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.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Eight Division
March 7, 2014
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,v.Francisco SOLIS, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Dalila C. Lyons, Judge. Affirmed as modified, and remanded. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA071085).
Page 550
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 551
Lise M. Breakey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Jonathan J. Kline, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The People charged Francisco Solis with attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, § 664/187, subd. (a)) [1] as well as other crimes and special allegations we set forth below. The charges were tried to a
Page 552
jury. On the attempted premeditated murder count, the trial court instructed on four uncharged lesser offenses. Each lesser offense was identified as lesser to the attempted premeditated murder charge; none were identified as lesser to any other. The offenses instructed upon included " attempted second degree murders" [2] the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter (§§ 664/192), and two lesser related offenses, mayhem (§ 203) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The jury acquitted Solis of the charged attempted premeditated murder count, " attempted second degree murder" and attempted voluntary manslaughter. The jury convicted Solis of the two remaining uncharged lesser related offenses, mayhem and assault with a deadly weapon. This appeal presents the issue of whether a defendant may be convicted of two separate, uncharged, lesser related offenses of a single charged greater offense.
Solis contends the answer is no because he was not on notice that the single charge of attempted premeditated murder could result in two convictions for lesser crimes, and the two convictions violate sections 654, 954 and 1159. He argues the remedy is for our court to strike his aggravated assault conviction. The People argue that a jury may properly convict a defendant of two uncharged lesser related offenses based upon a single charged greater offense.
We hold that Solis's convictions for two separate, uncharged lesser related offenses stemming from a single charged greater offense were unauthorized. We modify the judgment by striking Solis's conviction for assault with a deadly weapon.
At 1:00 a.m. one
morning, Solis went to the home of Judith M., his former girlfriend. Solis
climbed through a bedroom window and began stabbing Judith with a screwdriver,
telling her he had warned her " something bad was
Page 553
going to happen," and that she deserved to die. Solis stabbed Judith about
20 times, inflicting wounds to her neck, arm, chest, face and hands, including
a life-threatening wound to her carotid artery. Later the same day, Solis went
to the police and gave a taped interview in which he confessed that he attacked
Judith, but stated he had been drinking beer and was " out of it" at the time
of the incident. Solis also hand wrote a statement implicating himself.
The People filed an information charging Solis with attempted premeditated murder (count 1; §§ 664/187, subd. (a)), first degree burglary (count 2; § 459) with the allegation that another person was present during the commission of the offense (§ 667.5), and making criminal threats (count 3; § 422). As to count 1, the information further alleged Solis personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)), and that he personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the attempted premeditated murder (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The information alleged that Solis had suffered two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.2, subds. (a)-(d)), two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and that he served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
The case was tried to a jury. On the attempted premeditated murder charge, the trial court instructed on the elements of the charged offense. Further, with the express agreement of the prosecution and defense, the court instructed with an amalgam of lesser offenses as follows:
" If all of you find that the defendant is not guilty of a greater crime, you may find him guilty of a lesser crime, if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of that lesser crime. A defendant may not be convicted of both a greater and lesser crime for the same conduct. Now I will explain to you which charges are affected by this instruction:
" Second degree attempted murder is a lesser crime of attempted murder charged in count one.
" Attempted voluntary manslaughter is a lesser crime of attempted murder charged in count one.
" Mayhem is a lesser crime of attempted murder charged in count one.
" Assault with a deadly weapon is a lesser crime of attempted murder charged in count one.
" It is up to you to decide the order in which you consider each crime and the relevant evidence, but I can accept a verdict of guilty of a lesser crime only if you have found the defendant not guilty of the corresponding greater crime.
" [¶] ... [¶]
Page 554
" 3. If all of you agree that the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the greater crime and you also agree that the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the lesser crime, complete and sign the verdict form for not guilty of the greater crime and the verdict form for guilty of the lesser crime."
The trial court instructed the jury on all of the identified uncharged lesser crimes, and provided verdict sheets for all of the crimes to the jury. As described above, the court listed each of the uncharged lesser crimes as a lesser offense of the attempted murder count charged in count 1. (Compare CALCRIM No. 640 with Nos. 3515-3519.) In other words, the court did not delineate one crime as lesser to count 1, and another crime as lesser to that first identified lesser crime, and, sequentially, for each subsequent lesser crime.
During deliberations, the jury asked the trial court: " Can the defendant be [convicted] of two lesser crimes." The court responded by advising the jury that its question was not clear, and then referring the jurors to the court's original instructions on greater and lesser crimes as stated above.
Shortly thereafter, the jury returned verdicts finding Solis not guilty of attempted premeditated murder in count 1, " attempted second degree murder," and attempted voluntary manslaughter. The jury returned verdicts finding Solis guilty of mayhem and assault with a deadly weapon, both as lesser offenses of count 1. As to these convictions, the jury found true the allegations that Solis personally used a deadly weapon and personally inflicted bodily injury. The jury further found Solis guilty of first degree burglary with another person present during its commission in count 2, and not guilty of making criminal threats in count 3. Later, Solis admitted three prior strike and four prior prison term allegations.
The trial court denied Solis's Romero [3]
motion and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 36 years to life in state
prison comprised of a third strike term of 25 years to life on count 1 for
mayhem, plus one year for the deadly weapon enhancement. It struck the great
bodily injury enhancement. The court also designated assault with a deadly
weapon as count 1, and imposed another 25-years-to-life term. The court added
an additional one year on that count for the great bodily injury enhancement,
then struck the deadly weapon enhancement. The court stayed the second count 1,
pending completion of the term on the mayhem count. On the first degree
burglary count, the court imposed and stayed another 25-years-to-life sentence.
It imposed a 10-year
Page 555
term for two section 667, subdivision (a)(1) enhancements. The court struck
the prior prison terms, and imposed various fines and fees which are not at
issue in this appeal.
I. The Jury Improperly Convicted Solis of Two Uncharged Lesser Related Offenses Based on One Charged Offense in the Information
Solis requests that we strike his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon and the related enhancements. He claims the jury had no discretion to convict him of two felonies where only one was charged because it violates the separation of powers doctrine, he did not agree to be convicted of two strike offenses, and the two convictions violate section 654's prohibition against successive prosecution. The Attorney General counters that there is no constitutional or statutory problem with the two lesser related convictions. This court invited the parties to brief the issue of whether the jury was statutorily authorized to convict Solis of two uncharged lesser related offenses when the information only charged a single offense. Both Solis and the Attorney General submitted briefs.
We start with this— we know of no published case that allows multiple lesser related offense convictions to stem from one charged offense.[4] We add that the parties have not directed us to one. Writing on a blank slate, we determine two lesser related offense convictions may not stem from one charged offense.
1. Statutory Authority
The Attorney General argues we should interpret section 1159 to allow Solis's multiple lesser related convictions. We disagree.
Section 1159 states that " [t]he jury, or the judge if a jury trial
is waived, may find the defendant guilty of any offense, the commission of
which is necessarily included in that with which he is charged, or of an
attempt to commit the offense." The Attorney General points out that section
1159 does not expressly prohibit multiple convictions of uncharged lesser
offenses. Next, while acknowledging that " any" modifies the word " offense" in
the singular, she maintains that these words do not suggest the Legislature
Page 556
intended to limit the number of offenses that may follow from a single
charged offense. Relying upon section 7, which provides that " the singular
number includes the plural and the plural the singular," she instead argues we
should interpret the word " offense" in section 1159 to include " offenses."
Notwithstanding the interesting discourse on the English language set forth in her briefing, we believe that applying the general provision set out in section 7 would be inappropriate in this case. " ' " ' " General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice or oppression or an absurd consequence." ' " ' " ( People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 680, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 766, 151 P.3d 1177 ( Navarro ).) Although Navarro did not arise in the same procedural context as Solis's current case, much of Navarro 's reasoning may be applied to the multiple conviction issues raised here. In Navarro, a jury convicted the defendant of attempted kidnapping during the commission of a carjacking, among other counts. The Court of Appeal found the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction. However, the Court of Appeal concluded it had authority to modify the judgment to reflect convictions for attempted kidnapping and attempted carjacking as lesser included offenses of the greater charged offense of attempted kidnapping during the commission of a carjacking. The court modified the judgment accordingly, then found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions on the two lesser offenses. ( Id. at pp. 672-675, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 766, 151 P.3d 1177.)
The Supreme Court granted review, and thereafter addressed " the narrow question of whether an appellate court, upon finding insufficient evidence supports a conviction for one offense, may modify the judgment to reflect a conviction for two lesser included offenses." ( Navarro, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 675, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 766, 151 P.3d 1177.) After reviewing the language and history of the statutes authorizing an appellate court to modify a judgment in a criminal action, namely sections 1181, subdivision 6, and 1260, the Supreme Court concluded the statutes do not authorize an appellate court to modify a judgment to reflect convictions for two lesser included offenses upon finding insufficient evidence of a single greater offense. ( Navarro, supra, at pp. 680-681, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 766, 151 P.3d 1177.) The court reasoned: " It would be inappropriate to apply the general provision of section 7 that ' the singular number includes the plural' to sections 1181, subdivision 6, and 1260 ..." so as to authorize modifying a judgment to reflect convictions for two lesser included offenses because to do so would be a " ' departure in our criminal jurisprudence' and an even more ' startling innovation.' " ( Navarro, supra, at p. 680, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 766, 151 P.3d 1177.)
In Solis's case, we deal with a different statute, namely section 1159, than was involved in Navarro
. Nevertheless, we find its reasoning on point and refuse to interpret section
1159 to allow the number of convictions in a case to exceed the number of
charges in the case. No case has interpreted this
Page 557
statute to allow convictions of multiple lesser offenses to result from one
charged offense. Section 1159 allows for a conviction of one lesser included
offense. In our view, the statutory scheme does not disclose any legislative
intent to allow two convictions to result from one charged offense, which is
what occurred in Solis's case.
2. Case Law
Nor does case law support the Attorney General's position that multiple uncharged lesser related convictions may be wrought from one charged greater offense. We turn first to the authorities governing lesser included offenses. A defendant may be convicted of an uncharged offense when it is a lesser included or lesser related offense of a charged crime. (See People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224, 1227, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 353, 137 P.3d 184; People v. Birks (1998) 19 Cal.4th 108, 117, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 848, 960 P.2d 1073 ( Birks ); see also § 1159.) A " lesser offense is necessarily included in a greater offense if either the statutory elements of the greater offense, or the facts actually alleged in the accusatory pleading, include all the elements of the lesser offense, such that the greater cannot be committed without also committing the lesser." ( Birks, supra, at p. 117, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 848, 960 P.2d 1073.) But a defendant may not be convicted of both a greater and a lesser included offense. ( People v. Moran (1970) 1 Cal.3d 755, 763, 83 Cal.Rptr. 411, 463 P.2d 763.) In fact, a conviction on a lesser included offense is an implied acquittal of the greater offense. (See People v. Superior Court (Marks) (1991) 1 Cal.4th 56, 71, 74-76, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 389, 820 P.2d 613.) As is the case with lesser related offenses, we are also unaware of any published case that allows multiple lesser included offense convictions stemming from one charged offense. ( See fn. 4, ante .) Again, the parties have not cited us to one.
The rules noted above do not squarely address the issue in Solis's case. Solis stands convicted of two separate, uncharged lesser related offenses stemming from the one charged greater offense of attempted premeditated murder. Neither assault with a deadly weapon nor mayhem are lesser included offenses of attempted premeditated murder. In addition, assault with a deadly weapon is not a lesser included offense of mayhem, such that we can resolve this case by determining Solis was convicted of both a greater and a lesser offense thereby allowing us to simply dismiss the lesser. [5]
We look next to the rules governing lesser related offenses. In the now-overruled case of People v. Geiger (1984) 35 Cal.3d 510, 199 Cal.Rptr. 45, 674 P.2d 1303 ( Geiger ),
Page 558
the California Supreme Court held that the trial court is required to instruct on lesser offenses when the defendant requests it, if the offense is closely related to the charged offense and the evidence provides a basis for finding the defendant guilty of the lesser, but innocent of the charged offense. In addition, the California Supreme Court indicated the rule barring conviction of both a greater and lesser offense holds true as to lesser related offenses. Hence, " [t]he conviction of a [lesser] related offense constitutes an acquittal of the charged offense." ( Geiger, supra, at p. 528, 199 Cal.Rptr. 45, 674 P.2d 1303.)
Fourteen years later, in Birks, the Supreme Court reversed Geiger, and ruled that a defendant is not entitled to instructions on a lesser related offense. ( Birks, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 116-137, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 848, 960 P.2d 1073, reversing Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510, 199 Cal.Rptr. 45, 674 P.2d 1303.) However, the court stated the following with regard to agreements for instructions on lesser related charges: " [O]ur decision does not foreclose the parties from agreeing that the defendant may be convicted of a lesser offense not necessarily included in the original charge." ( Birks, supra, at p. 136, fn. 19, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 848, 960 P.2d 1073.)
The main difference between instructing on lesser included and lesser related offenses lies in the fact that instruction on lesser included offenses is mandatory, while instructions on lesser related offenses must be agreed to by both parties. Seizing on the fact that a defendant must agree to the instruction on lesser related offenses, the Attorney General posits that a defendant impliedly agrees to the possibility of being convicted of two offenses when he agrees to instruction on two lesser related offenses. Applying that logic here, the Attorney General asserts that when Solis did not object to the court instructing on both mayhem and assault with a deadly weapon as lesser related offenses to attempted premeditated murder, he also agreed that he could be convicted of both offenses.
The Attorney General relies on People v. Toro (1989) 47 Cal.3d 966, 973, 254 Cal.Rptr. 811, 766 P.2d 577 ( Toro ) (disapproved on other grounds in People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 568, fn. 3, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 239, 957 P.2d 928) to support this proposition. In Toro, the defendant did not object to an instruction on a lesser related offense and verdict forms were submitted to the jury on the crime. When the defendant was convicted of the lesser related offense, the Court of Appeal reversed the conviction because the lesser related offense was neither charged nor included within any of the charged offenses. The California Supreme Court reversed, and found that the lack of objection at the trial court level constituted implied consent to the jury's consideration of the lesser related offense. ( Toro, supra, at p. 978, 254 Cal.Rptr. 811, 766 P.2d 577.) We do not find Toro
dispositive. We see a difference between impliedly consenting to being
convicted of a single lesser related offense by failing to object to
Page 559
instructions on it and being convicted of two separate offenses stemming
from one greater, especially given that common practice has never anticipated
such a result.
The ramifications of allowing two convictions to stem from one are also significant. The two lesser related convictions for which Solis was convicted are each strike qualifying offenses, as mayhem is both a serious and violent felony (see, §§ 667.5, subd. (c)(2), 1192.7, subd. (c)(2)), and assault with a deadly weapon is a serious felony (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(31)). (§§ 667, subd. (d)(1), 1170.12, subd. (b)(1).) While section 654 would preclude multiple punishment for the two crimes, a defendant who suffers two uncharged strike convictions from a single count, as opposed to only a single charged strike offense, faces significantly different potential consequences in future criminal prosecutions. A defendant is treated differently depending upon whether he is a second or third strike offender. The impact upon a future conviction is momentuous— a second strike offender may face a doubled sentence, while a third strike offender faces a potential life sentence. (§§ 667, subds. (e)(1) & (2); 1170.12, subds. (c)(1) & (2).) Although a sentencing court might be found to abuse its discretion in failing to dismiss one of two prior strike convictions when they are both based upon the same act (see People v. Benson (1998) 18 Cal.4th 24, 36, fn. 8, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 294, 954 P.2d 557 [leaving the abuse of discretion issue open]; see and compare People v. Burgos (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1214, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 566 [failure to dismiss one of two prior strikes stemming from the same act amounted to abuse of discretion] with People v. Scott (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 920, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 875 [failing to dismiss one of two prior strikes stemming from the same act not an abuse of discretion] ), it is not a foregone conclusion that two strikes from a single prior act will not negatively impact a defendant in future criminal proceedings.
In addition, the strike punishment consequences of Solis's multiple convictions are not our sole concern. We believe Solis had the right to know that he faced the potential of being convicted of two separate, uncharged lesser related offenses, both potential strikes, when charged with only one offense. Had Solis been so informed, he might have chosen to pursue different plea resolution avenues. It is also entirely possible Solis would not have agreed to a lesser related instruction at all if he had known he could be convicted of more than one.
Ultimately, we find the result in Solis's current case is unjust
because he had no reason to expect that he could suffer two strike convictions
when charged with only a single strike offense. We decline to interpret section
1159, or the relevant case law, to authorize such an unexpected outcome.
Allowing only one conviction for an uncharged lesser related offense of a
Page 560
greater charged offense also eliminates another issue Solis has raised,
namely, whether a defendant has a constitutional due process right to notice of
the number of potential convictions he or she may face based on a single
charged offense.
We conclude the jury's convictions of Solis of two distinct, uncharged lesser related offenses from a single charged greater crime was not authorized by statute or case law. Under any standard, the error was prejudicial because Solis stands wrongly convicted of two offenses based upon an information charging only one offense. We do not foreclose the possibility, however, that a defendant may explicitly agree to being convicted of two lesser related offenses in lieu of one greater offense. The advantages of being convicted of two lesser related offenses may well be more desirable for a defendant in a given situation. We simply hold that in this case, it would be unfair for the defendant to suffer these consequences since there was no such agreement, and previous case law and statutory authority never dictated this result.
This brings us to the question of remedy. In Navarro, the Supreme Court stated: " [W]here there are multiple lesser included offenses supported by the evidence at trial, [an appellate] court exercising its discretion to modify the judgment ... should choose the offense with the longest prescribed prison term so as to effectuate the fact finder's apparent intent to convict the defendant of the most serious offense possible." ( Navarro, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 681, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 766, 151 P.3d 1177.) The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeal with directions to strike its prior " two-for-one" modification to the extent it reflected a conviction for attempted kidnapping, the offense with the lesser punishment, and to remand the cause to the trial court for resentencing accordingly. ( Navarro, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 681, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 766, 151 P.3d 1177.)
