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.
decided: December 15, 1977.
RAYMOND J. RYAN AND HELEN RYAN, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS,v.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
Appeal from the Order of the United States Tax Court; William Drennan, Judge.
Cummings and Pell, Circuit Judges, and Prentice H. Marshall, District Judge.*fn*
MARSHALL, District Judge
This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court holding taxpayer-appellants, Raymond and Helen Ryan, in contempt of court for refusing to answer seven interrogatories propounded by appellee, Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The issue is whether the Tax Court properly rejected the Ryans' claims of Fifth Amendment privilege, and of marital privilege. Additionally, we must decide whether the Tax Court properly rejected the Ryans' contention that they need not answer because the interrogatories were the product of illegal governmental surveillance upon the Ryans, and deferred consideration of the Ryans' underlying claims of illegal governmental conduct until the hearing of the Ryans' motion to suppress. We hold that the court below ruled correctly and affirm its decision in all respects.
Before discussing the complex procedural history of this case and of the issues raised, it is appropriate to commend Judge Drennan of the Tax Court for his diligent efforts in administering this litigation. In a proceeding punctuated by stalls and appeals, he has exercised extraordinary patience in pressing for a trial over the course of this litigation, now in its eighth year.
A detailed recitation of the early course of the Tax Court proceedings would serve no purpose here. That history has been recounted in the opinion of the Tax Court and in a previous, premature appeal of this case, Ryan v. C.I.R., 517 F.2d 13 (7th Cir. 1975). The following statement is sufficient.
In September, 1969, the Ryans filed a petition in the Tax Court for a redetermination of deficiencies in income taxes assessed by the Commissioner for the taxable years 1958 through 1962, 1964 and 1965. In order to obtain information about allegedly questionable dealings between the Ryans and a Swiss bank in a form admissible in Tax Court, the Commissioner spent several years attempting to take depositions of Swiss bank officials pursuant to an agreement between the United States and Switzerland, the Double Taxation Convention of 1951.
In 1972, while the Commissioner's efforts were proceeding, the Ryans filed a "Motion to Suppress and to Enjoin all Proceedings Based upon Evidence Illegally Obtained and Illegally Derived from Grand Jury Investigations of Petitioners" (motion to suppress). In this motion the Ryans alleged that federal agents had obtained damaging information by abusing grand jury process and by illegal searches and seizures of their papers. The Ryans then served subpoenas on several Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents and other federal officials seeking information about any illegal electronic surveillance of the Ryans. The Commissioner moved to quash the subpoenas, and this motion was called for a hearing at the same time as the Ryans' motion to suppress. At a hearing on November 16, 1972, Judge Drennan tried to determine what facts, if proved, would justify suppression of evidence at trial. He sought to define the issues on any subsequent evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress with sufficient clarity so that the evidentiary hearing would be manageable. Without making a final determination regarding the legal grounds for suppression, Judge Drennan limited the evidence at the suppression hearing to three topics: a meeting of the Commissioner's agents with Ryan Oil Company representatives in 1965, electronic surveillance of the Ryans, and illegal use of grand jury subpoenas by the Commissioner. Insofar as the motion sought to enjoin proceedings, it was denied on the grounds that the court lacked the power to enter such an order. Late in 1973, the Ryans moved to suspend the hearing on their motion to suppress until trial, apparently under the assumption that the trial would be held early in 1974. This motion was granted.
But on January 1, 1974, the new Rules of Practice and Procedure of the United States Tax Court (Tax Court Rules) became effective and set the stage for the instant appeal. These rules provide for discovery methods, including interrogatories to parties, similar to those of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Without abandoning his attempt to secure information from the Swiss banking officials, the Commissioner served seven interrogatories upon the Ryans seeking information as to any relationships or transactions between the Ryans and the Commercial Credit Bank of Zurich, Switzerland, or with one Carl W. Hirschmann between 1958 and 1965.*fn1
The Ryans objected to the interrogatories, resting on their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Rejecting the claim of privilege, the Tax Court granted the Commissioner's motion to compel answers. The Ryans appealed that order to this court. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the order was not a final judgment. This court suggested that the proper avenue for appellate review of the order would be for the Ryans to risk a contempt citation. Ryan v. C.I.R., 517 F.2d 13 (7th Cir. 1975).
