text:
Would you like to save as your currency permanently or for this visit only?
Holme Lea Manor
Excellent (8.3, 59 reviews)
World class service
Terrific location
Excellent breakfast
Really nice room with a very comfortable bed and everything was very clean. Breakfast was served at a reasonable hour and the entrance was available at all times if necessary, always positives in a guest house.
Very attractive room, warm and peaceful. Excellent breakfasts. Very friendly and helpful staff. Parking a bit tight.
The hotel was close to the center of York and was clean, staff were friendly and helpful Length of time waiting for breakfast
Good breakfast and the rooms were clean Rooms were very dated look like they had not been renewed since 1960. Bed side lights and room light did not work. Very expensive for what you got. I wouldn't stay again as the Travel inn for the same price is so munch better
It was only 15 minutes walk into york. The reception was very welcoming and we were offered information on where to go and what to see in York. The room was clean and maintained the features of a listed building. The breakfast was excellent
The room was very comfortable and the furniture was very nice. It states that this is a hotel but I would see it more as a B & B. I have stayed in many hotels through my line of work and this was not a hotel in my eyes. 15 min walk into the centre of York, we were located on the very top floor which was a hike up many stairs but the room was very nice.
friendly,helpful but not intrusive staff.room was excellent with a great view of york
Very friendly staff. Room was big, although decoration was a bit old fashioned. Well located, about 20 min walk from York minster. Only one hour for breakfast, meaning it was very busy and service was a bit slow. But breakfast was nice!
Comfortable, excellent breakfast, parking and friendly proprietors. No.
The friendliness of the staff was perfect and there was an excellent breakfast i would have liked a bigger shower because yhe one we had was a corner one and was not very big but it was ok for a couple of days
Comfy warm room
The staff were friendly,accommodation good and it was within easy and a pleasant alking distance of all the historical attractions in York. The dinner was locked in a a post 2nd world war time warp.
friendly staff and good food
location of hotel and friendliness of staff loved it all
We got a family room ,so no complaints plenty of room , nice and airy well fitted out. Didnt stop long enough !!
The hotel is situated close to York city centre, very handy for all the sites We stayed in a double room which was very small.
We enjoyed our stay, the hotel was quaint and quirky, but very clean and comfortable Everything was fine
Lovely old inn with delicious food and very friendly staff . Excellent position on quiet road but very near to York Minster . The shower in our bedroom was just a trickle .
Position to city centre,and all of things stated in 2, not forgetting the gorgeous breakfasts & complimentary coffee & cakes in the afternoon. It`s a pity that there is not more car parking space, although the hotel staff did a great job of making your car available when it was required.
Great people. Excellent hotel
Friendly staff, good breakfast,good location of the hotel to York centre. Room was cramped, and the bathroom too small. Television in the cupboard above the wardrobe, not ideal, TV remote did not work.
easy access to city centre and secure parking
the beds were very comfortable and the decor of the room was good.The bedroom was clean.The breakfast was good and there was some flexibility with the menu.The elderly lady in charge was very pleasant and helpful. The shower attachment over the bath did not work, and could not be fixed during our 3 night stay.The owners were away and the lady in charge although quite elderly tried to help us.Their were no hand towels or extra bedding provided. Also we had to ask for a hairdryer, as well as extra teabags as only 1 teabag per person was provided per day! We thought this was a bit mean..
Dave liked his breakfast and mine!!!! The check out time could have been a little later
On arrival we were up-graded to a self contained flat which was excellent,this gave us our own space after long days out and about. We travelled by train so the location to the station and city was very good (about 10 minuets walk). The staff were very friendly and helpful, lovely breakfast with a varied choose, best poached eggs I've ever tasted.
The hotel was just a short walk from the city centre - took us about 15 mins. Free on site car parking. Breakfast was good. Room wasn't overly big and it was situated in the middle of the hotel so there was no natural daylight. Our window looked out into the corridor of the hotel so we had to keep the curtains closed or else everyone passing could see in!
Location. Quiet; facilities very good; clealiness; good food; easy access to York centre within walking distance. Cost very good value. Previous tenants using window for disposing of cigarrette ends, in a non- smoking room?
The breakfast, staff and value for money N/A
Comfortable rooms, friendly staff, good location.
nothing was too much trouble for the staff. mine and my mothers stay was wonderful. nothing whatsoever
everything especially the breakfast n/a
Good breakfast. Room small and too hot, On a noisy road.
All the staff were very friendly and very informative about local attractions. The full English Breakfast was Fantastic. A very relaxed stay. There was nothing I didn't like.
The very friendly nature of the owners - they were lovely, warm and welcoming while very professional as well. Breakfast was lovely. Bar was excellent as well. This is an excellent place to stay, and just a few minutes away from York. Breakfast time was limited, which was a bit of a drag over the weekend. The owner's children were allowed to play with our child some of the time but not others, which confused our little one a bit.
The room was very large and spacious, toiletries of a high quality, breakfast was good The walk into town was longer than other reviewers mentioned
Easy access from A64 by-pass, free parking, walking distance into York centre and close to university. Friendly, family-run, warm and cosy - real fire in guests lounge and small bar too. Excellent breakfast.
The staff were very helpful The bed was too soft, and made sleeping difficult
rooms clean and comfortable,staff very friendly and helpful,and excellent breakfasts
Very friendly welcome, delightful family running the establishment, helpful in every way. Excellent breakfasts, quickly served. Good bus service into York centre. we hope to return, maybe for another Easter at the Minster - a wonderful weekend.
The friendliness and the excellent food. No
Quality rooms, easy to get to, friendly owners. It was also close to the river walk which I used to get into the old city. Not being able to check in between 2 and 6 pm but they did let me use their parking.
The breakfast was excellent -great choice. Sarcastic comments from the male owner -was unsure how to take him.
good size room , food good , parking good no toiletries, mats in bathroom shappy, no real choice at breakfast and not enough variety, no bedside tables, had to come down at a specified time for our breakfat although served from 8-9.30 am .
cleanliness of room, breakfast, staff.
We stayed during the coldest time of the year, but were never once chilly in the Hotel. The room was always comfortably warm. Breakfast was freshly cooked and excellent. We vistied the Indian Restaraunt advertised, with a 20% discount if staying at the Hotel and found everything delightful. All in all both excellent value for money.
The free wi fi was brilliant. The staff were really polite and spoke to you on a first name basis which was a nice touch. Breakfast was pretty impressive as well. Good value and good location. Bedroom was a bit cold and the bathroom was very small but this was not a problem. I would have liked some shower gel and was a bit miffed that I had to buy some but there is a little shop down the road so all was fine.
Car parking available and guest house was clean. Breakfast is served from 8am only, if you want it earlier then don't stay here, I had to leave without breakfast as I had to leave at 8am. The room was very cramped and the ensuite very small.
the owners were friendly and helpful the room was quite cramped - though adequate
Received a morning wake up call!
the room was very clean and comfortable breakfast was good and cooked to order so it was hot the thermostat on the shower did not work so the temperature went from freezing cold to boiling hot so it was impossible to have a proper shower this was reported to the staff i don't think it will be solved as the previos guests had mentioned it on there stay on 20/01/08
Staff friendly and helpfull. Good location within walking distance of city, Good car park
hotel was clean and staff friendly put my elderly mother on the top floor when i requested a low floor. a good walking distance from town centre nothing close by
excellent choice at breakfast and everything beautifully cooked and well presented.good location-walking distance to all main attractions. very friendly and helpful owners.
nice owners, check-in already from 12h00, 10 mins to the city centre, excellent breakfast, TV with built-in DVD player in the room (+ cca 80 DVDs available for watching). TV mounted on the wall in a strange angle. The bed was very short - I am 1,75 m (five feet nine inches) and to fit myself on the bed I had to push the top of my head against the front bedframe, otherwise my heels were hanging down with no support.
The owners made us feel very welcome,breakfast was very good! No bad points
The location is perfect for access to central York. The welcome, local information and breakfast were second to none.
Excellent service, friendly Yorkshire welcome, great breakfast
good budget hotel 10 mins walk into town,friendly & helpfull staff,good food bathroom in our room was small, but other rooms have larger bathrooms , luck of the draw i suppose
Great hospitality; very good heating Difficult parking - help needed
Fresh and clean bedding. Great power shower! Good variety of breakfast choices including fresh fruit and yoghurts, cereals, different teas, cooked breakfast. Very quiet and relaxed. Welcoming. Short walk from the Minster. None.
that the people who run burton villa where lovly and helpfull people and the use of there DVD collection parking ?? but hay the price was right thats what counts ?
Very good breakfast nice clean room None
Very friendly and helpful staff, lovely bedrooms which were spotlessly clean. Lack of parking is a bit of a problem, but typical for the area.
very good, however noisy constantly running toilet (due to overflowing cystern) reported, not fixed (or attempted)
it was within easy reach of everything. within walking distance of train station, none
The location was very close to downtown, yet was very quiet. The breakfast was delicious, with lots of variety and good taste. The room was smaller than expected, or what showed on the advertisement online. The bed was large enough but soft.
Excellent location, very clean, lovely dining room & excellent breakfast Maybe a little re-decoration here & there. A nice tv where you can see it not up on the wall nearly as high as the ceiling. These are only little things & it wouldn't stop me staying there.
it was just like being at home,very comfy,easy access to city centre and the staff and owners were very helpful
Location, everything we needed, price Slightly on the small side, creaking floor boards from floor above
Nice breakfast and close to city centre etc.
Close to York City, very clean and modern room, friendly staff. Top floor room, lots and lots of stairs, top ones were quite steep and no light at top of the stairs. Breakfast wasn't very nice.
Excellent breakfast and good location.Easy access to the town centre. Clean room and friendly staff. stairs! We were on the top floor and there was alot of stairs. We are quite young and found them a struggle.
Our room was very spacious and clean. It had plenty of wardrobe space and a beautiful onsuite bathroom. Bentham Lodge is a beautifully refurbished property with lots of character. Niki the landlady was very welcoming and helpful. She is very knowledgeable about the city and gave us lots of advice on the best places to eat and drink and the best places to visit in York. She was even kind enough to give us a lift into the city in the evening to meet friends. Breakfast in the morning was delicious and plentiful! We enjoyed a fresh fruit salad to start followed by a cooked English breakfast. Amd if you are still hungry there is also a selection of cereal. We thoroughly enjoyed our stay and would defintely stay here again.
Warm welcome and great breakfast
Nikki was very welcoming and chatty. Excellent en-suite facilities. Fantastic, freshly cooked full English breakfast!
Guest house was very easy to find, rooms were en suite and very clean and well maintained, breakfast was great.
We received warm and personal care and attention right from our arrival and throughout our stay. Every effort was made to ensure that we had an enjoyable and comfortable stay.
Very friendly and welcoming, Nikki put herself out to ensure a pleasant stay in her lovely guest house. The room was well furnished and comfortable with a terrific en suite shower room. Breakfast was feshly prepared and delicious, and set us up for the day. Thank you Nikki.
When we first walked into our room we were greeted with instant English charm! There was a beautiful fireplace in the room with a lovely spray of flowers in front of it. The beds were clean comfortable and made to snuggle up in with a nice warm comforter on top. The room was spacious and quite comfortable for two people. The bathroom had a lovely hot shower. Everything was spotless and the entire room had a very inviting appeal to it. A continental breakfast was just down the hall with wonderful breads, cereal, yogurt, ham, cheese and sweet pastries. We would most definitely stay here again! Nothing!