We find a similar remedy appropriate in Solis's current case. We earlier acknowledged that in Solis's case, we deal with different statutes than those in Navarro. Nevertheless, we find Navarro 's " one-for-one" analysis makes equal sense here. This reasoning precludes multiple guilty verdicts on lesser related offenses stemming from one charged offense just as it did in Navarro to preclude modification of a judgment from one conviction into multiple convictions. We, as the Supreme Court in Navarro, will leave undisturbed the conviction with the longest prison term. Mayhem is punishable by two, four or eight years in state prison. (§ 204.) On the other hand, assault with a deadly weapon is punishable by two, three or four years in state prison. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1).) Because mayhem has the longest prescribed prison term, we strike Solis's conviction for aggravated assault. Resentencing is not needed inasmuch as the trial court stayed imposition of sentence on the aggravated assault conviction under section 654. However, we direct the trial court to issue a new abstract of judgment which does not reflect a conviction for aggravated assault.
Page 561
Having determined that the statutory law precludes Solis from suffering convictions for two uncharged lesser related offenses, we decline to reach his remaining arguments.
II. There Was No Error in Failing to Strike a Prior
Solis contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss two of his three strikes, two 1983 convictions for assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), under Romero . He argues it was an abuse of discretion to sentence on strikes he suffered roughly 30 years before he committed his attack on the victim in his current case. We disagree.
In Romero, the state Supreme Court ruled that the Three Strikes law did not remove a sentencing court's discretion to dismiss a defendant's prior strike or strikes to achieve a punishment in the furtherance of justice. ( Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 504, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789, 917 P.2d 628.) In People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 917, 948 P.2d 429 ( Williams ), the court explained that a sentencing court's exercise of discretion to dismiss a prior strike is to be guided by the following standard: may the defendant, in light of his or her current crime, and his or her criminal history, background, character, and prospects, be deemed " outside the spirit" of the Three Strikes law, in whole or in part, and, hence, be treated as though he or she had not suffered the prior strike conviction. ( Id. at p. 161, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 917, 948 P.2d 429.) When the factors cited in Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th 148, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 917, 948 P.2d 429 " manifestly support the striking of a prior conviction and no reasonable minds could differ[,] the failure to strike would constitute an abuse of discretion." ( People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376-378, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 880, 92 P.3d 369.)
We do not find an abuse of discretion in Solis's current case. Solis was convicted in the instant case of mayhem, and the jury found true two enhancements to that crime— that he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, and that he inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence. He was also convicted of first degree burglary with a true finding on the allegation that another person was present during its commission. The facts reveal a particularly violent attack with a screwdriver. Solis stabbed Judith about 20 times, inflicting wounds to her neck, arm, chest, face and hands, including a life-threatening wound to her carotid artery. Solis suffered three prior strike convictions, two for aggravated assault in 1983, and one for first degree burglary in 1995. He suffered four convictions with a prison term prior to his attack on the victim in this case. The probation officer's report shows additional incidents involving Solis in the criminal justice system. In light of all of the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Solis's Romero
motion. The record does not
Page 562
" manifestly support the striking of a prior conviction" because Solis is
not a defendant who must be deemed " outside the spirit" of the Three Strikes
law. On the contrary, Solis's current offense and his criminal history support
sentencing under the Three Strikes law.
To the extent Solis contends his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment unless his Romero motion is granted, we disagree. The length of a sentence will be deemed to violate the Eighth Amendment only under a " narrow proportionality" analysis. ( Ewing v. California (2003) 538 U.S. 11, 20, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108.) We do not find Solis's sentence so disproportionate to his crime and his criminal history that it violates constitutional sentencing limits.
We modify the judgment by striking Solis's conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. The judgment is affirmed as modified. The cause is remanded to the trial court to issue a new abstract of judgment in conformity with this opinion.
We concur: RUBIN, J., FLIER, J.
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:
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.
December 5, 1969
Carmelo TOMASELLO (A18 095 880), Plaintiff,
The Hon. William P. ROGERS, as Secretary of State of the United States of America, his agents, servants and/or employees; and the Hon. Raymond F. Farrell, as Commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, his agents, servants and/or employees, Defendants
EDELSTEIN, District Judge.
This is an action which challenges the administration of the system of allocation of immigrant visas provided for in section 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act [Act], 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (1964), as amended (Supp. IV, 1969).
The plaintiff is an alien who is a native and citizen of Italy and the defendants Rogers and Farrell are respectively the Secretary of State and the Commissioner of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service [Service]. This matter is before the court on a motion for a preliminary injunction.
The plaintiff entered this country at New York City on September 10, 1968, as a transit without visa,
and as such was authorized to remain within this country for two days. Instead of departing on September 12, 1968, the plaintiff absconded and sought employment. He was located by immigration officers on September 27, 1968, and on that date the Service issued an order requiring the plaintiff to show cause why he should not be deported for overstaying his authorized time in the United States. A Deportation hearing was held on October 3, 1968, and, at that time, the plaintiff, represented by counsel, conceded deportability and waived his right to appeal. The Special Inquiry Officer thereupon found the plaintiff to be deportable and a warrant of deportation was then issued.
Nonetheless, the plaintiff continued to remain in the United States due to the introduction of a private bill into the Senate, S.4110, in behalf of the plaintiff and seven other aliens. This bill provided for the lawful admission of the plaintiff into the United States for permanent residence. The Service stayed plaintiff's deportation pending consideration of the bill. However, this bill subsequently received adverse treatment and the plaintiff was then directed to surrender on October 16, 1969, for immediate deportation.
Plaintiff commenced the instant action on October 14, 1969, and simultaneously moved for a preliminary injunction staying his deportation until the outcome of this suit. It is this motion for preliminary relief which is now before the court
and pending its disposition the plaintiff remains at large by agreement between the parties. The issues are as follows:
The Immigration and Nationality Act was amended in 1965, Pub.L. No. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911, so as to repeal the national origin quota system and substitute in its place a worldwide immigration allocation for areas outside the Western Hemisphere of 170,000 immigrant visas annually. Under the new system the visas are to be distributed on a first-come first-served basis without regard to place of birth, except that no more than 20,000 visas can be granted to nationals of any one foreign state in any one year.
Section 203 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (1964), as amended (Supp. IV, 1969), provides that this worldwide allotment of 170,000 visas is to be distributed to applicants in varying percentages on the basis of seven preferences. These seven preferences, in summary, are: (1) unmarried sons or daughters of citizens of the United States - 20 percent of the 170,000; (2) spouses, unmarried sons or unmarried daughters of aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence - 20 percent of the 170,000 plus any unused portion of the first preference; (3) members of the professions or immigrants with exceptional ability in the sciences or arts who will benefit the national economy - 10 percent of the 170,000; (4) married sons or married daughters of citizens of the United States - 10 percent of the 170,000 plus the unused portions of the first three preferences; (5) brothers or sisters of citizens of the United States - 24 percent of the 170,000 plus the unused portions of the first four preferences; (6) "* * * qualified immigrants who are capable of performing specified skilled or unskilled labor, not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which a shortage of employable and willing persons exists in the United States," - 10 percent of the 170,000; and, (7) refugees - six percent of the 170,000. The priority of applicants in each of the first six preferences is determined by the date on which their petitions for preference status are filed with the Attorney General. Any visa numbers that remain unused in a single year by applicants with preference status are allotted to qualified nonpreference immigrants in the chronological order in which they qualify.
After entering the United States, the plaintiff, on June 5, 1969, became the beneficiary of an approved petition for a preference under the sixth enumerated category. However, a visa number was then not available to plaintiff because, under the interpretation of the Act made by the Secretary of State, the Service permitted all of the maximum of 20,000 visas available to Italian nationals in any one year to be exhausted by those applicants who qualified for one of the first five preferences described above. The plaintiff alleges as his first cause of action that administration of the Act in this manner, which effectively denies to him the possibility of obtaining a visa, is contrary to the meaning and purpose of the 1965 amendment and is therefore invalid. In addition, as a second cause of action, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants have wilfully colluded in this improper administrative policy in order to deny to aliens of Italian ancestry the rights and privileges allegedly accorded to them and that the defendants have "acted in such manner as to hamper and harass and discriminate against aliens of Italian origin in obtaining a permanent residence in the United States." The plaintiff demands that defendant Rogers be directed to allocate visas in accordance with the plaintiff's view of the proper interpretation of the statute and to publish the allegedly proper quota availability for the sixth priority Italian quota. The plaintiff also demands that defendant Farrell be directed to order his agents to accept and process an application by plaintiff for a change of status pursuant to section 245 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (1964), as amended (Supp. IV, 1969.)
A preliminary injunction, of course, is an extraordinary equitable remedy the application for which is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. In order to establish his right to a preliminary injunction a party must demonstrate, among other things, that he will probably succeed in the trial and that, therefore, he will be entitled to the ultimate relief which he seeks. E.g., American Metropolitan Enterprises of New York, Inc. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc., 389 F.2d 903, 904 (2d Cir.1968); Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v. National Distillers & Chemical Corp., 354 F.2d 459, 461, 19 A.L.R.3d 492 (2d Cir.1965); I.T.S. Industria Tessuti Speciali v. Aerfab Corp., 280 F. Supp. 581, 585 (S.D.N.Y.1967). The plaintiff, however, has not made this showing and his application for preliminary injunctive relief accordingly must be denied.
If he is to succeed on his first cause of action the plaintiff will have to demonstrate that the defendant Rogers' allocation of the 170,000 visas alloted on an annual basis to immigrants from outside the Western Hemisphere is based on an erroneous interpretation of the Act. Under the present system visa numbers are made available in the order of the preference classes and, within such classes, in the order of the filing dates of the petitions according preference status. Where the demand of natives of a particular foreign state for visa numbers exceeds the 20,000 per annum limitation, visa numbers are not made available to applicants in the lower preference classes until the demand of applicants holding higher preference status is satisfied. Thus, for example, if there are 30,000 Italians with chronological priority and preference status who want to emigrate in a single year to the United States, only 20,000 are allowed to enter and these 20,000 will be selected according to which class of preference they are in and their priority in that class. In fact there are more than 20,000 Italian applicants with chronological priority and preference status at the present time, and it is for this reason that a visa number is not presently available to the plaintiff who has only sixth preference status.
Plaintiff contends that a correct interpretation of the Act requires that the percentages applicable to each class of preference be applied pro rata to the 20,000 per annum national limitation, as well as to the 170,000 per annum overall limitation. In support of this theory the plaintiff argues that the 1965 amendment is ambiguous as to whether or not the percentages applicable to each class of preference should also be applied to the 20,000 national limitation. The plaintiff, therefore, looks to the purpose of the 1965 amendment and claims that aside from abolishing the national origin system, that purpose was to maintain a broad balance among those persons emigrating to this country between those with family ties to persons in the United States and those with skills which can be of benefit to the nation. Accordingly, the argument continues, to effectuate this balance the Act should not be construed so as to create priorities between preferences, as the present administration of the Act does, but only to maintain priorities within each class of preference. Thus, according to plaintiff, by way of illustration, if 20,000 Italians are permitted to enter this country each year, then ten percent of them (the percentage applicable to the sixth preference) should be those like the plaintiff who hold sixth preference status.
Even a cursory examination of the plaintiff's arguments reveal their insubstantiality. The court finds that the statute is not ambiguous. The meaning and purpose of the Act, as indicated by its language and legislative history, militate strongly against the plaintiff's view.
First, it is clear that the Act in fact does create an order of preferences and not merely a sequential listing. Section 203(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b) (1964), as amended (Supp. IV, 1969), specifically provides that
In considering applications for immigrant visas under subsection (a) of this section consideration shall be given to applicants in the order in which the classes of which they are members are listed in subsection (a) of this section.
The legislative history as well makes this point clear. For example, both the Senate and House committee reports in their section-by-section analysis of the new provisions state that the amended Act establishes "* * * the order of preference priorities and percentage allocations for the admission of qualified immigrants under the numerical limitation of 170,000 * * *." S.Rep.No. 748, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 22; H.R.Rep. No. 745, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 19, U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News 1965, p. 3340.
Further, while it is true as plaintiff argues that immigrants qualifying for one of the seven preferences can be divided into two broad classes, those with family ties to persons in the United States and those with skills which can benefit the country, it is indicated over and over again in the legislative record, that the foremost purpose of Congress was to ensure the reunification of families and that acquisition of immigrants with needed skills was only a secondary motivation. See, e.g., 111 Cong.Rec. 21,585 (1965) (remarks of Representative Feighan, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality of the House Committee on the Judiciary). In this regard it is significant that first, immediate relatives of United States citizens - children, spouses, and parents of persons over twenty-one years of age - are not subject to the numerical limitations of section 203, and that, second, a total of 74 percent of the visas awarded according to preference status are given to those classes which are predicated on family relationships.
Second, and more importantly, plaintiff's interpretation flies in the face of the conceded objective of the Act to allocate visas without regard to nationality except for the 20,000 per annum limitation imposed upon immigrants entering the country from a single foreign state. Plaintiff's theory that the percentages of the total numerical limitation which apply to each preference class are also to apply on a pro rata basis to the number of Italians who are allowed to enter this country each year, if accepted, would effectively mean that in each preference class there would be an Italian quota as well as a quota for every other national group to which visas are given. This is so because, for example, ten percent of the Italians entering this country each year as immigrants would be required to have sixth preference status, and, thus, along with chronological priorities, nationality would once again have to be a factor in the distribution of preferences. The national origin system, albeit in slightly different form, would thus be resurrected. Plaintiff abjures this result, but he cannot escape it. That Congress did not intend the Act to be interpreted in the manner suggested by plaintiff is evidenced by the following colloquy between Representative Nedzi and Chairman Feighan which occurred during the debate in the House:
MR. NEDZI. I have a brief question. Do the percentages apply to each country, or do they apply to the entire quota?
MR. FEIGHAN. The percentages apply to the total. The 170,000 limit external to the United States applies to all countries external to the United States.
MR. NEDZI. I understand, but so far as each individual country is concerned, for example, could more than 20 percent of the country's immigration be in a particular category?
MR. FEIGHAN. * * * any percentage up to 100 percent could be allocated to a single category for nationals of any country.
MR. NEDZI. Then the percentages apply worldwide and not so far as a particular country is concerned?
MR. FEIGHAN. There is no percentage to a particular country. The only limitation on a country is that it will not exceed 20,000, exclusive of spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens. 111 Cong.Rec. 21,589 (1965).
As to his second cause of action, involving charges of collusion between the defendants in a policy and actions intended to harass and discriminate against aliens of Italian origin, the plaintiff has failed to present any evidence or give this court any indication whatsoever as to how, if at all, he will be able to support his allegations. Here too, therefore, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he will probably prevail in the end.
Finally, there is a third reason why plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied. As indicated supra, one of the items which plaintiff seeks by way of ultimate relief is an order directing the defendant Farrell in turn to direct his employees to accept and process an application by plaintiff pursuant to section 245 of the Act
for an adjustment of his immigration status from a transit without visa to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. It appears, however, that even if plaintiff were to prevail in this action, nevertheless, he still would not be entitled to this item of relief because, as a transit without visa, he is precluded from adjusting his status while in the United States by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(c)(1) (1969). That regulation provides in part that:
"The privilege of transit without a visa may be authorized only under the conditions that the alien will depart voluntarily from the United States, that he will not apply for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act. * * *"
This regulation notwithstanding, plaintiff argues that he is not barred from applying for adjustment of his status while in the United States, because section 245 does not preclude him from making such an application, and because the Attorney General has not ruled that aliens having transit without visa status will not be accorded discretionary relief under section 245. Plaintiff gratuitously characterizes 8 C.F.R. 214.2(c)(1) as being nothing more than the Attorney General's instruction to immigration officers not to admit aliens as transits without visas unless they agree not to apply for section 245 relief. Drawing upon this characterization the plaintiff theorizes that he cannot be held to have waived any of his rights since one cannot be held to have agreed to that of which one has no knowledge.
The plaintiff rationalizes, therefore, that while the immigration officers may have violated their instructions by admitting plaintiff without obtaining a waiver, there is nothing in either the statute or the regulation which prevents him from applying for adjustment of his status in these circumstances.
Plaintiff's argument is without foundation. 8 C.F.R. 214.2(c)(1) cannot be brushed aside merely as being an instruction addressed solely to immigration officers. Transit without visa status is a privilege which exists in order to facilitate international travel through the United States chiefly by relieving alliens of the usual documentary requirements for entrance into this country. See, section 212(a)(26) and (d)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(26) and (d)(4) (1964);
1 Gordon & Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure, § 2.9a, at 2-49 (1967). This privilege obviously presents opportunity for abuse. The Attorney General, therefore, in his discretion, pursuant to specific statutory authority to regulate the admission of aliens as nonimmigrants, section 214(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184 (1964), has conditioned the grant of this privilege so that aliens accorded transit without visa status are precluded from applying for adjustment of their status. Having accepted the benefits of transit without visa status, the plaintiff is now bound by the applicable conditions. The court has been unable to find any authority for the express waiver requirement proposed by the plaintiff. Cf., United States v. Kenny, 247 F.2d 139 (2d Cir.1957).
Thus plaintiff will have to leave the country in any event in order to adjust his status. A stay of deportation is not warranted. Cf., Siu Fung Luk v. Rosenberg, 409 F.2d 555 (9th Cir.1969), petition for cert. dismissed 396 U.S. 801, 89 S. Ct. 2151, 24 L. Ed. 2d 58 (1969); Wan Ching Shek v. Esperdy, 304 F. Supp. 1086 (S.D.N.Y.1969).
Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is utterly without substance. The motion is denied in all respects.
The foregoing constitutes the required findings of fact and conclusions of law.
So ordered.
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

