The Urban Dictionary T-Shirt
Smooth, soft, slim fit American Apparel shirt. Custom printed. 100% fine jersey cotton, except for heather grey (90% cotton).Buy the t-shirt
Trending Now
Can you define these popular missing words?


text:
Content / Informational / Proofreading / Development
This project was awarded to reflectionwriter for $99 USD.Get free quotes for a project like this
Project Budget$30 - $250 USD
Total Bids16
Project Description
We are independent marketing company that is just in the pre production stage of getting our company launched.
We are creating a menu for the services we offer and need someone to proofread and correct all of the sentences and make everything more cohesive and readable for future employees/clients.
You must have knowledge in marketing and business or MBA
We want you to read this one - two page paper and also contribute to aspects we may have missed.
We would love to bring you on board for continuous projects as well.
Experience in sales is a PLUS
Awarded to:
Skills Required
Browse Related Skills
Related Projects
Other things people do on Freelancer
Related Articles
Latest Articles
Looking to make some money?
- Set your budget and the timeframe
- Outline your proposal
- Get paid for your work
Hire Freelancers who also bid on this project
Looking for work?
Work on projects like this and make money from home!Sign Up Now
- Forbes
- The New York Times
- Time
- Wall Street Journal
- Times Online


text:
22 Student Job In Durban in Westville
TRAVEL & TOURISM STUDENTS! This is your Opportunity to be employed and Trained by a Leading Travel Agency. Durban and PMB based positions available, kindly...from: IOL Jobs - 9 days ago
We have positions available in Durban, Cape Town and Sandton. The Program is open to students who need to complete their P1&P2 Experiential Learning within 2017...from: AECOM - 20 days ago
No previous marketing or sales experience necessary so school leavers and students are encouraged to apply Retail sales, customer service bar work or similar...from: Best Jobs South Africa - 20 days ago
A leading investment bank that provides the best financial services to private,corporate and institutional sectors is looking for an array of candidates all in...from: Biz Community - 23 days ago
We're looking for 2 energetic students to work at our ADSL stand the Durban business fair from the 11th to the 13th November. Show times are from 8am - 5pm....from: Gumtree ZA - 30 days ago
School leavers/part time students welcome. Must be based in Durban CBD/Durban Beachfront. For general cleaning/House keeping....from: Gumtree ZA - 6 days ago
Liaising with students / committee members / parents. A position has arisen within the Societa' Dante Alighieri, 82 Fairway, Durban North in the capacity of an...from: Gumtree ZA - 29 days ago
Glen Anil, Durban. Passionate Junior Operations Co-ordinator / equipment stores officer at their Durban. Equipment used in the student productions as well as...from: Gumtree ZA - 15 days ago
Student training entails:. Spa, Beauty, Fitness, Hair, - KwaZulu Natal Durban. Sales Rep and Trainer – Natal & Eastern Cape....from: The Recruitment Specialists - 30+ days ago
Student registers with us. Durban Central which is looking for Sale Reps who can market our training courses. Able to pay you commission for every student that...from: Gumtree ZA - 23 days ago
Record daily student numbers. Conduct interviews with potential students. Record prospective students details from each enquiry....from: Indeed - 29 days ago
KZN #2469 – Theatre Unit Manager – Durban Central. Assume the role of Nurse Educator with all students as well as all staff....from: Mednurse Health Recruitment - 30+ days ago
Registration of students. Advise students towards the most appropriate course. Respond to telephone queries, e-mails, faxes and walk in students....from: Indeed - 29 days ago
Preferably a student studying part time or through correspondence. Pool Academy Swim School is offering successful candidates a chance to teach/ coach Learn To...from: Indeed - 30+ days ago
Maintenance of student files including filing student information & assessments in student files. Durban North, KwaZulu-Natal....from: Indeed - 30+ days ago
jobs by


text:
Tomato, Cheese & Egg Savoury
Total Time
Prep 5 mins
Cook 5 mins
Tasty variation on scrambled eggs. Use as much tomatoe and cheese as you like. Tastes better than it looks!!!!!!
Ingredients Nutrition
- 1 onion, diced
- diced tomato
- grated cheese
- 2 eggs, beaten
- salt and pepper
- parsley (to garnish)
- Saute chopped onion in a little butter til soft.
- Add diced tomatoe and saute a little longer.
- Stir in grated cheese, salt and pepper.
- Add beaten eggs and stir gently over low heat til cooked (about 2mins).
- Serve on hot buttered toast sprinkled with chopped parsley.
- Cheese and/or parsley can be omitted if desired.
Most Helpful
This is really good! I love the addition of tomatoes! I made this for Recipe Swap #15.
This was really very good! I love the tomatoes in there with the egg, and sauteeing them took most of the liquid off so the eggs were not runny at all. I didn't have any parsley, so I used chopped chives from my garden for a garnish. Thanks for posting, we really enjoyed this! :)
Made this for breakfast this morning and it was delicious! I used chopped spring onion as that was what I had and halved cherry tomatoes. I also used strong cheddar cheese. We had this on hot toast and both enjoyed this very much! Thanks for a quick, easy and delicious meal!