text:
+44 871 984 6291
195 -203 Waterloo Road London SE1 8UX United Kingdom
Facilities Guests can enjoy a pleasant stay in one of the 279 rooms. Services and facilities at the hotel include a restaurant, a dining area, a café, a bar and a business centre. Wireless internet access in public areas allows travellers to stay connected. Rooms The hotel features rooms with a bathroom. All rooms offer a tea/coffee station, a TV and WiFi (for a fee). The accommodation units include a bathroom with a shower. A hairdryer can also be found in each of the bathrooms. The accommodation offers family rooms and non-smoking rooms. Meals Breakfast can be booked.

subset: commoncrawl


text: kiecks rough-porn - Watch free porno videos at PornoNY general contractors (tradewinds) design/build, fully insured, state certified contractor. com Lot of porn and tube sex movies Horny UK wife shows off her big-booty for rough doggystyle multi-specialty. Pornhub is the ultimate xxx site urban street utilizes their expertise in acquisition, construction, property management marketing proactively maximize value each acquired. Tons well organized stream XXX are waiting you! Our updated daily so please come back your secret weapon combating holiday stress. A lot categorized Doggystyle Compilation, Blow during holiday season more important than ever take advantage remarkable powers. bootylicious brunette works out a big black cock with hands mouth (31:19) These knockouts love to be taken from behind again again entirely porn. hard ass pounding all they need it s right here PornMd in uncensored vids this site you can see really teens, listed by popularity hd teen porn daily videos. com blonde forced fuck suck shafts nasty gang show getting spanked brutalized enter wild world pleasuring our tough beauties. Tradewinds Development Corp babes get very excite rougher becomes, join lusty fun! busty bombshell christy mack loves large porntube® featuring rough anal new added every day! tube dominatrix being guys small dick. General Contractors (Tradewinds) Design/Build, fully insured, State Certified Contractor tnaflix


text:
20 mile radius
Please introduce a postcode to use this feature
This course is suitable for someone who wants to learn the art of stained glass in a friendly manner. Learn how to paint stained glass, in the company of a small relaxed group and for some time-out in the...more
Duration: Variable
Multiple levels
Different times are available for this course
No Qualification
Art might be one of the smallest words in the dictionary, but these three, unassuming letters open up a world of creative opportunity for anyone who wishes to grasp it. Perhaps art has been your life-force since the very first time you picked up a...
Art , for the uninitiated, is generally quite confusing. 'What makes art, 'art'?' is a question many have asked and even some of the world's top artists can't answer it. Some say it's about being unique, some say it's about skill, some say it's...


text:
TICKETS NOW ON SALE! Click the link to your favorite theatre and select showtimes Dec 15 and beyond.
Limited Edition Collectors Cups now available at the concession stand.
While supplies last.
Your favorite classic films back on the big screen. To see the complete schedule, select the "Schedule" link below.
You are viewing the text version of this site.
Need help? check the requirements page.


text:
You love participating in Halloween festivities, but you hate the idea of giving out unhealthy candy to your trick-or-treaters -- or maybe you just want to stand out from the crowd. What can you do? Well, try some of these fun and kid-approved alternatives to Halloween candy!
First of all, who doesn't love glow sticks? Even most adults get a little bit giddy at the sight of a glow stick! You can hand out the basic sticks, or make it really fun and pass out glowing bracelets instead. Not only will the kids love it, but it will help keep them be safe in the dark, too.