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Water Features, Waterfalls, Cascades, Fountains, Stone and Granite Effect
Water features come in many different styles, however, they all have the ability to transform your garden, adding sound, movement and a great deal of interest. Fabulous effects and be achieved with stone and granite effect water features, fountains, waterfalls and cascades with water flowing over rocks and into pools authentically crafted from heavy duty resin and lit by bright LEDs.
Naturalistic, rustic or contemporary, self-contained stone effect features can be adapted for a variety of landscapes without the need for a mains water supply. Designed and manufactured by leading brands Aqua Creations and Henri Studio, they are easy to install, highly durable, with low running costs. Many can be used indoors as well as in the garden, looking marvellous in a conservatory or as part of an interior design scheme.
Small 4 Pool Rock Waterfall Fountain Water Feature
5 Days*
RRP: £132.00 Save: £32.01
Medium 4 Pool Rock Waterfall Fountain Water Feature
5 Days*
RRP: £202.00 Save: £22.01
3 Tiered Rock Boulder with Lights Water Feature
5 Days*
RRP: £242.00 Save: £22.01
5 Tier Sandstone Boulder Fountain Water Feature
5 Days*
RRP: £332.00 Save: £32.01
Henri Studio Victoria Falls Water Feature
7 Days*
RRP: £369.99 Save: £70.00