text:
Please Support
Our Sponsors
Our Sponsors
Loading images please wait %
{width: "280", height: "154", ImgTime: 4000, EffectTime: 2667, SpecialEffect: true, AutoResize: true}
BR Tim
- Additions (9/9/2016) - Thomas Snoddon tree has now been updated, mostly through the Whittel family
- Duncan T Lambe –On new Message Board (8/20/2016) -
- Additions (5/1/2016) - just added over 100 new names as a branch of the Peter Duffy tree. I filled in the descendants of Thomas Duffy and Margaret Lynch– the family were in the Mara census in 1851 and 1861 and 1871 . Susan Duffy married John Cuddahee/ Cuddohy in 1875 in St. Columbkille's. Susan and her siblings all relocated […]
- Space (5/1/2016) -
- ADDITIONS (4/17/2016) - Over the past few weeks Mike has been adding dates, places etc, to some Rama families, and added new branches to the Lefebvre-Watt and Heslin trees. These include new branches of Gaudaur, and the McDermott family of Rama. (Thomas McDermott was the 1st reeve of Rama in 1869), and some early settlers of Mara, like James […]
- Space (4/17/2016) -
- BREAKING News—–Important Message (4/4/2016) - Again we say—Our contact link is now fixed –After a year long struggle–There were 370 messages in the backlog when we found out it didn't work If you tried to contact us and didn't get a reply, try again —If we get it IT WILL BE ANSWERED
- Space (4/2/2016) -
Admin Messages
- Historical Dictionary
- Across The Border
- Carden-Dalton Gazette
- For Review
- All our Churches
- Message Board–Ramara Carden Dalton History on line
- Our Villages–Hamlet to Haunted
- Pioneer Families
- Ramara Gazette
- Ramara Veterans —Every day is Remembrance Day


text:
Prices, specials, features and availability subject to change.
Contact for details
Spacious 4bd/1.5 ba in Turtle Creek - Spacious house
4 bedroom
1.5 bathrooms
2 car garage
Bathroom on the first floor
Close to highway
*All pets welcome
No section 8!
*Utilities not included
Our requirements are as follows:
- Security deposit $795.00
- 1st month's rent $795.00
- $250 refundable water deposit
-$250 non refundable pet deposit
- Proof of income.
- Renter's Insurance Required
- $25 application fee per person: credit check and magisterial background check for Landlord-Tenant and Criminal complaints.
* The application fee is non-refundable
**To sign a lease, security deposit must be paid and then all other costs paid prior to move-in date.
To View This Home, Please call:
Chrissy 412-390-5278
Tina 412-923-7911
Sheena 412-758-6736
Pets Accepted. Dogs Allowed. Cats Allowed. Call for service animal policy.
Don't have a Rent.com account? Create one.
Creating an account allows you to acccess your saved and contacted properties on any device. Already have an account?
Log In
We are experiencing technical difficulties at the moment. Please try again later.


text:
Girls Cotton Jersey 'Holiday Cats' Babygrow
$34.56Only a few left! Only 1 left! Only 1 left!
Girls cotton 'Holiday Cats' printed babygrow by Hatley. Made in soft jersey, this colourful design has a festive feline print, with a front zipper and throat strap with popper closure.
- Product number 133029
- 100% cotton (soft jersey)
- Machine wash (30*C)
- Front zip
- Snug fitting
- Style name: Holiday Cats


text:
VIJAYA BANK RTGS HO Branch in VADALIA SINHAN - Address, IFSC, MICR Code
VIJB0007375MICR Code
VADALIA SINHANContact
VADALIA SINHANGROUND FLOORVILLA-VADALIA SINHANTALUKO . KHAMBHALIADISTT. : JAMNAGARVADALIA SINHANGUJARATCity
VADALIA SINHANDistrict
VADALIA SINHANState
What is IFSC Code of VIJAYA BANK situated at VADALIA SINHAN- RTGS-HO?
IFSC Code of VIJAYA BANK situated at VADALIA SINHAN - RTGS-HO is
What is the meaning of IFSC Code, MICR Codes in Banking industry?
IFSC or Indian Financial System Code is the code allocated to all banks branches. Bank branches use this code to participate in RTGS and NEFT transactions.
What is the significance of IFSC Code and how we can use it?
IFSC Code is a 11 digit code and we can use this code to communicate between different branches of different banks. Upon receiving the request for fund transfer it is easy for a bank to identify the payee branch. First four characters are code of bank, last six digits are branch code and fifth character is left 0, for any future use.