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.
October 25, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,v.WALLY REYNOLDS, DEFENDANT.
Pending Motions and Procedural Background
Before the Court are various motions by defendant seeking discovery and other relief. First, under the original version of the Indictment (see Docket No. 1), defendant filed his two omnibus motions for various discovery relief, filing of a Bill of Particulars (Docket No. 18; see Docket No. 26 (second motion)), and suppression of evidence and statements (Docket No. 26). In particular, defendant sought the filing of a Bill of Particulars; discovery; production of informant information; Jencks Act materials; notice of Government's intention to use anything seized pursuant to a search warrant; impeachment information against Government witnesses; Brady materials; witnesses' statements; preservation of rough notes (Docket No. 18). He also sought disclosure of the identify and circumstances of a certain confidential informant, "CS-7," in the search warrant application under which he furnished information for that application (Docket No. 26); particularization of co-conspirators and their statements (id.); and to controvert the search warrant (id.). In support of these motions, defendant submitted his attorney's supplemental affidavit (id.); his affidavits (Docket Nos. 28, 29); his attorney's affidavit, with exhibit (Docket No. 32), outlining efforts to obtain information regarding border crossing records. In response, the Government submits its responding papers (Docket Nos. 21, 27).
An evidentiary hearing was held on February 7, 2011 (Docket No. 35 (transcript); see Docket Nos. 30, 31), and following that hearing, defendant moved for production of statements made by witnesses in that hearing, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2 (Docket No. 33).
These omnibus motions initially were deemed submitted on March 14, 2011, following post-hearing submissions by the parties (Docket Nos. 36 (Government), 37-38*fn1 (defendant)). Upon defendant's arraignment on the Superseding Indictment, on May 13, 2011 (Docket No. 40), supplementation of these omnibus motions was due by August 1, 2011, and the Government's response was due by August 3, 2011, and the motions were further argued on August 8, 2011 (Docket No. 41). This Court deemed these motions carried over to the Superseding Indictment.
Defendant then moved under the Superseding Indictment for discovery and other relief previously sought as well as unredacted search warrant information; statements from Jennifer Bannach and Jason McInerney; disclosure of global positioning system ("GPS") surveillance information; list of witnesses; law enforcement documents; and Grand Jury information (Docket No. 45). He sought hearings as to his eligibility for 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (for a sentence notwithstanding any statutory minimum); and regarding the probable cause for issuance of the search warrant. Defendant supports this motion with his attorney's affidavit with exhibit (a decision by Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Matter of Historical Cell-Site Information, 10MC897, E.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2011) (Docket No. 46). The Government responded (Docket No. 47).
This motion was argued on September 16, 2011, and the Court initially reserved decision (text minute entry, Sept. 16, 2011).
While this motion was pending, the United States Supreme Court considered United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012), which involved the constitutionality of warrantless use of a GPS devise on a vehicle and whether that use constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court later held that the Government's attachment and use of a GPS device to a vehicle constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, Jones, supra, 565 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 945 (see Docket No. 51 (defense attorney affirmation, Jan. 23, 2012, announcing Jones decision)).
Defense motions then turned to the use of a GPS devise on defendant's car. The Government was ordered to produce GPS discovery sought by defendant by March 8, 2012 (Docket No. 53; see Docket No. 52, minute entry). Defendant then filed his second motion to compel production of regarding the GPS device (Docket No. 54). The Government filed a responding affidavit from counsel, with attached affidavit from Joseph Stroh, a special agent with Homeland Security Investigations of the Department of Homeland Security, regarding the GPS device in this case (Docket No. 55).
During a status conference held on March 28, 2012, defendant sought more discovery surrounding the GPS device and the Government stated that it could respond; a further status conference was set for April 12, 2012 (text minute entry, Mar. 28, 2012; see also Docket No. 56, Order to Continue). On April 12, 2012, the Government sent a letter to defense counsel and the Court (Docket No. 59, Ex. C, letter of Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary Baumgarten to Alan Hoffman, Esq., Apr. 10, 2012) reporting that the computer hardware which ran the GPS tracking software was no longer in the Government's inventory and the data was erased when the equipment no longer supported the software for that computer (id., with attachment; see also Docket No. 55, Gov't Atty. Aff., Ex. 1, Aff. of Joseph Stroh ("Stroh Aff.") ¶ 6). Later that day, the parties reported the status of production regarding the GPS device revealing that some documents were unavailable (text minute entry, Apr. 12, 2012). Defendant then made a third motion seeking discovery of the GPS tracker usage, as well as to dismiss the Indictment; production of Grand Jury minutes; production of the redacted search warrant application; and to vacate the search warrant (Docket No. 58). The Government responded to this motion (Docket No. 59), and argument of that motion (and other pending motions) was held on August 3, 2012 (text minute entry, Aug. 3, 2012; see Docket No. 60). Defendant then filed a supplemental Memorandum of Law for suppression of evidence arising from the GPS (Docket No. 61), to which the Government responded (Docket Nos. 62, 63). Further argument of these discovery motions was held on October 9, 2012 (text minute entry, Oct. 9, 2012; cf. text minute entry Sept. 25, 2012), and all motions then pending were deemed submitted as of October 9, 2012 (text minute entry, Oct. 9, 2012).
Separately, this Court will consider defendant's suppression motion, his motions to controvert the search warrant, and to dismiss the Superseding Indictment in a Report & Recommendation.
Defendant initially was charged with attempted conspiracy to manufacture and import marijuana and importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), (b)(2)(G), (b)(4), 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Docket No. 1, Indict.), between June 2004 and April 6, 2006. Defendant allegedly conspired to import 100 kilograms or more of marijuana from Canada (id.). The second count alleges that on April 6, 2006, defendant illegally imported marijuana from Canada into the United States (id.).
On April 28, 2011, the Government filed a Superseding Indictment (Docket No. 40), reiterating the two counts in the initial Indictment (id., Counts 1, 2) and charging defendant with conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute marijuana from around September 2008 to February 2010 (id., Count 3); possession with the intent to distribute marijuana on or about February 24, 2010 (id., Count 4); and maintenance of a drug-involved premises in Niagara Falls, New York, from around April 29, 2009, through February 24, 2010 (id., Count 5).
Use of a GPS Device
On December 5, 2007, law enforcement officers installed the GPS device on defendant's car, a Cadillac STS, while parked in a public parking lot in Niagara Falls, New York (Docket No. 55, Gov't Atty. Aff., Ex. 1, Stroh Aff. ¶ 2). Information from the GPS device was accessed remotely by law enforcement via a computer to assist in surveillance of the vehicle, for example, when the visual surveillance of that car was lost (id., Stroh Aff. ¶ 3). Defendant's Cadillac was under visual surveillance prior to the GPS device being installed (see id. ¶ 4).
The GPS device was removed between February 6 and 13, 2008, when a person advised law enforcement that they would be driving the Cadillac (id. ¶ 7).
The Government contends that no information generated by the GPS device was used to obtain the search warrant (Docket No. 59, Gov't Atty. Aff. ¶ 8 & n.2; cf. Docket No. 58, Def. Atty. Aff. ¶ 11).
Defendant seeks discovery surrounding the use of the GPS, relying upon a District of Massachusetts case, United States v. Rose, Criminal No. 11-10062-NMG, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68095 (D. Mass. May 16, 2012) (Boal, Mag. J.) (Docket No 58, Def. Atty. Aff. ¶ 4, Ex. A).
The Government argued on October 9, 2012, that it does not intend to use information gleaned from the GPS at trial.
I. GPS Discovery
The Supreme Court in Jones held that the Government's attachment of a GPS device on a vehicle and its use to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment requiring a warrant, 565 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 945. Defendant in the case at bar seeks disclosure of the tracking information from the GPS devise implanted on his vehicle (Docket Nos. 45, 54, 59). The Government disclaims any use of evidence obtained from the GPS device and argues that it was used to supplement visual surveillance of defendant's vehicle.
For this Order, the issue is whether the Government's production is sufficient and whether a hearing is necessary regarding the use of the GPS device. The Government has disclosed notes of the surveillance (e.g., Docket No. 59, Gov't Atty. Aff. ¶ 2, Ex. A) and report that the computer equipment used with the GPS was no longer in the Government's inventory, data was erased, and the software run on that computer was no longer supported. This destruction appears to be unrelated to this case.
The GPS was used to supplement surveillance of defendant's Cadillac when visual surveillance was lost. But this surveillance occurred between December 5, 2007, to as late as February 13, 2008. The activities alleged in Counts 1 and 2 of the Superseding Indictment occurred months before this surveillance (cf. Docket No. 40, Superseding Indictment), while the offenses alleged in Counts 3, 4, and 5 occurred after the ending of the GPS surveillance (cf. id.). Thus, whatever evidence from the GPS monitoring of defendant's Cadillac would not be relevant to the charges pending before him. Defendant points to the search warrant application referring to defendant being under investigation since 2006, and the October 2007 to January 2008 surveillance, and the fact that the GPS surveillance was not mentioned (Docket No. 58, Def. Atty. Aff. ¶¶ 10, 11 (citing search warrant application ¶¶ 4, 11)). That search warrant application, however, need not describe every means undertaken by the Government prior to seeking the search warrant (differing from the requirements for a Title III wiretap, cf. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c)). All the applying agent needed to present in his or her affidavit to show probable cause was the "'veracity' and 'basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay information" and produce material to show that "there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place," Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). Despite the extensive argument over this material and with the Government's representation that it would not use any evidence obtained from the GPS monitoring, defendant's motion for further discovery as to that evidence is denied as well as his motion for a hearing as to this GPS monitoring and equipment or evidence retention. This is consistent with the case cited by defendant, United States v. Rose, supra, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68095, at *7-17, where Magistrate Judge Boal parsed the categories of discovery sought from the GPS investigative materials in that case, denying as premature evidence surrounding any claimed good faith exception by the Government and any exculpatory material contained with the GPS material, id. at *14-15, *16-17.
The Court next turns to the other discovery relief not related to the GPS.
II. Bill of Particulars
Defendant seeks the particulars as to when and where the marijuana was allegedly imported, defendant's conduct that constitutes the elements of the offense, the amount of marijuana he allegedly agreed to smuggle into this country, and the names of his co-conspirators, among other facts insufficiently detailed in the Indictment (Docket No. 18, Def. Motion at 2-3; Docket No. 26, Def. Supp'al Motion at second-third unnumbered pages).
The Government argues that defendant has not met the legal threshold for particularization, namely showing need to enable preparation for a defense, avoidance of unfair surprise and double jeopardy (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 1, 6-9, 2). The Government lists the voluntary discovery given to defendant, including documentation of the drug importation activities and conspiracy (id. at 7). The Government contends that defendant is seeking specific dates and locations to reveal the Government's theory of this case, which is not required under the law for Bill of Particulars (id. at 7-8, 4-5). Next, the Government faults defendant for not arguing that he faces double jeopardy absent receiving a Bill of Particulars (id. at 8-9). The Government concludes that defendant's particularization requests seek to identify the confidential informants or conspirators (Docket No. 27, Gov't Response at 5), while denying that it has otherwise confirmed the identities of co-conspirators (id. at 5 n.2). The Government states that this is a continuing investigation and particularization now would jeopardize it (id. at 5-6).
Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may direct the filing of a Bill of Particulars. Bills of Particulars are to be used only to protect a defendant from double jeopardy and to enable adequate preparation of a defense and to avoid surprise at trial. United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1990); see United States v. Persico, 621 F. Supp. 842, 868 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citing Won Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77, 82 (1927)) (see Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 2). The Government is not obligated to "preview its case or expose its legal theory," United States v. LaMorte, 744 F. Supp. 573 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); United States v. Leonelli, 428 F. Supp. 880 (S.D.N.Y. 1977); nor must it disclose the precise "manner in which the crime charged is alleged to have been committed," United States v. Andrews, 381 F.2d 377 (2d Cir. 1967). Notwithstanding the above, there is a special concern for particularization in conspiracy cases. United States v. Davidoff, 845 F.2d 1151 (2d Cir. 1988).
Count I of the Indictment alleges that "Between in or about June 2004, the exact date being unknown, and on or about April 6, 2006, in the Western District of New York, and elsewhere, the defendant, WALLY REYNOLDS, did knowingly, willfully and unlawfully combine, conspire and agree with others, known and unknown, to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to import into the United States from a place outside thereof, that is, Canada, 100 kilograms or more of a mixture and substance containing marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 952(a), 960(a)(1) and 960(b)(2)(G); all in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 963." (Docket No. 1, Indict.) Alone on its face, this Count does not particularize the charges against defendant or his role in the alleged conspiracy. But defendant has been furnished with what the Government terms "comprehensive voluntary discovery to defendant" (see Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 9, 6-7). That Indictment has been superseded with additional charges (Docket No. 40), although Count 1 has not been amplified in the superseding pleading. Upon review of the Superseding Indictment and the discovery furnished to date, the Court finds that defendant is not entitled to a Bill of Particulars inasmuch as the defendant is sufficiently advised of the charges against him to allow for the proper preparation of a defense, to avoid surprise at trial, and to protect the defendant from double jeopardy.
III. Discovery
Aside from the discovery related to the GPS device discussed above, defendant seeks various items of pretrial discovery. He contends that there was no "open file" discovery provided to him, that the discovery provided "contained a paucity of information" (Docket No. 18, Def. Motion at 2). The Government counters that it produced comprehensive voluntary discovery and defense counsel has not requested anything further prior to filing this motion (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 9).
Although there is no general constitutional right to pretrial discovery in a federal criminal case, a defendant does have a pretrial discovery right with respect to certain matters. For example, under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, a defendant is entitled to specific exculpatory evidence which is material either to guilt or punishment. In addition, the Government has certain disclosure obligations under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500.
A. Statements of Co-Conspirators.
Defendant has requested production of all statements of any co-conspirator, whether charged or uncharged (Docket No. 18, Def. Motion at 13-14). This request is denied. It is well established that the statements of co-conspirators are not discoverable under Rule 16(a). In re United States, 834 F.2d 283, 286 (2d Cir. 1987); United States v. Percevault, 490 F.2d. 126 (2d Cir. 1974); United States v. Green, 144 F.R.D. 631, 638 (W.D.N.Y. 1992) (Heckman, Mag. J.). The Jencks Act provides the exclusive procedure for discovering statements that Government witnesses have given to law enforcement agencies (see Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 13). United States v. Covello, 410 F.2d 536, 543 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 879 (1969).
B. Informant Information
Defendant next seeks the pre-trial disclosure of the identity of any informants in this case. In particular, defendant seeks information about informant CS-7 named in the search warrant application (Docket No. 18, Def. Motion at 17; Docket No. 45, Def. Atty. Aff. at page 4). The Government objects to identifying its confidential informants (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 23-26; Docket No. 27, Gov't Response at 2-4; see also Docket No. 47, Gov't Response at 1 n.1 (incorporating prior responses to respond to Docket No. 45)). The Government is not required to furnish the identities of informants unless it is essential to the defense. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 52, 60-61 (1957); United States v. Saa, 859 F.2d 1067, 1073 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1089 (1988). Nor does Rule 16 require the Government to disclose the names of witnesses prior to trial. United States v. Bejasa, 904 F.2d 137, 139 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 921 (1990). Moreover, the Government has stated that it believes that disclosure of the informant's identification would subject the informant to personal danger from retribution by the defendant and others and jeopardize an on-going investigation (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 23-26).
Defendant has not established that the pre-trial disclosure of the identities of any informants is essential to his defense. This request is denied.
C. Identification Procedures
Defendant next seeks disclosure of any visual or audio identification procedures utilized in this case; specifying the procedure, the participants and the circumstances; any visual or audible representation of a person or voice used for identification purposes (Docket No. 18, Def. Motion at 14). The Government agrees to disclose information regarding pretrial identification (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 14). It does not expect to introduce pretrial identification evidence at trial (id.). This response is sufficient.
D. Police Reports
Defendant next seeks production of non-federal police investigative reports (Docket No. 18, Def. Motion at 14-15; Docket No. 45, Def. Atty. Aff. at 16-17). The Government argues that defendant is seeking material exempt from production under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(2) (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 15 & n.3, citing United States v. Kosherides, 877 F.2d 1129, 1133-34 (2d Cir. 1989)) and defendant is seeking third-party documents or items that are immaterial to this case (id. at 15). Any portion of the reports sought that are governed by the Jencks Act, the Government is willing to produce pursuant to the timing for Jencks Act production (id. at 15-16). This Court agrees with the Government and deny defendant's request for non-federal agency police reports.
E. Statements from Jennifer Bannach and Jason McInerney Defendant received in voluntary discovery redacted documents (Docket No. 18, Def. Memo. at 8). Defendant now seeks statements of these two persons regarding Counts 1 and 5 of the Superseding Indictment (Docket No. 45, Def. Atty. Aff. at 2-3, 3 n.1, 3 n.2, Addendum A, at 20-22; see Docket No. 18, Def. Memo. at 9-12 (Bannach's role); Docket No. 40, Superseding Indict.). Defendant represents that Bannach entered a plea agreement stating that on April 6, 2006, she imported marijuana from Canada, and defendant concludes that he needs her statement since Count 1 alleges that defendant conspired to import marijuana from Canada on that same date (Docket No. 40, Superseding Indict. Count 1). Defendant demands Bannach's written statement (id. at Addendum A at 21). As for McInerney, defendant contends that discovery materials reveal that on April 29, 2009, McInerney was outside of defendant's house and was believed to be there to pick up marijuana from another person, and McInerney's statements were part of the basis for executing a search warrant of defendant's house (Docket No. 45, Def. Atty. Aff. at 3 n.2). Defendant objects to the unilateral redactions by the Government of produced search warrant applications and discovery material, apparently to avoid disclosing informants and unindicted co-conspirators (id. at 3).
The Government generally opposes early disclosure of statements of uncharged co-defendants or co-conspirators as beyond the scope of Rule 16(a)(1)(A) (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 12) or disclosure of confidential informants (id. at 23-26). The Government then stated that it was unclear what defendant meant by a Freedom of Information Act request for information about border crossing of individuals that may be identified as co-conspirators (Docket No. 27, Gov't Response at 2 n.1). The Government produced redacted documents in voluntary discovery regarding "cooperating individuals for whom there is a safety and security concern" (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 9).
As with the informant information discussed above, defendant's request for unredacted documents that may disclose informant information is denied. As Jencks Act material, these documents will be treated as discussed below.
IV. Jencks Act
Defendant seeks immediate disclosure of material subject to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (Docket No. 18, Def. Motion at 21). The Jencks Act governs the disclosure of information and statements relating to the Government's witnesses. Generally, according to the Jencks Act, the Government need not disclose such information regarding its witnesses until after the witness has testified at trial. In this case, the Government has agreed to disclose this information at an unspecified time before trial (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 26), presumably as directed by the District Court's Final Pretrial Order. Therefore, Jencks Act disclosure (including what unredacted disclosure of information regarding Bannach or McInerney) should occur pursuant to the pretrial Order schedule; defendant has not established that prior disclosure of Jencks material is essential to the preparation of a defense in this case.
V. Notice of Government's Use of Seized Evidence Next, defendant seeks a declaration by the Government of the evidence it intends to use that it obtained from the search conducted under the warrant, pursuant to Rule 12(d)(2), defendant requests that the Government give notice of its intention to use at trial any evidence which is discoverable under Rule 16. Such notice, under the rules, avoids the necessity of a defendant having to move to suppress evidence which the Government does not intend to use. The Government here states that it intends to use all evidence in Immigration and Custom Enforcement custody at trial against defendant (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 9). Therefore, defendant is sufficiently on notice.
VI. Brady
Defendant next has requested that the Government disclose all materials potentially favorable to the defendant, including information to be used for the impeachment of the Government's witnesses, as required under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny (Docket No. 18, Def. Motion at 19, 21-23). Brady material, as those cases have come to define it, includes all evidence which may be favorable to the defendant and material to the issue of guilt or punishment. Such evidence includes "[a]ny and all records and/or information which might be helpful or useful to the defense in impeaching . . . [and] [a]ny and all records and information revealing prior misconduct . . . attributed to the [Government's] witness." United States v. Kiszewski, 877 F.2d 210 (2d Cir. 1989).
Defendant's motion identifies numerous specific categories of documents encompassing both exculpatory and impeachment Brady materials which he seeks to obtain. The Government's response is that it believes that it has complied with its obligations to furnish exculpatory information (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 22).
This Court believes that fundamental fairness and the constitutional due process requirements which underlie Brady mandate that the Court have some discretion with respect to the timing of the disclosure of such information, even if it may be considered combined Brady/Jencks material. Indeed, even with respect to purely Jencks Act materials, the Second Circuit has stated that "pre-trial disclosure will redound to the benefit of all parties, counsel and the court, . . . sound trial management would seem to dictate that Jencks Act material should be submitted prior to trial . . . so that those abhorrent lengthy pauses at trial to examine documents can be avoided." United States v. Percevault, 490 F.2d 126 (2d Cir. 1974); Green, supra, 144 F.R.D. 631.
The instant case does not appear to be unusually complex. Balancing all of the above, the Court concludes that disclosure of such impeachment material, if any exists, in accordance with the common practice in this district (prior to trial so long as it is disclosed in sufficient time for the defendant to have a fair opportunity to utilize the information at trial) is sufficient in this case.
VII. Witnesses' Statements
Defendant seeks production of witnesses' statements (Docket No. 18, Def. Motion at 24).
The Government agrees to provide witness statements (as part of its Jencks Act disclosure) but reserved the right to withhold certain statements to avoid witness retaliation or endangerment (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 27). With that caveat, the Government's response suffices.
VIII. Preservation of Rough Notes
Defendant has also requested preservation of rough notes and other evidence taken by law enforcement agents involved (Docket No. 18, Def. Motion at 24). The Government has agreed to preserve all items of evidence (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 27). This is also sufficient.
IX. Grand Jury Materials
Defendant seeks production of Grand Jury minutes and information to see if a different Grand Jury panel issued the Superseding Indictment from the one that issued the original Indictment (Docket Nos. 45, 58) generally as well as regarding the GPS device (as discussed above).
There is a tradition older than our nation that proceedings before a grand jury remain secret, Craig v. United States (In re Craig), 131 F.3d 99, 101 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d 489, 491 (2d Cir. 1973) (quoting in turn Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U.S. 395, 399 (1959))). "The rule of secrecy has been justified by the important ways in which it is said to contribute to the success of grand juries and to the protection of those who appear before them," id. at 101-02. Some of those purposes noted by the Second Circuit in Craig include insuring "the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations, and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors," "to encourage the free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes," and "to protect [the] innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he had been under investigation, . . . ," id. (quoting United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681-82 n.6 (1958)).
While there is a long history of grand jury secrecy, id. at 103, it is not absolute, Biaggi, supra, 478 F.2d 489; Craig, supra, 131 F.3d at 103. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(ii), this Court may authorize the disclosure of a Grand Jury matter at the request of the defense who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the Indictment because of a matter that occurred before the Grand Jury. The Court may authorize this disclosure "at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs," id. The decision to permit disclosure is within this Court's discretion after assessing "whether the need for disclosure overbalances the requirements of secrecy," United States v. Mahoney, 495 F. Supp. 1270, 1272 (E.D. Pa. 1980) (citing Pittsburgh Plate Glass, supra, 360 U.S. at 399).
The party seeking disclosure has the burden of showing the particularized need, Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979); Mahoney, supra, 495 F. Supp. 1273. Defendants had to show that they have a particularized need for disclosure that outweighs the Government's interest in maintaining Grand Jury secrecy, United States v. Alexander, 860 F.2d 508, 513 (2d Cir. 1988); see United States v. Twersky, No. S2 92 Cr. 1082, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8744, at *14-16 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 1994) (granting in camera review of Grand Jury minutes and reserving decision on motion to dismiss Indictment). A defendant must state a particularized need for these transcripts "in order to present a vigorous defense" which outweighs the principle of Grand Jury secrecy, Pittsburgh Plate Glass, supra, 360 U.S. at 400. There are occasions "when the trial judge may in the exercise of his discretion order the minutes of a grand jury witness produced for use on his cross-examination at trial. Certainly 'disclosure is wholly proper where the ends of justice require it,'" Pittsburgh Plate Glass, supra, 360 U.S. at 400 (quoting United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 234 (1940)). The burden is upon the defendant to show a particularized need exists that outweighs the policy of Grand Jury secrecy, id. Particularized need includes impeachment of witness at trial, refresh recollection, and testing witness credibility, Proctor & Gamble, supra, 356 U.S. at 683. "A review of grand jury minutes is rarely permitted without specific factual allegations of government misconduct," Torres, supra, 901 F.2d at 233, and (even if disclosed) "as a general matter, a district court may not dismiss an indictment for errors in grand jury proceedings unless such errors prejudiced the defendants," Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254 (1988); Torres, supra, 901 F.2d at 233.
As was held in the Pittsburgh Plate Glass case, supra, 360 U.S. at 400, defendant has not made a showing of particularized need for production of the Grand Jury minutes (either entirely or after in camera inspection), but cf. Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 872-73 (1966) (Court found that defense did not fail to make out a particularized need, listing the circumstances of particularized need). Merely stating the desire to make a vigorous defense in general, see also United States v. Nunez, No. 00 CR 121, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 883, at *29-31 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2001), or to determine whether different Grand Jury panels rendered the Superseding Indictment, cf. United States v. Hill, S No. 88 Cr. 154, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2791, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 1989) (Superseding Indictment rendered by second Grand Jury after reviewing minutes of first Grand Jury), does not show a particular need for a given portion of the Grand Jury testimony or show whether that Grand Jury testimony is needed for impeachment, refreshing recollection or testing credibility.
As argued in another case, see United States v. Larson, No. 07CR304, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133250 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2012) (Scott, Mag. J.) , at *17-18 (Docket No. 317, Order at 11), there are two types of materials involving the Grand Jury. There are the minutes of proceedings that are subject to the particularized need analysis and the "records" of the Grand Jury, essentially the procedural or ministerial matters not related to testimony or any particular investigation. These latter items include how the Grand Jury is impaneled, how long they met investigating this case, the witnesses called, how testimony was presented to them (either by live witness, or by transcripts, or by summaries from earlier Grand Jury proceedings). The defense in Larson cited to cases in other circuits that recognize this distinction, primarily the courts in the Ninth Circuit, see United States v. Diaz, 236 F.R.D. 470, 475-76 (N.D. Cal. 2006). In Diaz, defendants requested to review grand jury records (such as how it was impaneled) and were granted access to Grand Jury instructions, juror selection procedures, the commencement and extension of any term, and the jury list of those that indicted them. The court, however, denied the request for grand jury attendance information, voting records of the Grand Jury, and the copies of any subpoenas that were requested as proceedings occurring before the Grand Jury, id. at 480-81, 479-80. "Disclosure of the exhibits presented to the grand jurors, persons who have seen the exhibits and a list of the materials disclosed is not solely procedural, and may reveal the essence of the grand jury proceedings," id. at 480, as with disclosing the names of persons receiving information about matters before the Grand Jury, id.
The Ninth Circuit has recognized public access to ministerial grand jury records, id. at 476; In re: Special Grand Jury (for Anchorage, Alaska), 674 F.2d 778, 779 (9th Cir. 1982), "that do not reveal the substance or essence of the grand jury's investigation or deliberations," Diaz, supra, 236 F.R.D. at 476. The Ninth Circuit in Special Grand Jury defined "ministerial" Grand Jury records as "those that 'generally relate to the procedural aspects of the impaneling and operation of the . . . Grand Jury, as opposed to records which relate to the substance of the . . . Grand Jury's investigation,'" Diaz, supra, 236 F.R.D. at 476, quoting Special Grand Jury, supra, 674 F.2d at 779 n.1. The court there noted that the "ministerial" label "should not be taken to indicate any settled judgment on our part that none of the records could be classified as 'matters occurring before the grand jury' as that expression is used in Rule 6(e), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure," id.
The Second Circuit, however, has not recognized such a disclosure rule for ministerial Grand Jury materials. In Larson, this Court held that Grand Jury secrecy included these ministerial records and that they were beyond disclosure, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133250, at *20, 21 (Order at 12, 13). Here, defendant seeks to learn if two different panels considered issuing the Indictment and the Superseding Indictment. That information is part of the matters before the Grand Jury (whichever panel it was) and must remain secret. Defendant's motion to compel this disclosure is denied.
X. Hearing for Eligibility under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)
Next, defendant seeks an evidentiary hearing as to his eligibility for a guidelines sentence notwithstanding the statutory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (Docket No. 45, Def. Memo. at 3-4), termed by the Government to be the "safety valve" provision (Docket No. 47, Gov't Response at 2). As noted by the Government, this is a sentencing issue best left to the sentencing District Judge at the appropriate time (id. at 3-4); this motion is deferred, if necessary, for determination by the District Court upon sentencing defendant.
XI. Government's Request for Reciprocal Discovery
In its initial and supplemental responses, the Government sought reciprocal discovery from defendant (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 31; Docket No. 27, Gov't Response at 22-23), without any apparent objection by the defendant. Under Rule 16, the Government is entitled to production of documents in a defendant's possession that the defendant intends to use in his case-in-chief. Defendant is reminded of his obligations under Rule 16 to produce pursuant to the Government's notice for discovery; therefore, the Government's motion (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 31; Docket No. 27, Gov't Response at 22-23) is granted.
For the reasons stated above, defendant's omnibus discovery motion (Docket No. 18) as supplemented (Docket No. 26) and further motions (Docket No. 45) is granted in part, denied in part as discussed in detail above, or, with the hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) is deferred for consideration (if appropriate) by the District Court. Defendant's motion for production of GPS information and hearing relative to GPS surveillance (Docket Nos. 45, 54, 58) are denied again as detailed above.
The Government's requests for reciprocal discovery (Docket No. 21, Gov't Response at 31; Docket No. 27, Gov't Response at 22-23) is granted.
So Ordered.
Honorable Hugh B. Scott United States Magistrate Judge
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:
We report on fluorescence and second-harmonic generation correlative microscopy of femtosecond direct laser-induced structures in a tailored silver-containing phosphate glass. We compare the spatial distributions of the related permanent electric field and silver clusters. The latter appear to be co-localized where the associated electric potential ensures favorable reduction-oxidation conditions for their formation and stabilization. Space charge separation is shown to occur prior the cluster formation. The associated electric field is a key parameter for silver clustering, thanks to electric field assisted silver ion motion. Future photonic structures combining 3D laser-structured fluorescence and nonlinear optical properties in such tailored glass will require an optimal control of the induced electric field distribution.
© 2013 OSAFull Article | PDF Article
OSA Recommended Articles
Konstantin Mishchik, Yannick Petit, Etienne Brasselet, Arnaud Royon, Thierry Cardinal, and Lionel Canioni
Opt. Lett. 40(2) 201-204 (2015)
Yannick Petit, Konstantin Mishchik, Nadezda Varkentina, Nicolas Marquestaut, Arnaud Royon, Inka Manek-Hönninger, Thierry Cardinal, and Lionel Canioni
Opt. Lett. 40(17) 4134-4137 (2015)
Marie Vangheluwe, Feng Liang, Yannick Petit, Patricia Hée, Yannick Ledemi, Sébastien Thomas, Evelyne Fargin, Thierry Cardinal, Younès Messaddeq, Lionel Canioni, and Réal Vallée
Opt. Lett. 39(19) 5491-5494 (2014)