text:
0 results
+ 0 miles
Min Price
Max Price
Min Beds
Max Beds
New Homes and Developments For Sale in Shellness, Sheerness, Kent
Featured New Home – Help To Buy
Added on 11/11/2016
Email developer
Added on 11/11/2016
Email developer
JUST RELEASED! The Stafford II is a DETACHED 4-BEDROOM NEW HOME with a DOUBLE GARAGE and a popular layout including an open-plan kitchen/family/dining room, a separate utility room, lounge & cloakroom to the ground floor. Upstairs you will find an EN-SUITE to the master bedroom and a family bathroom
Added on 02/12/2016
Email developer
2 bedroom bungalow for saleWillerby Candence Leysdown Road, Leysdown-On-Sea, Sheerness, ME12
from station
Added on 08/09/2016
01795 605033 Local call rate
Email agent
Your search has returned 0 results
There are no available properties matching the criteria which you have specified.
In order to return more great properties in your searches, try adjusting your search criteria.


text:
Slide to see the images
WE ARE POSTING ONLY. IF INTERESTED IN LILLY, PLEASE CONTACT THIS EMAIL ADDRESS FOR FURTHER INFO firstname.lastname@example.com
Lilly is a beautiful, sweet, caring lady. My father in law came to live with us for a short period of time, He ended up suffering a stroke last year (recovered). As a family we decided for him to go into assisted living because he could not care for himself. Lilly was his little girl, his companion, where ever he went she went. She is very loyal, active.. ..They would often play fetch. Unfortunately we have come to conclusion Lilly needs to be placed in a loving, active household. She loves children, and dogs. She needs a family, or a person(s) who can give her a lot of attention, and who will play fetch with her!
Dogs are up-to-date on shots, wormed, on heartworm preventative, microchipped and altered(spayed/neutered), prior to adoption. Our pets are kept at our adoption center and viewed by pre-arranged appointment by approved applicants only. Cats are up-to-date on shots, wormed, tested for FELV & FIV, microchipped and altered prior to adoption. Many of our cats are kept in foster homes and are not necessarily available for viewing at Pet Supplies Plus (Carmel Commons), Charlotte, NC. Cats in foster homes are viewed by pre-arranged appointment by approved applicants only. QUICKER RESPONSES FOR INQUIRIES ARE VIA EMAILS. firstname.lastname@example.com We accept CASH ONLY for ADOPTION FEES. ADOPTION FEES FOR PETS WILL BE LISTED INDIVIDUALLY. An additional $15 fee is required at the time of addoption for microchip registration. Please complete an ON-LINE APPLICATION before inquiring about a pet. Sponsor the care of this pet.
Make your tax deductible donations securely with your Visa or MasterCard through PayPal!


text:
Rod was amazing working with our disabled client! He was friendly, flexible with our schedule and provided fantastic service! Many thanks.
I was recently purchasing a property and contacted A Better Peace of Mind to conduct an inspection. They were fantastic and very easy to deal with. During the inspection, termite activity was found. After purchasing the property, we accepted a quote from A Better Peace of Mind ..
Get your job done right
We verify our businesses
Only hire the best
Free to request and free to hire!
Mount Louisa, QLD
Wiring and insulation in the roof space has been chewed, we would like to find out where the mice/rats are getting in before an electrician fixes otherwise the problem will continue. Air conditioni...Make a similar request


text:
How to Select Nonadjacent Blocks of Text in Microsoft Word
Normally, if you select one block of text and then select a separate block of text, Word will automatically deselect the first block. However, Word also offers a method for selecting nonadjacent blocks of text simultaneously. This feature lets you control what is selected at the same time, even if multiple sections come from multiple separate areas in a document. Selecting nonadjacent blocks can help you save time, for example, when copying and pasting multiple parts of a document; you only need to execute the copy-and-paste maneuver once.
Step 1
Select the first block of text by clicking and dragging. Or, click at the beginning of the block, then press and hold "Shift" on your keyboard, click at the end of the block and then release the "Shift" key.
Step 2
Press and hold the "Ctrl" key on your keyboard.
Step 3
Select the second block of text. This time, you can't use the click, "Shift," click method. Instead, click at the beginning of the block, drag the cursor to the end of the block and then release the mouse button. Or, to select a large block, click in the left margin next to the first line of text in the block you want to select; holding down the mouse button, drag the cursor downward until you reach the end of the block. Continue holding down the "Ctrl" key while you select this second block of text.
Step 4
Release the "Ctrl" button.


text:
Introduce yourself here!
|June 19th, 2009, 04:13 PM
|#61 (permalink)
Trade with the flow
Paris, France
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: Market Delta & Ninjatrader
Favorite Futures: ES
Posts: 2,552 since Jun 2009
Thanks: 1,151 given, 2,002 received
This is completely untrue. I've sent BigMike 2 equity curves of systems I trade. I've got one more that is mechnical but I don't automate it because it uses end of day data so not much need to automate.
That said, these systems do not make as much as they could if they were traded manually. Assuming someone has the discipline required to trade them manually. When I first started I didn't have the discipline and the automation was a way for me to protect myself from myself. Now I am making a lot of progress on the discipline so I prefer to use the automated strategy ideas with some discretion.
Finally, it takes a long time to develop a working automated strategy but in the process one learns a lot about what works and doesn't work. So it's not a total waste.
|The following user says Thank You to cunparis for this post:


text:
Log in
Log in by entering your email address and your password
Continue as a guest
Continue as a guest, you will be able to create a client account at the next step of your order
Your bag is empty
We have re-imagined jumpsuit shorts in light fleece. Zipped neckline for a glamorous rock n roll look.
Our model is 5.77 ft tall and wears a size XS.
Size guide
New sizing on this item, if you were used to ordering size , we recommend you .
Free shipping & return
pocket lining : 50% cotton 50% polyester exterior : 50% cotton 50% polyester
Free Pick-up in store 48-72h
48-72h - free
Free 30 days return
Check my orders
Contact us at 0800 026 0588 (free phone number)
from monday to friday from 9am to 6pm
Shop the look
Out of stock
The product is available in the following shops :
No stores found


text:
Bloody Mary Salmon
Total Time
Prep 7 mins
Cook 47 mins
Ingredients Nutrition
- 1 lb salmon fillet
- salt
- pepper
- 1 cup spicy bloody mary mix
- Place salmon fillets in a medium baking dish, and season with salt and pepper.
- Pour spicy bloody mary mix over the fillets.
- Cover, and refrigerate at least 30 minutes.
- Preheat the broiler.
- Broil approximately 7 minutes, until fish is easily flaked with a fork and surface is lightly browned.


text:
Makes 6 (8-inch) pizzas
Recipe Time
Prep: 20 Minutes
Bake: 17 Minutes
Cook: 11 Minutes
1 pound turkey sausage, casings removed
3 cups (12 oz.) shredded Italian three-cheese blend
Toppings: grated Parmesan cheese, sliced fresh mozzarella, turkey pepperoni, dried Italian seasoning
1. Preheat oven to 400°. Place Easy Pizza Dough rounds on 2 lightly greased baking sheets. Bake at 400° for 7 minutes.
2. Cook sausage in a large nonstick skillet over medium-high heat 9 to 11 minutes or until meat is no longer pink, breaking sausage into pieces while cooking; drain.
3. Spread about 1/3 cup Basic Tomato Sauce evenly over each pizza crust; top each pizza with 1/2 cup cheese, 1/3 cup cooked sausage, and desired toppings.
4. Bake at 400° for 8 to 10 minutes or until crust is golden and cheese is melted.
July 2008


text:
The site you are connecting to () is not published by YellowPages.ca™, so we cannot guarantee its availability or take responsibility for its content.
Do you wish to continue?
Were you looking for:Provincial Government Investment Advisory Services Municipal Government Museums Learn
Do you wish to continue?
Get a quick overview of all the merchants in your area with our handy comparison table. The easy-to-navigate scrolling feature lets you compare merchants at a glance and bookmark your favourites, helping you to make better, faster choices.
Thank you!


text:
The Federal & State Grants Unit oversees federal and state assistance programs administered by the Authority.
The Research & Analysis Unit serves as Illinois' Statistical Analysis Center (SAC). State SACs provide objective analysis of criminal justice data for informing statewide policy and practice.
Adult Redeploy Illinois provides financial incentives to local jurisdictions for programs that allow diversion of non-violent offenders from state prisons by providing community-based services.
The Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI) Oversight Board is requesting applications from counties or groups of counties for planning grants to convene stakeholders, analyze data, and conduct other activities to determine how best to implement a local ARI program to divert non-violent offenders from prison into community-based supervision and services.
The Sex Offenses and Sex Offender Registration Task Force will meet on Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. at the Michael A. Bilandic Building, Room N-502, 160 N. LaSalle St., Chicago, IL 60601.
The Illinois Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform will meet on Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 1 PM to 5 PM at the offices of the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority 300 W. Adams St.,Chicago, Illinois 60606.
The Illinois Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Council will hold its regular meeting on December 1, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. at the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 300 West Adams Street, Suite 200, Chicago, Illinois 60606.
The Illinois Center of Excellence for Behavioral Health and Justice announces a job opening for Assistant Director. The mission of the Illinois Center of Excellence for Behavioral Health and Justice is to equip communities to appropriately respond to the needs of persons with behavioral health disorders who are involved with the criminal justice system. We provide training, technical assistance, resources and collaboration consistent with the mission.
If you are interested in training people across the state, spreading knowledge about evidence-based practices, increasing your work experience, and expanding your contacts across the state, this might be the job for you. Please read the attached job posting and submit the required documents to:
Michelle Rock, Director
Illinois Center of Excellence for Behavioral Health and Justice
CHICAGO—November 17, 2016. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Executive Director John Maki today announced release of the Adult Redeploy Illinois (ARI) Annual Report. The report outlines the program's achievements through 2015, its fifth calendar year.
From 2011-2015, ARI distributed more than $15.5 million in grants to local jurisdictions to support problem-solving courts, enhanced probation supervision with services, and other evidence-based interventions responsive to the needs of their communities. In total, the program's statewide network has diverted nearly 2,500 non-violent offenders from Illinois prisons, representing cost avoidance to the state of nearly $76 million.
The ARI site network grew to include 24 locally designed and controlled prison diversion programs at 22 sites covering 39 counties in 2015.
"Adult Redeploy Illinois is outcome-focused," said Executive Director Maki. "Local programs work with individuals to address unmet needs, such as treatment for addiction or mental health issues, which may be contributing to their criminal behavior. This can put an end to the costly cycle of recidivism and imprisonment."
ARI is a state funding program designed to build and support more effective and less expensive community alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offender. As an accountability mechanism, ARI sites agree to reduce by 25 percent (based on the past three years' average) the number of people they send to the Illinois Department of Corrections from a locally defined target population. The state saves money through the reduced use of incarceration in state facilities and a portion of the savings are invested locally to support stronger, healthier communities. In state fiscal year 2015, the per capita cost of incarceration was $23,400 per year while the average ARI intervention costs approximately $4,400.
ARI provides a vital public safety and public health benefit throughout the state and supports the State Commission on Criminal Justice & Sentencing Reform's decarceration goals. Strengthening the ARI network will be crucial to future criminal justice reform.
Adult Redeploy Illinois sites are operating in:
Winnebago County, operating both drug and therapeutic intervention program (mental health) courts.
View the Adult Redeploy Illinois 2015 Annual Report at www.icjia.org/redeploy.
The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority is conducting a Victims Needs Assessment.
If you are a victim of crime, we would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, created to better understand your needs. Responses will be kept confidential.
If you provide services to victims of crime, please feel free to forward this email and survey link to your clients.
This survey is available in both English and Spanish and will close Monday, November 21, 2016.