text:
Best Anti Aging Creams
L'Oreal Youth Code Rejuvenating Anti-Wrinkle Eye Cream
BEST ANTI-AGING BEAUTY AND SKIN PRODUCTS: We asked top dermatologists which cleansers, creams, and treatments they recommend. If you want products that work, this is your dazzling dozen (they're good on all skin types). Click through for the complete list of anti-aging skin care products, serums, lotions, moisturizers, and treatments every woman needs in her beauty arsenal.
10 Best Anti-Aging Oils for Younger Looking Skin
The best anti-aging creams for your daily skincare regimen
Best Anti Aging Cream - Irons Out Deep Wrinkles The gold standard of anti-agers, retinol is the hero-ingredient here: It works to renew the upper layers of skin, revealing a smoother, luminous surface underneath, and works wonders on fading eye crinkles and expression lines. RoC Retinol Correxion Deep Wrinkle Night Cream, $21.99; walgreens.com.
Neutrogena Ageless Intensives Anti-Wrinkle Deep Wrinkle Eye Cream, $18.99
best Anti Aging Cream for dry skin - sensitive skin
If you're looking for anti-aging product, here are some recommendations.
Anti-aging serums for every budget
Best Anti Aging Cream - How's this for teamwork: Resurfacing ingredients like salicylic acid and chestnut stevia extract sweep away dulling, dead cells to allow a mix of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants to better absorb into your skin. Even better, the cream's lovely aroma of neroli, valerian, orange and vanilla will aid in drifting you off to sleep. Origins High-Potency Nigh-A-Mins Renewal Cream, $43; origins.com.