text:
Anonymous asks:
What science project my third grader can do?
my daughter is in the third grade and she has do do a project,what can she do?In Topics: Science fair
> 60 days ago
Subscribing to a question lets you receive e-mails when there are updates. Click here to subscribe and adjust the e-mail frequency.
Sort by:Most Helpful | Most Recent | Least Recent
Answers (6)
Click on this flag and we will review this answer and remove it from the site if it violates our Terms of Service. Thanks for helping us keep Education.com high quality.
You must sign up/sign in to report abuse.
You must sign up/lsign in to rate an answer.


text:
Ohhh Yeah!!
I've been having some issues with my internet. I have limited access to it, been out in the country eating plenty of tropical fruits and skinny-dipping, playing with all sorta farm animals. This is being more relaxing than I expected, specially because I'm keeping communication to its minimum, I'm mute. Monday I'm heading to the beach.
Hope you all are doing fine, I don't even know how long it'll take for the pics to upload, believe me, this is slow, but I'm lucky to even have reception where I am.


text:
Thai Metal Trade Public Company Limited
URGENTLY REQUIRED !!!Thai Metal Trade Public Company Limited (TMT) is a distribution and processing center of metal products. We produce structural metals under the brand TMT with more than 30 years of expertise. Our operational policy focuses on delivering additional value and success to the business partners rather than selling the products alone.
OHS & Environmental Manager (Based at Wangnoi, Ayuttaya)/ผู้จัดการแผนกอาชีวอนามัย ความปลอดภัยและสภาพแวดล้อมในการทำงาน
jobsDB Ref. JTH300003001249279
- To co-lead in setting "Occupational Health Safety & Environment Policies & Strategies and Management System" of the company.
- To provide advice, information, instruction assistance and training as well as consultation to management, related to OHS& Environment.
- To lead and coordinate in planning, auditing and controlling OHS & Environment to comply with legal & regulations
- To reinforce OHS & Environment awareness within the company and develop continuous improvement throughout the organization.
- To lead and manage OHS&E. team to perform their functions efficiently & optimally.
- Bachelor or higher degree in Occupational Health Safety or Environment Engineering or related fields.
- Typically 3 to 5 years of job-related experience in managerial level and experience ISO 14001 & 18001 implementation in Manufacturing is required.
- Very flexible, self-motivated, service minded, positive thinking and proactive.
The company offers a competitive package, reflecting the Candidate's level of experience, performance expectations and qualifications. This will consist of base salary and other benefits.
Interested applicants, please send your updated CV, a copy of your transcript, a recent photograph and a covering letter indicating your expected salary to;
For further information please contact,
Human Resources Department
Thai Metal Trade Public Company Limited
332-333 Moo5, Paholyothin Rd., Lamsai, Wangnoi, Ayutthaya 13170
Tel: 02 685 4000 Fax: 035 272 448
Keywords: Safety Manager


text:
Tags: amateur blondes european masturbation pussy solo speculum
Coed Oriental Fuckhole Takes Two Manhoods asian cumshots asian swallow japanese chinese
Tags: anal asian chinese coed cumshots japanese oriental
Oriental babe with smokin sexy tits masturbates
Tags: asian babes drilling exotic hardcore masturbation oriental
Oriental enjoys tits mashing and pussy fingering
Tags: asian drilling exotic fingering hardcore oriental pussy
Oriental playgirl with lovely tits gives magnetizing blowjob
Tags: asian big tits blowjobs fingering group sex japanese oriental
Oriental sweetheart gets her tits sucked by horny hunks
Tags: asian blowjobs handjobs japanese oriental threesome tits
Oriental babe gets her tits sucked by horny hunks
Tags: asian babes blowjobs exotic giving head hairy japanese
Bizarre gay pissing and huge erect cocks pissing Pissing And
Tags: amateur bizarre gays masturbation pissing solo twink
Big tits babe pissing in public and squizing nipples
Tags: anal babes big tits blondes fetish kinky masturbation
Cute oriental with tits stimulates with oral pleasure
Tags: asian cute fingering group sex hairy japanese oral
Gorgeous Oriental babe with tiny tits has wild sex with a h
Tags: asian babes gorgeous hairy hardcore japanese oriental
Humiliation pissing movietures and gay naked asian pissing o
Tags: amateur asian blowjobs gays humiliation masturbation nude
Gay indian pissing Voyeurs love our bathroom pissing movies
Tags: bathroom fetish gays indian masturbation pissing solo
Indian pissing blog gay sex Pissing In The
Tags: couple gays hairy indian masturbation pissing
Sex gay chinese man movies and gay black fuck sex movies pissing Studly
Tags: anal bear black chinese deep throat facials gays
Male celeb pissing photos gay snapchat Pissing And Jacking Off
Tags: black college dick gays pissing shaved
Gay man pissing cumming photos 3 Pissing Boys Bathroom Fuck!
Tags: anal bathroom facials fetish gays oral pissing
Gay black man pissing porn movies full length Pissing And Je
Tags: amateur black gays masturbation outdoor pissing solo
Teen model pissing movieture and young dudes pissing gay first time
Tags: amateur anal fetish first time gays masturbation pissing
Gay sexy black boys pissing and males pissing movies Piss Loving Welsey
Tags: black blowjobs college dick gays hairy masturbation
Married Chinese woman shows her tits
Tags: amateur chinese married tits webcams
Bollywood male actors pissing movies and pissing on men in suits xxx gay
Tags: blowjobs deep throat dick gays hairy masturbation pissing
Akiho Yoshizawa Chinese girl has lovely tits
Tags: asian brunettes chinese cute japanese masturbation natural boobs
TrafficHolder.com - Buy and Sell Adult Traffic|Trafficshop.com - Let your business grow|Contact Us|Webmaster
All content, including images, text, graphics, video and audio content contained in the website is protected under the laws of copyright, owned or under license to company or its designees,and represents proprietary and valuable intellectual property.
Contact Webmaster 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Powered by Stream Rotator


text:
Majamas Cozy Nursing Dress -Organic
by Majamas
(Item #111941)
This item is not available for sale
Now in soft organic cotton! Find yourself with little time leftover to think about your wardrobe? There's no limit to what you can achieve with this simple chic nursing dress! Supportive built in bra. Figure smoothing organic cotton lycra knit. Very discreet pull down nursing access.
Fit Tip: For best fit, step into this dress and pull up from hips rather than pulling it on from top down.
"Great online shop for new moms. I will definately recommend."
Lisa in Merritt island, FL
Copyright © 2016 Figure 8 Maternity. All Rights Reserved.


text:
Today is Sunday, September 1st. We play our last match of this month long tournament that took place around the world. We have been in Sapporo all week, but the internet service has been very bad at our hotel and I haven't had much time to write any updates. Tonight we play Japan at 7:10pm so we have some free time today to pack (I'm already packed) and relax before our match. Other days we have played at 1:30pm and had to scout the other matches being played and then had meetings into the night to discuss our previous match and our upcoming opponents.
Playing 5 days in a row against the top teams in the world after being on the road since July 29th is very tough. Every other country in the tournament spent a week playing at home except Team USA. No excuses, just an observation.
So we have now lost 4 matches in a row. The first was a rough one to Brazil. They are dominating everyone. Then to Serbia who owed us a loss. Then we lost to an undefeated China. Yesterday's loss hurt even worse when we were up 14-10 in the 5th set against Italy and lost 16-14. So, here were are getting ready to play the home team, Japan, for our final chance at a win here in the finals. Keep in mind we are in the top 6 of the 20 teams that played in the tournament, but it still is painful to see our team lose matches, when they have been playing so well.
This has been an interesting experience for me to see how the national teams train, travel, compete and live. Once this season is over most of our players will go play professionally in a foreign country playing in various leagues in Turkey, Poland, Russian, Thailand, Brazil, Korea, Italy…everywhere except the USA. Most of them live by themselves and try to learn the language and eat the local food, but you know it has to be lonely for them. The respect I have gained for the coaching staff and their work ethic for scouting and game plans will be shared with many others when I have an opportunity to visit with others. They work hard to make sure Team USA is the best prepared team in the world. My thoughts will be with all of USA Volleyball as the organization builds toward qualifying all their men's and women's teams for Rio 2016 and winning gold medals in beach, indoor and sitting volleyball. As a board member of that organization, I will strive to make sure our coaches and athletes have what they need to be the best in the world.
I am ready to go back to my simple life in Tallahassee to teach students, play golf, fish, visit family and friends, do a few clinics and be thankful for the a fortunate life I have been able to lead.
Go USA!


text:
100% Seller financing with 60% Down Payment: Due to Seller's health issues this very successful business is available at a less than Market Price with heavy participation by the Seller.
This Dealership is just off an Interstate but situated 30-40 miles away from most competition in a spacious, customer-friendly facility. The dominant Metric manufacturers are represented with well-stocked Accessories Department, experienced Service Personnel and ample parts inventory. Competitive Lease with possibility of Real Estate purchase. Exceptional location: low crime rate, good schools — good place to raise family.
Industry Experience preferred and a minimum of $1.5M net worth with 50% liquidity. Must be creditworthy for financing if needed as well as possible Letter of Credit with each Manufacturer.
Financials (USD)
Asking Price $830,000
Sales $4,200,000
Profit $427,000
You May Also Like
NC C-Store W/Real Estate -Some Financing Available #409716 posted Jun 18, 2016
- North Carolina, United States
- $625,000
Store is well established. Includes real estate. Ideal for a full time owner-operator. Annual store sales, $834,972. Annual fuel gallons sold, 528,761. Annual gross profit, $303,540. No fuel contract transfers.
Prime Retail Store in New Bern, NC #407192 posted May 14, 2016
- New Bern, North Carolina, United States
- $160,000
Unique Men and Women's clothing store located in the scenic downtown historic district of New Bern, NC, an acclaimed tourist and retirement community. A location like this is rarely available. Great foot traffic, considerable retail and restaurant activity. Business has been in current location since...
Renowned Fine Art and Contemporary Craft Gallery #395270 posted Dec 1, 2015
- North Carolina, United States
- $925,000
Well-established (1989) and nationally recognized fine art and contemporary craft gallery with a large and loyal clientele. Located in the scenic downtown historic district of an acclaimed tourist and retirement community, this consistently profitable business features a diverse selection of pottery,...
Did you know that social networking is a great way to buy a business? Sign up now and we'll show you how.
Suggested Searches
Disclaimer: MergerNetwork has not independently verified any of the information in this listing and makes no warranty as to its accuracy or completeness.


text:
Dependable solid business opportunity to own this successful auto transportation brokerage company located in Monmouth County, New Jersey. This National Auto Transport & Car Shipping Company provides professional door to door service to its various customers. Their network of car shippers includes over 30,000 auto carriers nationwide. They always seek out opportunities when car shipping carriers have a few spots available and are looking to fill them up ASAP - at a drastically reduced rate and all savings are passed on directly to our customers! Thousands of car shipping carriers pass through each day and our customer's vehicle can be picked up on the same day if available. The sale consists of a fully equipped commercial office which includes various sections for employee's desks, phones lines, shelving, software system, tables, computers, including all the necessary equipment to maintain the day to day business operation and a list of assets will be supplied to purchaser upon request. This particular business has four employees who are unaware of the pending sale and fully expected to remain post-closing, monthly payroll $6,500. The business has an assignable commercial lease which expires 2016-01-01 plus additional options, with a monthly rent of $850 and rent security $850. This service business is located in a commercial office building and consists of 1,240 square feet with a capacity for approximately fifteen employees. The facility has appropriate municipal parking on site as part of the commercial lease. The business is active five days per week, with hours from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. The sale includes a certificate of occupancy from the particular municipality and any required state or city licenses to conduct its day to day business. This is a dependable business opportunity and based on the asking price, required down payment and yearly net income, this business expect to supply a continued investment return to the owner operator prior to debt service. The 2015 yearly gross income is $279,417 and the business has a yearly net income of $91,000 based on an owner operator and prior to debt service. The business has been valued at $185,000 based on a multiple of the net yearly income and the value of the specific business assets and seller financing has been approved to a qualified buyer with an appropriate down payment, collateral and credit rating. Please do not disturb business, this sale is absolutely confidential, the employees are Unaware of the pending sale, all viewings are by appointment only and photo may not represent this particular business.
Financials (USD)
Asking Price $185,000
Sales $279,417
Profit $91,000
You May Also Like
Transportation Services Business w/Excellent Rep #451788 posted Aug 16, 2016
- Virginia, United States
- $238,000
Transportation Services Business with Excellent Reputation for Service and Quality For Sale in Central Virginia, VA Area • $218,000+ gross sales in 2015 • $100,000+ SDE in 2015 • $235,000+ projected gross sales in 2016 • $110,00+ projected SDE in 2016 • Excellent Reputation for Service and...
Marina and Ship Store #406366 posted May 4, 2016
- North Carolina, United States
- $1,100,000
20 Slip Marina, Fuel Dock, Storage, Service and Ship Store adjacent to public water access ramp 50 yards from the river.
Profitable Shipping, Packaging & Printing Center #318597 posted Dec 4, 2012
- Ohio, United States
- $170,000
SOLD. Profitable Shipping, Packaging, and Printing Center Franchise available for sale in the Central Ohio area. Business has been established in a high-traffic location. It is a one-stop shop, providing domestic and international shipping, moving supplies, freighting services, and many other professional...
Did you know that social networking is a great way to buy a business? Sign up now and we'll show you how.
Disclaimer: MergerNetwork has not independently verified any of the information in this listing and makes no warranty as to its accuracy or completeness.


text:
Chemical Warfare- Andy McNab talks about the battle inside the mind of a soldier
Andy McNab talks to OntheBox's McGee Noble about the time bomb of mental illness for soldiers and what inspired him to make Tour of Duty.
Andy McNab, better known as the mysterious silhouette behind the book cover of Bravo Two Zero, is a lot chirpier than you would imagine. Talking on the phone I comment that he must have been busy since I heard him only a few hours ago on Absolute FM giving an interview. "Haven't even had a cuppa tea yet!�? he laughs in response.
I ask him if he would mind answering a few questions of my dad's, as he's a massive fan, and he roars with laughter. "Ok then,�? he tells me.
Yet for all his cheeriness, this is a man who has been deep into combat, had a bounty on his head and who has been trained in counter terrorism, demolitions and prime target elimination. In other words, he is a highly trained killer. He has also, in the name of his country,been captured and brutally tortured.
For those unfamiliar with the story, McNab joined the infantry in 1976 and by 1984 was a member of the SAS. During the first Gulf War he and seven others were sent on a mission to destroy underground communication links in Iraq. It had disastrous consequences: three men were killed, one escaped and four were taken prisoner. McNab was one of those four.
For six weeks he was tortured and when he was finally released he suffered kidney and liver damage, nerve damage to both hands and a dislocated shoulder. When he left the SAS in 1993 he was the army's most decorated soldier.
So today, chatting to McNab on the phone I kind of expected someone who sounded more…grizzled. Mean. Angry.
In actual fact he is direct, funny and passionate and we quickly get to talking about his recent comment that Britain is sitting on a time bomb of mental illness in its soldiers. McNab has vocally spoken out against the lack of care for veterans who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. He tells me that studies show that it manifests usually ten to thirteen years after a soldier has served, usually when they are back to non military life, and affects a staggering 15% of soldiers who have seen active service. "What's going to happen now is because we've got two conflict and lots of infantry battalions now going through both Iraq and Afghanistan- we are going to get again this population of about 15% of the military population suffering in civilian life.�?
McNab has had direct contact with the impact that post traumatic stress can have. Two of his good friends have committed suicide. I ask him how he managed to avoid it himself. "I think that its not an emotional situation where people get this�? he replies, intriguingly. He goes on to explain. "It's a chemical reaction. In effect there's a fuse where you can pass this information through the brain as we do in every day events and what happens is that some people… the fuse is fused if you like. These experiences can't naturally pass through their heads and that's why they have nightmares and reoccurences of reliving it- flashbacks, sleepless nights, all that sort of stuff. So it's a chemical reaction.�?
He tells me that there was a survey done with a parachute regiment 8 years after the Falkland's war with serving soldiers. "55% of these guys- who are still in the army and have got guns- are suffering post traumatic stress disorder and they didn't even know it. They just thought 'well i'm always angry' or 'I'm always like getting drunk or I'm always starting fights…'. Still, I say, aren't these reactions just an inevitable consequence of war?
"Yes, totally. Even the Romans were very aware of post traumatic stress and thought well what we've got to do is now get these people together to retire so they live in their own communities and talk about it and sort themselves out and this was a thousand or so years ago. It's the human condition.�?
This, in a way is what Tour of Duty, McNab's DVD that is released this week, does for soldiers. "Look at some of these lads and the way that they conduct themselves after these events and talk about these events. Once you get them talking about what's going on with their own peer group you can't stop them.�? Isolation is one of the greatest problems for soldiers and McNab talks about the difficulty for many in relating to civilians when they return. That is part of what is important about Tour of Duty for him- it is a chance to get the 'lads', as he calls them, together to talk about their experience and in doing that give us back home an insight.
"These lads don't need anyone to tell their story because they film it themselves and their extremely articulate about it. Rather than me talking about it we'll let them do it because they were there, they can explain it better.�?
"When you get them together and they start to think about what went on and talk about it its quite humbling because they're 19, 20, 21 year old guys doing outrageous things, totally outrageous things. Its good that these DVD's are allowed to be made so that back home we can look at them. Basically they are the next door neighbours kids, they are just like me and you.�?
This ultimately is the message of McNab: that the voices of these young men serving in the armed forces must be heard. Although he quickly refutes the idea that he has become a default spokesman for soldiers, McNab brings to his audience an important point. That even while we acknowledge the physical tolls of the war, it is only a matter of time before the consequences of a chemical war, one fought in the minds of soldiers will make themselves known. When this war begins, will we be prepared?
Tour of Duty is now available on DVD.
By McGee Noble


text:
InFocus IN114 DLP Multimedia Projector Review
InFocus IN114 Projector Special Features
Lamp Life
Particularly impressive is the projectors estimated lamp life of 6000 hours when you project using ECO mode primarily. This along with the 6 month lamp warranty makes the IN114 a good choice if a native 4:3 projector is what you are in the market for.
Inputs Sources
The IN114 has a wide array of inputs and it comes with two VGA inputs which is nice for a projector this size. Even has a monitor out.
Image Quality
The projectors ability to handle high resolutions was very impressive. Feeding the projector its max rated resolution still produced a very nice, small text readable image.
Long Running Time
The IN114 is rated to run 24/7 and you don't need to replace or clean the filter.
You May Also Like
Sony VPL-DW240 Projector Review
Sony VPL-VW365ES 4K Home Theater Projector Review
Check out our 2016 Holiday Projector Shopping Guides
BenQ HT6050 Home Theater Projector Review
Casio XJ-F210WN Projector Review
Viewsonic Pro8530HDL Projector Review
The Optoma ML750ST LED Projector Review – Part 1
HT Projectors: Sony VPL-HW45ES vs Epson HC5040UB