text:
About StayBridge Suites Coupons, Deals & Cash Back
Staybridge Suites offers extended stay hotel deals on the most popular destinations with the best prices guaranteed. Explore Staybridge Suites, hotels and destinations for your next trip or vacation and save when you book your hotel reservations online with Staybridge Suites coupon codes. Book direct and take advantage of hotel discount programs and affordable hotel packages all with Cash Back at Ebates. Enjoy all the comforts of home while you're on the go and save using Staybridge Suites coupons for your trip of a lifetime.
Earn Cash Back on StayBridge Suites Black Friday promos and StayBridge Suites Cyber Monday deals.
Cash Back Terms
Exclusions: Cash Back is only available for commissionable IHG rates. Specialty negotiated rates such as IHG friends & Family are not eligible for Cash Back. Rooms booked and paid for by IHG reward Club Points are not eligible for cash back incentives.
Special Terms: Cash Back for travel may not appear in your Ebates account until up to 40 days after travel has been completed.
Shopping Secrets
StayBridge Suites hotels offer suite style rooms with extra amenities. Our Florida vacation was so much easier because we had the extra space and functionality of home. My husband was even able to get some quick work done in the business area and we were soon back to enjoying our time off. StayBridge Suites offers fantastic deals on hotel rooms so you can save on your next stay:
Save 10% or More with AAA or AARP:
Use your travel cards to save extra on your hotel room. Your membership card can save you 10% or more on your next stay.
Earn Up To 5,000 Bonus Points Towards a Free Night:
Book a room at select StayBridge Suites hotels and earn up to an additional 5,000 points towards your IHG Rewards Club. The more points you collect, the quicker you earn a free night on your next stay.
Lowest Prices Guaranteed:
StayBridge Suites guarantees that you'll find the lowest price for their hotel on their site or they'll make it right. If you find a cheaper price elsewhere, you'll get your first night free and they'll match the price for the additional nights.
StayBridge Suites Coupons, Deals & Promo Codes
Department Sale
IHG Rewards Club Members: Get better savings with YOUR RATE. Book IHG hotels direct for our lowest rates. You won't find these anywhere else.
- Coupons Only Shop Now
Best Price Guarantee or your First Night is Free.
- Coupons Only Shop Now
Over 10% off Advance order Rate.
- Coupons Only Shop Now
Product Deals
Free Breakfast, Wi-Fi and more.
- Coupons Only Shop Now
Hotel Packages.
- Coupons Only Shop Now
Discount Programs.
- Coupons Only Shop Now
Hotel Offers.
- Coupons Only Shop Now