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Kankakee County; the Hon.
PATRICK M. BURNS, Judge, presiding.
Plaintiff Ruth Halloran appeals from a decree of the Circuit Court of Kankakee County awarding a divorce to defendant William Paul Halloran and ordering a property division.
From the record it appears that the parties to this action had been married for 34 years. Plaintiff Ruth Halloran filed a complaint for divorce against her husband on ground of mental cruelty. Defendant William Paul Halloran counterclaimed for a divorce on both mental and physical cruelty. On appeal in this court, plaintiff challenges the award of the divorce to her husband and contends that she, instead, proved sufficient facts to be entitled to a divorce. She also contends that the trial court exceeded its power in ordering a sale of the marital residence as part of the property settlement.
It appears from the record that the parties to this action are now in their mid-fifties and had raised two children who are now grown and who have married. It is alleged by plaintiff that problems arose between the parties around August 17, 1973, when defendant began leaving the home of the parties during the evening and not returning until after midnight, sometimes as late as 4 a.m. The late night outings apparently became more frequent as time passed, plaintiff testified, until defendant spent an average of 3 or 4 nights a week out of the house. Plaintiff also testified that on most of these occasions, her husband would give her no explanation of his departure, nor any information as to his whereabouts before or after his absences. On many nights, plaintiff stated, defendant returned in what she termed a state of intoxication.
Plaintiff testified, also, that when they went to social functions jointly, defendant would often leave her early in the evening and spent his time with others who were attending the social function. Defendant, at times, would refuse to dance with plaintiff and then immediately dance with someone else, according to plaintiff.
It was asserted by plaintiff, also, that defendant and plaintiff were friends of a certain couple, the Borns. Plaintiff testified that her husband always insisted on including the Borns in their social plans, while plaintiff did not think that it was a good idea. Mrs. Born had been a maid for the Hallorans for some time, but had been discharged when plaintiff found out that her husband would at times spend part of the afternoon at home having cocktails with Mrs. Born. Plaintiff also testified that defendant often said he no longer loved her or cared for her and that he would avoid any physical contact in their marital bed. She also testified that she did not believe she had precipitated his conduct in any way.
Defendant, in support of his counterclaim, testified that plaintiff often belittled him by comparing him unfavorably to other men in the community. He stated that she swore at him often even when she was not intoxicated and that she often threw things at him, once even hurtling a knife in his direction. Defendant testified that plaintiff on occasion struck him with her fists and also kicked him at times. He also stated that plaintiff told him she hated him and, on at least one occasion, threatened to kill him. While defendant admitted he might have provoked some argument, he claimed he did nothing to give her reason to strike him.
Plaintiff testified that as a result of defendant's conduct, she became upset and nervous, and felt rejected. She had consulted both a physician and a psychiatrist about her condition. Defendant also testified that his spouse's conduct caused him to be upset and nervous and that he was embarrassed by her cursing in public.
Plaintiff argues on appeal that the trial court's decree for defendant was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that he did not prove any conduct by her was unprovoked by him and that she was entitled to a divorce according to the evidence presented. From our examination of the record, it appears that the evidence generally was sufficient to show mental cruelty on the part of both parties and to justify a decree in favor of either.
1 In view of the record, had we been sitting as trial judges, we might have found in favor of plaintiff on the issue of who was entitled to a divorce but we cannot say, from the record, that the determination by the trial court that the divorce should be awarded to the defendant was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Since the trial court heard and saw the parties he is in a position of some advantage in a case of the nature we are now considering. We, therefore, conclude that the judgment of the trial court awarding the divorce should be affirmed.
As a final issue, plaintiff asserts that the court's decision to "sell" the marital residence and to divide the proceeds equally between the parties, after payment of debts, was improper. The home was owned by the parties jointly and each claimed special equities in the property in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of the Divorce Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 40, par. 18). Plaintiff also asserts that the court had no power to order a sale of the land and a division of the proceeds thereof, absent compliance with the procedures outlined in the Partition Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 106, par. 44 et seq.). Defendant, however, contends that the issue of an equitable property settlement was placed before the court by the request of both parties that the court adjudicate property rights and the claim of special equities made by each. It is contended that the court thus had the power to act in disposition of the rights of the parties. Defendant contends that his request in the alternative that the court order the property sold and the proceeds divided according to the equities of the parties is sufficient sanction for the court to act, or even to proceed with partition of the property.
2 We have found no case fully reported which considered the issue of the trial court's authority to order a sale of property as part of a divorce decree, although there has been one abstract decision (Nugent v. Nugent (1973), 9 Ill. App.3d 702, 292 N.E.2d 917). Most of the cases reported involved dispositions by agreement of the parties. We agree with plaintiff that the jurisdiction of the court in a divorce case, though including general equitable powers, is founded on statutes (Cross v. Cross (1954), 2 Ill.2d 104, 108, 116 N.E.2d 892; Schouten v. Schouten (5th Dist. 1970), 129 Ill. App.2d 418, 421, 263 N.E.2d 715). As indicated in Schouten, in absence of some governing statutory provision, a court may not interfere with property rights and interests of the parties. The court may, where appropriate, and where requested, by one or both of the parties, order transfers of property or property interests from one part to another, according to the equities where special circumstances appear. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 40, par. 18.) The court may also order transfer of property as alimony in gross. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 40, par. 19.
The only remaining statutory authorization which we have discovered is found in section 17a of the Divorce Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1973), ch. 40, par. 17a) where it stated:
"A circuit court having jurisdiction in an action for divorce may, upon complaint of one of the parties, hear and decide an action for partitition subject to the provisions of [the Partition Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 106, par. 44 et seq.)] except as otherwise provided in this Act."
Defendant argues that his alternative prayer for sale and division of the proceeds was in the nature of a prayer for partitition and vested the court with jurisdiction to order a sale. In the decree of the trial court, in section 6 of the ordering part of such decree, the court provided "the marital residence of the parties shall be sold and from the proceeds of sale" that certain obligations including the mortgage on property be first paid. The court then went on to state that after the payment of the obligations, the balance of the proceeds from the sale of the marital residence shall be divided equally between the parties. In a succeeding paragraph of that same section, the court provides "it is further ordered that, in the event the parties cannot agree upon those matters necessary to the sale of the marital residence, either party may apply to the court for modification of this Decree of Divorce in order to have the marital residence sold at a Sheriff's sale."
3 It is apparent, therefore, that the court emphasized the operative effect of the decree as an "in personam" decree, and further reserved jurisdiction to provide, in the event the parties, for good cause shown, could not complete the sale, that the parties should apply to the court for an in rem decree. This provision may be implemented by amended pleadings to comport to the provisions of section 17a of the Divorce Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 40, par. 17a), so that the property could be sold at an ordered public sale. We do not interpret the decree of the trial court as to ordering a judicial sale. As we have noted, the decree contemplates some supplementary procedure, presumably in accordance with section 17a of the Divorce Act.
For the reasons stated, the order of the trial court is affirmed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. If upon such further proceedings in the trial court it appears that plaintiff, for good cause (such as being required to surrender a legal or equitable right), does not desire to cooperate in a private sale of the premises by joint action of the parties, then upon compliance with the terms of section 17a of the Divorce Act, the circuit court may proceed with a judicial sale of the marital home. This cause is, therefore, affirmed, but is remanded for further proceedings relating to the disposition of the rights and interests of the parties in the marital home, with such further proceedings to be had in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion.
Issue affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.
STENGEL and BARRY, JJ., concur.
© 2002 VersusLaw Inc.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Welcome to Mobile Add-ons.
Add extra features and styles to make Mobile your own.Close
About me
|User since
|July 3, 2010
|Number of add-ons developed
|0 add-ons
|Average rating of developer's add-ons
|Not yet rated
My Reviews
Fastest Scroll In The West
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
I like the transparent panel, so i can read throgh it.
I dislike that i can't choose to leave the "scroll panel" always on: as soon as i remove my finger/stick it disappear.
It would be nice if the dimension and especially the position (i would like to have it on the side, right or left, of the screen) of the panel could be adjustable.
It's a great addon; from now on I can't live without it.
I look on the net for shortcuts to reach the button of the extension, but i couldn't find it. It would be very useful.
Tabs Utility
Shortcuts Rated 5 out of 5 stars
I like "drag and drop of tabs" and "session restore". I think the later is very useful.
I would like to have shortcuts to access to the tabs: when the zoom mode is on, i feel uncomfortable to scroll all the page to the right to reach the plug-in tabs.
(Mi piacerebbe avere dei tasti di scelta rapidi per accedere ai "tab": quando effettuo lo zooom della pagina, trovo scomodo dover effettuare lo scrolling della pagina per raggiungere i "tab")
To create your own collections, you must have a Mozilla Add-ons account.