text:
1534 Holton Road, Muskegon MI, 49445
3 beds , 1 Full/1 Half baths
2,073 sqft
Status: Active
Last Updated: 12/9/2016 5:15 PM
Description for 1534 Holton Road Muskegon, MI 49445
This solid brick 1947 Tudor could be retained to its original grandeur with just a bit of elbow grease and TLC. Currently zoned commercial and formerly used as a boutique/antique store, this three bedroom two bath home is loaded with character and charm. A large bedroom on the main floor with a handicap access bathroom and one of the two upstairs bedrooms is also very spacious. Built ins and other unique features such as the three year old gabled roof and sunroom off the living room and breezeway to garage make this home a unique find. It could be used as a hair salon, dentist office, insurance, tax or attorney office. The possibilities are endless!Potential RURAL DEVELPOMENT eligble loan!
Muskegon Twp
1 Full/1 Half
2,073 (approx)
Listing Information
Muskegon Twp
Crawl Space
Public Water Service
Public Sewer
Cable TV, Electric, Natural Gas
School Information
Room Information
Eat-In Kitchen
Interior Features
Microwave, Convection Oven, Refrigerator
Gas Heat, Forced Air
Basement, Partial
Exterior / Lot Features
Attached Garage, 2 Car Garage
77 x 150
Garden, Corner, Paved Road, Public Roads, Acreage
Driving Directions
US31 to M120 (Holton Road) west to property.
Financial Considerations
Listing Price History
Muskegon Real Estate
Muskegon is located in Michigan. Muskegon, Michigan 49445 has a population of 38,061.
The median household income in Muskegon, Michigan 49445 is $25,480. The median household income for the surrounding county is $40,843 compared to the national median of $53,046. The median age of people living in Muskegon 49445 is 35.4 years.
Loading nearby sales and history ...
Ask a Question?
Start a no spam email conversation
Nearby homes for sale
Muskegon Real Estate
Nearby Communities


text:
Related Articles
- Calendar. // Grand Rapids Business Journal;3/9/2009, Vol. 27 Issue 10, p22
A calendar of events for the month of March 2009 in Michigan is presented including the Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce Member Orientation on March 11, the InterChange monthly meeting on March 11, and the Michigan Reading Association 2009 Annual Convention on March 13-17.
- NMA convention schedule. // National Provisioner;Jan96, Vol. 210 Issue 1, p46
Presents the dates and times of the National Meat Association's 1996 convention. Registration date on February 15; Times of various seminars and workshops.
- meetings. // Railway Age;Mar2010, Vol. 211 Issue 3, p38
A calendar of meetings for the railroad industry in North America from April to September 2010 is presented, including TransAction 2010 in New Jersey on April 28 to 30, Joint Rail Conference-2010: High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail in Illinois on April 27 to 29, and American Railway...
- Municipal Bond Activities. // Bond Buyer;6/28/2007, Vol. 360 Issue 32660, p7
The article presents a calendar of bond activities of several groups and organizations in the U.S. The Council of Development Finance Agencies will hold a Development Bond Finance Course in Washington D.C. on August 2-3, 2007. The Bond Buyer will be hosting its 17th Annual California Public...
- Calendar. // Journal of Business (10756124);2/22/2007, Vol. 22 Issue 5, pB12
The article presents a calendar of meetings and events in Washington from February 22-March 7, 2007. Leadership Connection will hold a breakfast on February 27. A luncheon meeting featuring Spokane Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick will be held by the Spokane College Women's Association on February...
- Uncoming Events. // Aftermarket Business;Jun2007, Vol. 117 Issue 6, p10
No abstract available.
- NRECA 2008 CALENDAR. // Management Quarterly;Winter2007, Vol. 48 Issue 4, p48
A calendar of events for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association in 2008 is presented which includes the Touchstone Energy� NET Conference on January 29-31, the TechAdvantage Conference & Expo on February 20-25, and the Legal Seminar 48 on June 12-13.
- Calendar of Events. // Oklahoma Dental Association Journal;Nov2008, Vol. 99 Issue 12, p5
A calendar of events for the Oklahoma Dental Association (ODA) from November to December 2008 is presented which include the ODA new dentist conference, lunch for retired dentists, and the closure of ODA offices.
- CONFERENCE AGENDA. // Spectra;Mar2001, Vol. 37 Issue 3, p14
This article presents the schedule for the breakout sessions of the 2001 summer conference of the National Communication Association on June 7-10, 2001 at Jurys Hotel in Washington D.C.


text: PEO web site Tickets All events Donations Donate My Account Sponsors | Auditions | History | Contact | Tickets | Education | Tours | Concerts | Shows Season 2016 Sanders Family Christmas 2016 12/10/16 To 12/22/16 Escape to the snow-capped Smokies with the heartwarming sequal to Connie Ray and Alan Bailey's wildly successful bluegrass gospel musical Smoke on the Mountain! It's December 24, 1941 and America is going to war. So is Dennis Sanders of the Sander's Family Singers. Join Pastor Mervin Oglethorpe and the rest of the Sanders family as they send Dennis off with hilarious and touching stories and twenty-five Southern Gospel Christmas favorites. Rated G and sponsored by Stonehaus Winery Add to basket More information A Christmas Story 2016 12/10/16 To 12/18/16 Eacape to a bygone era with the Broadway musical comedy gift you'll cherish all holiday long! In 1940's Indiana, a bespectacled boy named Ralphie has a big imagination and one wish for Christmas- a Red Ryder BB Gun. A kooky leg lamp, outrageous pink bunny pajamas, a cranky department store Santa and a triple-dog-dare to lick a freezing flagpole are just a few of the obstacles that stand between Ralphie and his Christmas dream. Based on the classic 1983 movie, A CHRISTMAS STORY, the musical captures holiday wonder with funny and heartfelt songs, show stopping dancing, delicious wit and a heart of gold. Rated PG and sponsored by Cumberland Eye Care, M.Stewart Galloway, MD and Janis Holt MD Add to basket More information                                                                                Quick Buy Choose Show A Christmas Story 2016 Sanders Family Christmas 2016 Choose Day Choose Hour Personal Basket Total $0.00 Overview Check Out � Copyright 2007 Cumberland County Playhouse


text:
Dog Licenses are required in Cecil County. We have been informed that we will not be selling licenses for the upcoming year. 2017 Licenses should be available at this time and should be purchased between now and December 31st. To obtain a license for your dog, please contact animal control at 410-441-2040. They are located at 3280 Augustine Herman Highway, Elkton MD 21921 (Rte 213 towards Chesapeake City) Their hours of operation are:
Monday, Closed
Tuesday, Noon – 5:30 PM
Wednesday, Noon – 7:00 PM
Thursday, Noon – 5:30 PM
Friday, Noon-5:30
Saturday, 10AM – 4PM
Sunday, Noon -3:00 PM
The Cecil County website has more information at www.ccgov.org/government/finance/dog-licensing . While it still says that they will be available here in Town Hall, we have been informed that this information is incorrect for the upcoming year.


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.
April 27, 1954
HOLLIS et al.
This is an action in equity by plaintiff, a civil service employee of the Army, having veteran status, for relief against separation from the service.
Defendants, Brigadier General Robert P. Hollis, Commanding General of New York Quartermaster Purchasing Agency, hereinafter referred to as NYQMPA, James J. Reilly, Chief of the Civilian Personnel Office, NYQMPA, George M. Clarke, Jr., incumbent of the position of Chief of the Legal Office of NYQMPA, and Frederick N. Jones, named to the position of Chief of the Legal Office of the Quartermaster Inspection Service Command, hereinafter referred to as QMISC, move to dismiss the suit on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and the further ground that there is a lack of an indispensable party, the United States Civil Service Commission. Plaintiff moves for an injunction pendente lite restraining defendants from separating plaintiff from the service or transferring defendant Jones to the position to which Jones has been named in QMISC.
The motion to dismiss, which I shall take up first, is based principally on the charge that plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. If there is no administrative remedy for the injury of which plaintiff complains he cannot be kept out of court for failing to exhaust one. My first question is, therefore, whether such an administrative remedy exists.
The fundamental injury alleged by plaintiff is that, when he was deprived of employment by reduction in force, defendants, pursuant to a deliberate plan to injure him, kept him from transferring to a position, to which he would have been entitled, by abolishing the position occupied by defendant Jones so that Jones, thus released, filled the position to which plaintiff would otherwise have been entitled.
Plaintiff alleges that this devious plan to injure him was the result of enmity that he had aroused in his superiors when he took grievance proceedings attacking the filling of positions in the newly created NYQMPA by lawyers formerly serving an organization know as Armed Services Textile and Apparel Procurement Agency, hereinafter referred to as ASTAPA. How that came about will appear from the necessarily detailed statement that follows.
On and before October 30, 1953, QMISC and ASTAPA were two separate organizations existing side by side, each with its separate legal office. The Chief of the Legal Office of QMISC was one Allen and the Assistant Chief was plaintiff. The Chief of the Legal Office of ASTAPA was defendant Clarke and the Assistant Chief was defendant Jones.
Effective October 31, 1953, ASTAPA was dissolved.
Effective November 1, 1953, NYQMPA was activated, the former QMISC Legal Office positions of Chief and Assistant Chief were transferred to NYQMPA and a new Chief position was created for QMISC. Instead of transferring Allen and plaintiff to NYQMPA with their positions, the step which first aroused plaintiff was taken: the Legal Office of ASTAPA was transferred to NYQMPA with its personnel and defendants Clarke and Jones respectively took the positions formerly held by Allen and plaintiff. Allen took the newly created position of Chief of the Legal Office of QMISC and plaintiff transferred to NYQMPA where he says that he was subjected to what he calls a reduction in rank and what defendants say was a detail to work of a lower rank.
Plaintiff then brought the grievance proceedings above referred to, claiming that the assignments of the men from ASTAPA to the Chief and Assistant Chief positions were unlawful and that he, as the ranking man in the lawful staff of NYQMPA, was entitled to the position of Assistant Chief. He alleges that he brought these proceedings in the face of a threat by defendant Hollis that his career would be adversely affected if he did so.
On January 28, 1954, plaintiff was given a Reduction in Force Notice effective March 3, 1954, the position of Assistant Chief of the Legal Office of NYQMPA was abolished and Jones, the released incumbent, was named in Allen's place to the position of Chief of the Legal Office of QMISC which had been newly created in November. Jones continued to do the same work as formerly, and, before Jones had actually taken the position of Chief of the Legal Office of QMISC, plaintiff brought this action and obtained a temporary restraining order which has prevented Jones from doing so.
Unless Jones takes the position of Chief of the Legal Office of QMISC, plaintiff is entitled to it. Plaintiff claims that it was to prevent his getting it that Jones' position was abolished and Jones was caused to supplant Allen.
The basis for all of this is the grade and veteran's preference system by which the rights of certain personnel to certain positions are determined. Plaintiff is a grade 13. Jones is a grade 13 but for other reasons has priority over plaintiff. Allen was a grade 14. The old position of Chief of the Legal Office of QMISC which Allen held was a 14. The position of Assistant Chief was a 13. When these two positions were transferred to NYQMPA they retained their old grades. The new position of Chief of the Legal Office of QMISC is a 13. Allen chose to take it, in spite of his 14 grade, when he was told that defendant Clarke would have Allen's old 14 position in NYQMPA. So far as retention rights are concerned, however, a 14 employee who accepts a reduction in grade to take a 13 position is in no better case than a 13 employee. Because of veteran status, Jones, a 13, has priority over plaintiff, a 13, and both have priority over Allen if he is treated as a 13 as he must be with respect to the new position of Chief of the Legal Office of QMISC. Thus plaintiff, when faced with ouster by reduction in force, could have supplanted Allen had it not been that Jones was released by abolition of the position of Assistant Chief of the Legal Office of NYQMPA and supplanted Allen first.
It is thus that the principal injury complained of by plaintiff is the abolition of the position of Assistant Chief of the Legal Office of NYQMPA.
Plaintiff alleges that he was told that the bona fides of the abolition of a position was not subject to administrative review. At a second hearing of this motion, called for that purpose, I requested counsel to brief that question. Defendants have been unable to cite any authority for such review in statute or regulation, but submit an affidavit that the Acting Chief, Civilian Personnel Division, Office of The Quartermaster General, has assured the deponent that such a review would be allowed. It is conceded, however, that no such review has ever before been allowed though the reason stated is that no case has yet arisen.
In the absence of more specific citation of authority for administrative remedy for the principal injury of which plaintiff complains, I cannot hold that he is barred for failure to exhaust an administrative remedy.
Plaintiff has alleged many other grievances which I find it unnecessary to enumerate. I have limited my discussion to the injury which gives plaintiff standing to sue without exhausting any administrative remedies: the malicious abolition of Jones' job.
Passing to the question of lack of necessary parties, we find that plaintiff is not seeking to review the action of any subordinate of the omitted party, the United States Civil Service Commission. If he succeeds in obtaining a determination that the attempted abolition of the position of Assistant Chief of the Legal Office of NYQMPA was ineffective, he will need no action of the Civil Service Commission to give him the fruits of his victory. The case on which defendants rely, Reeber v. Rossell, 2 Cir., 200 F.2d 334, was one where a Regional Director of the Second United States Civil Service Region was a defendant so that it came within the rule of such cases discussed and followed in De Pinho Vaz v. Shaughnessy, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 112 F.Supp. 778, affirmed 2 Cir., 208 F.2d 70, which refuse action against a subordinate where the superior is outside of the control of the court. Nothing of the sort appears here.
Although defendants move to dismiss only on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to join an indispensable party, I cannot ignore the question whether the complaint states any claim upon which relief can be granted. That is especially true in the light of plaintiff's motion for an injunction pendente lite.
The ultimate relief that plaintiff wants is that he be given the position of Chief of the Legal Office of QMISC despite the abolition of the position of Assistant Chief of the Legal Office of NYQMPA and the consequent release of Jones who would be entitled to the position of Chief of the Legal Office of QMISC in priority to plaintiff. This would require an injunction against the defendants' refusing to give plaintiff the desired position on the ground that the abolition of Jones' position had entitled Jones to the job. It must be conceded that that relief would be very much like a mandatory injunction directing government officers to give the job to plaintiff and that a mandatory injunction against government officers is very much like a writ of mandamus. The District Courts, except in the District of Columbia, have no power to issue writs of mandamus except in aid of their general jurisdiction. Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Hager, 203 U.S. 109, 27 S. Ct. 24, 51 L. Ed. 111; Feyerchak v. Hiatt, D.C.M.D.Pa., 7 F.R.D. 726. This problem has often faced the District Courts and in no case such as this has relief been denied. Injunctions against public officials, mandatory in form or substance, were authorized after careful consideration in George W. Armbruster, Jr., Inc., v. City of Wildwood, D.C.D.N.J., 41 F.2d 823, John C. Winston Co. v. Vaughan, D.C.W.D.Okl., 11 F.Supp. 954, and National Radio School v. Marlin, D.C.N.D.E.D.Ohio, 83 F.Supp. 169. Judge Augustus N. Hand, when on the district bench, gave it as his opinion that there was a distinction 'between an application for a mandamus requiring an official in general to take certain action and an injunction restraining his refusal upon some particular ground which he sets up as a consideration legally controlling'. Wilson v. Bowers, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 14 F.2d 976, 977. Within the rule stated by Judge Hand, a decree for plaintiff in this case could be couched in the form of an injunction against refusing the plaintiff the desired position of Chief of the Legal Office of QMISC on the ground that Jones was entitled to it because of the purported abolition of the position of Assistant Chief of the Legal Office of NYQMPA and the consequent release of Jones who would be entitled to the position desired by plaintiff.
On the matter of the sufficiency of the complaint there remains the question whether plaintiff has stated a claim on which, if it were proved, he could succeed. The rule here is very liberal. If the court can find that any possible valid claim may be proved under the complaint is must not be dismissed. Dioguardi v. Durning, 2 Cir., 139 F.2d 774. I cannot say that plaintiff will be unable to prove a valid claim under his allegations that the position held by Jones was abolished for the express purpose of injuring plaintiff.
That leaves for consideration the motion for an injunction pendente lite. Plaintiff says that, if Jones is permitted to take the position of Chief of the Legal Office of QMISC, it will be impossible to put plaintiff in that position even if it be determined that the abolition of Jones' position was unlawful. That brings as back to the power of the District Court to issue orders in the nature of mandamus. I think that there is sufficient doubt as to the court's power to oust Jones in the event of a decision favorable to plaintiff that plaintiff ought to have an injunction pendente lite against the occupancy by Jones of the position of Chief of the Legal Office of QMISC.
An injunction against separating plaintiff from the service pendente lite is a different matter. If plaintiff is separated and it proves on the trial that his separation was in bad faith he will be entitled to recover his damages. See Gadsden v. United States, 100 F.Supp. 455, 119 ct.cl. 86. The final decree can, within the rule of Wilson v. Bowers, 14 F.2d 976, supra, protect his rights to the position of Chief of the Legal Office of QMISC by enjoining defendants from refusing it to him on the ground that he was separated from the service.
The injunction pendente lite will therefore be limited to enjoining the occupancy of the position of Chief of the Legal Office of QMISC by Jones or anyone other than plaintiff.
If such an injunction would work a hardship on defendants it may be avoided by a stipulation by all defendants including Jones that the position will be occupied by Jones pendente lite and will be vacated by him in the event of a determination in this action that the abolition of the position of Assistant Chief of the Legal Office of NYQMPA unlawful.
Motion to dismiss denied.
Motion for injunction pendente lite granted in part and denied in part.
© 1992-2004 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:
Would you date/like an introvert?
- Yes67% (8)67% (20)67% (28)Vote
- No0% (0)23% (7)17% (7)Vote
- It depends (Please explain)33% (4)10% (3)16% (7)Vote
Most Helpful Guy
I have found that in general many of the introverted girls I know are very intelligent and fun to be around. Sometimes you gotta coax them outta the house but that's a small price to pay :)20|20|0
Most Helpful Girl
I'm an introvert and shy/quiet but I love the people close to me and will do anything to help them out. I also listen more than I talk. I'm a girl but I like a shy guy. I'd rather date someone who doesn't want to always be in big groups where I feel left out and would prefer cuddling and a movie to a nightclub or something10|10|0


text:
780 posts tagged with parenting.
Displaying 451 through 500 of 780. Subscribe:
Help me chill out.
I get irritated fairly easily (by coworkers, loud chewers, cats, etc.), and don't always respond in the best way. I'd like to be less irritated in general, but I also want to be able to hide my irritation better. [more inside]
Gig logistics filter: Teenager needing advice to get to a Metallica gig in Indo CA in April 2011 [more inside]
Is parenting going to suck forever?
I hate taking care of my 5-week-old and I'm scared it will be like this forever! [more inside]
Help me find a great baby sign language book!
I am looking for a great baby sign language book for my sister, to start using with her wee daughter. Suggestions? And bonus question about parenting magazines! [more inside]
I need some toddler music that won't drive me crazy.
Please suggest good, upbeat recordings of classic children's songs. Criteria: no actual children singing, no lite-pop instrumentation, preferably some harmony. Will also gratefully accept recommendations for singable, melodic and repetitive grownup songs that a toddler might enjoy. [more inside]
Bothersome toys that kids love
Looking for the perfect (for the kids, not the parents) children's toy. [more inside]
Kill your television. Collateral damage?
We've decided to jettison the television. How will this affect our 2.5-year-old son in his interactions with his friends going forward? [more inside]
Christmas for the introvert
How do I deal with multiple large family Christmas gatherings as an extreme introvert with some sensory thing about large groups of people, loud noises and too much happening? Complicating factors are as follows. [more inside]
Learning how to read: a primer
Recommend to me materials to help a 5 year old learn to read. [more inside]
... the weird part is, he's never seen The Three Stooges ...
My son is four. Over the course of his life, he's injured me a number of times, generally by slamming his head into my head or face, usually while he's bouncing or jumping around. This isn't the issue. The issue that concerns me is the way he reacts when this happens. [more inside]
Wanted: Care Guides for the Newly Human
Book-filter: My husband and I are expecting our first child in early May. He would like a book on parenting, especially along the everything-you-need-to-know-about-infants perspective, as he has never really been exposed to babies. [more inside]
Save me from this mess
My life is a bit of a mess right now but I don't know where to start to get it on an even keel. Please help me to think straight and come up with some workable solutions. [more inside]
MetaParenting: Help Me Set TV Limits
Moving from TV-free to TV-having, please help me with the transition. Special snowflake details, of course. [more inside]
How do you have a family that talks?
How can we develop the kind of family where things like race and sexuality and other big topics are discussed in an open, healthy, relaxed way? [more inside]
Lego Universe for a 10 year old?
Is Lego Universe, Lego's MMO game, kid safe? More specifically, will it be a safe environment for our kid? [more inside]
Adding one at the opposite end. 16 year old "adopted" daughter.
How do we "parent" a 16 year old girl? My family is taking in a 16 year old girl to be a new member of our family. She's an amazing young woman in a tough situation. No behavior or academic issues (I taught her in 8th grade, she babysits for us regularly), some emotional issues (most likely due to her environment). We're going to go through the process of temporary custody, so this is not a question about "the system" or "legality". This is a question of family dynamics. We have other children in the house who are super excited as well, but our oldest is 7 and we have no idea how to come up with rules, routines, and boundaries for a 16 year old. Of course we'll have to come up with what will work for us, but what kind of things should we be thinking about? We're already talking about curfew, bedtime!!!!?????, computer use, etc. What should we be thinking about that we might not be. Any help from those with teens or those who have adopted older kids would be appreciated.
Helping a kid who does not help himself
Helping a kid who does not help himself. [more inside]
Are there 4-year-old air warriors?
Would a weekly long-distance commute be good or bad for my 4-year-old? [more inside]
Spare the rod, spoil the child?
Where can I find some good research literature on the effectiveness of corporal punishment as a means to discipline children? [more inside]
Advice for a demoralized Dad?
Calling all Dads: When did your child begin to accept you as a parent/care-giver? How did you deal with it if they didn't accept you? What advice do you have for a first-time demoralized Dad? [more inside]
How to discipline an active toddler without being overly "no" and negative?
How do you discipline a 2 year old without being "that parent"? [more inside]
How do you get your kid out the door in the morning?
Do you have any unusual methods for getting your school-age children out the door in time to catch the bus? [more inside]
Help a Peruvian deal with the jetlag he gets from overnight and weekend trips to Bolivia
Parents of 3+ year olds! How do you deal with being tired *all the time*? I've gone from being single and childless and in my early 30s to being the boyfriend of a mother of two boys (3 and 7). Things are astonishingly good between us, and the boys are great (albeit a lot of hard work, even according to their Mum), but I'm *so* tired after helping out with the boys - it's all the games of tag, the nerf gunfights, the question and answer sessions, etc. We're really enjoying ourselves, but ohmigod I'm exhausted. Help me not feel like I'm letting the side down at home with my housemates, at her place, out and about with my friends and at work. Other than 'coffee', 'more sleep' and 'less time with the girlfriend and the boys' (done, done, and ain't gonna happen), what are your protips for fighting off tiredness and irascibility?
My browser needs child-safety locks.
My son just turned 4 and has become a wiz at bypassing all parental controls, and I need a browser that will restrict him to a few sites, such as stuff like starfall.com [more inside]
Motivation for a pre-teen
Practical tips to motivate a pre-teen [more inside]
Parents of kids with ADHD: What works for you?
What resources have been helpful in teaching you parenting strategies for managing your child's behavior? Other parents, clinicians, internet, random inspiration? What have you tried in the past that didn't work, and why? What's working now? [more inside]
What does a normal, healthy family look like?
You grew up in a loving, healthy home. Your parents were normal, in that they were imperfect and made mistakes, but did a pretty damn good job raising their children. What was the nature of their mistakes? How did they affect you? What does a good, real family look like? [more inside]
Any good parenting podcasts?
I'm looking for a parenting podcast to listen to. One thing I'm looking for is how to deal with typical strong-willed 5-6 year-old behavior. Thanks [more inside]
What would I know now, if I'd had a less bad dad?
Women of Metafilter: did you have a loving relationship with your father when you were growing up? Did your father make you feel loved, supported, and valued? Can you tell me what that makes your life look/feel like today? I'm trying to understand how to move forward from a history with a sadistic, distant father, and it would help me to know what benefits you have gained from having a loving one, so that I can attempt to find those benefits for myself. [more inside]
Help me introduce my peanuts to peanuts.
My kids are now 2 yrs and 7 months and we're going to be introducing them to peanut butter for the first time. Their pediatrician says it's safe. If you have direct experience with this can you please tell me at what age you introduced your kids to nuts and how it went? I'm specifically trying to figure out what possible allergic reaction warning signs we should be looking out for and how we should react to them. [more inside]
We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas.
My kid is bad. I need a book to teach me how to make her not be bad anymore. [more inside]
Parents/Caregivers with RA - help me "hack" your childcare activities!
Moms (and dads? aunts? uncles?) with rheumatoid arthritis - have you ever thought, "I wish I had an x that would help me with/enable me to do y childcare task"? (more inside) [more inside]
Movies and Books for Young Minds
What movies and books should I introduce to my kids as they move towards adulthood? I would like to give my kids a solid foundation in books and movies outside of what will be thrown at them by the media and their friends. I turn to Mefi to give me a list of the literary and cinematic signposts that would broaden and round out a toddler, tween, or teenager.
Brain Changes In New Parents
I recently read about a study that found the brain thinks in more security-oriented ways after the birth of one's first child. I can no longer find it. Folk wisdom seems to say that once you have a child, your values usually change and you are a different person. Is there research for or against chemical and neurological changes in parents?
Toddler wants to stand in the bath... ?
My (toddler?) 16 mo old son has developed a new habit at bath time: standing. While he has been a little hesitant to go walking solo outside the tub -- inside the tub he has suddenly become enthralled with the idea. Any suggestions on how to handle what has become a standing.. sponge bath? [more inside]
Parenting filter - spending time with my kid
How much time spent with your kid is enough, and how much is too much? [more inside]
How can I prepare myself to have a great longterm relationship with my kid?
I'm trying to deal with some familial baggage that seems to be getting heavier by the year and I'm wondering from parents what your perspective is on your kids. How did their characters shape your relationship? If you had a difficult toddler (defined however you like) did that inform your relationship with them as teens and then as adults? [more inside]
How do I navigate racial politics with my family before our transracial adoption?
When I was childless, my parents' right-wing politics were pretty easy to ignore. Whatever, we're different, they are entitled to their opinions. But now that I have a small child, and we are about to adopt transracially, things are beginning to get tense for me. [more inside]
Help me manage the transition to daycare!
My 17-month-old is starting daycare for the first time. Should we send her for two, or three days per week? And what changes should I expect in her personality or our relationship as a result of this? [more inside]
Looking for smart pregnancy/parenting memoirs
Looking for intelligent writing (especially memoirs) on pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting that aren't fluffy/mainstream "how-to" guides, as a gift to an expectant couple in their early/mid 20s. [more inside]
8 yrs old, going on 14. Tired of Nickelodeon.
Is there a kid-friendly portal to pop music videos? She is not satisfied by Kid Disney and she wants to listen to the "latest" hits. She begs us to let her watch music videos on YouTube, but she's not ready to be let loose on that yet. So where can we let her browse and watch "current" videos with not too much bad stuff? [more inside]
Are there any modern communes in the US or a way i can co-parent?
Are there any modern communes in the US where people live in groups, share responsibilities, maybe are conscious, green etc? Relatedly, is there a way to be the 3rd or 4th parent? Being a single parent or even in dyad parenting seems like too much responsiblity...but being the 3rd or 4th parent (to go to soccer games, PTA meeting, car pool, make lunchs) sounds like a responsibility i could handle. I don't live in a community with children around so i can't offer up my co-parent services and it also sounds a bit creepy being 37 and wanting to babysit. Is there a way i can create this kind of community? I feel that i would make a great back up mommy.
Being neither overweight, nor a girl, nor a parent, I'm totally out of my depth here.
ParentingFilter: best approach for dealing with childhood obesity? [more inside]
raised like a girl
I am a hetrosexual man who was rasied an only child by a strong independant mother. I can't help but love her for the effort, but I was rasied in many ways like a girl. I feel deeply betrayed. I can't seem to shake a sense of self-loathing.
Do my numerous constraints rule out meaningful work with kids?
I'd like to learn about jobs that involve working intensively, one-on-one, with preschool or elementary-aged kids, to help them learn or develop. But, I have so many constraints that I'm not sure any role fits. Could you point me to any possibilities? [more inside]
Teach a baby to drink...
One-year-old kid has minimal interest in sippy cups, outright refuses to hold her own bottle. We would like to remedy this. [more inside]
what's a normal bedtime?
Parents, what bedtimes do you set for your kids, at what ages? Do you have strong routines, how strict are you, what are your special occasion exceptions?
I swear my parents never worried about this stuff.
Please help me decide if I should force my son to go on a camp sleep-over. [more inside]
Fortunate Sons?
While on vacation in Belize, many of the locals commented that while they liked American adults just fine, their children were the most spoiled among the tourist families. We've heard this elsewhere on our travels to Europe and Southeast Asia. Is this true? If so, is there a unique style of American parenting that other cultures see as problematic or inferior? [more inside]
Help my 4-year-old learn to love daycare
I recently started a new full-time job. My 4-1/2-year-old hates daycare. What can I do to make this better? [more inside]


text:
Security Analysis: Sixth Edition, Foreword by Warren Buffett
Benjamin Graham, David Dodd, Warren Buffett, "Security Analysis: Sixth Edition, Foreword by Warren Buffett"
English | 2009 | 818 Pages | ISBN: 0071592539 | PDF | 2 MB
"A road map for investing that I have now been following for 57 years."
-From the Foreword by Warren E. Buffett
First published in 1934, Security Analysis is one of the most influential financial books ever written. Selling more than one million copies through five editions, it has provided generations of investors with the timeless value investing philosophy and techniques of Benjamin Graham and David L. Dodd.
As relevant today as when they first appeared nearly 75 years ago, the teachings of Benjamin Graham, "the father of value investing," have withstood the test of time across a wide diversity of market conditions, countries, and asset classes.
Download link:
Buy Premium From My Links To Support Me & Download with MaX SPeeD!