In the meantime, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia obtained an order in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granting the Ryans use immunity in exchange for their testimony, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 and 6003. This order directed the Ryans "to give testimony or provide other information and to produce documents which they refuse to give or to provide on the basis of their privilege against self-incrimination as to all matters about which they may be interrogated before the United States Tax Court." App. 23a-24a. The Ryans appealed the order granting immunity to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the order granting immunity was not a final, appealable order. In re Ryan, 176 U.S. App. D.C. 87, 538 F.2d 435 (1976). That court also noted that the proper method to litigate the validity of the immunity order would be through contempt proceedings, which would be subject to appellate review.
On remand, the Ryans persisted in their refusal to answer the interrogatories, asserting for the first time that the marital privilege justified their refusal to answer the interrogatories. The Tax Court set a hearing on August 18, 1976 to rule on the Ryans' claim of marital privilege and to determine what, if any, sanctions should be imposed against the Ryans. On the day of the hearing, the Ryans filed an 87 page brief entitled "Request that No Sanctions be Imposed upon Them and for Other Relief." This brief resuscitated the Fourth Amendment claims previously asserted in their motion to suppress, which they had previously urged be deferred until trial. This time, however, the Ryans asserted that the alleged illegal government conduct justified not only the exclusion of the tainted evidence at trial, but also justified their refusal to answer interrogatories.
Following a hearing, the Tax Court entered an order holding the Ryans in contempt of court for their refusal to obey the earlier order that they answer the interrogatories. The Court imposed a fine upon Raymond Ryan. In its memorandum opinion, the Tax Court rejected the Ryans' Fifth Amendment claims because the Ryans had not established a reasonable apprehension that they would be prosecuted for any crime connected to the information sought in the interrogatories. Specifically, the Tax Court noted that the questions were innocuous, that no criminal prosecutions were then pending against the Ryans, and that the statute of limitations had run for any prosecutions for the years referred to in the interrogatories. Without passing on the validity of the immunity order, the Court said that the order supported its independent conclusion that the Ryans had nothing to fear from answering the interrogatories. Next, the Tax Court rejected the Ryans' claim of marital privilege because the privilege against adverse spousal testimony is only applicable in criminal proceedings. Finally, without ruling on the merits of the Ryans' claim of illegal governmental conduct, the Court held that these contentions, which were referred to as Fourth Amendment claims, were premature and should be raised in the Ryans' motion to suppress, scheduled for hearing at the time of trial. It is from the contempt order that the Ryans appeal.
After oral argument was held in this case, Raymond Ryan died and the Commissioner filed a suggestion of death of a party pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(a). At our request, the parties have filed memoranda which take the position that the action is not moot but continues in full force with respect to appellant Helen Ryan and to the Estate of Raymond Ryan, since the civil contempt sanctions remain effective against them. The Tax Court has entered an order substituting the Estate of Raymond Ryan for Raymond Ryan. We agree with the parties and hold that the controversy is not altogether moot. See Wetzel v. Ohio, 371 U.S. 62, 83 S. Ct. 111, 9 L. Ed. 2d 26 (1962) (Douglas, J., concurring). The Tax Court, however, also deemed it appropriate to impose a criminal sanction upon Raymond Ryan alone and fined him $1,000 as punishment for his wilful disobedience of its orders. It may be that Mr. Ryan's death moots the imposition of this particular sanction. Death of a criminal defendant while his appeal is pending moots the prosecution and requires the appellate court to dismiss the appeal, vacate the judgment, and remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss the indictment. United States v. Moehlenkamp, 557 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1977). Nevertheless, because in this case the appeal from the civil contempt sanction continues to present a viable controversy, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the criminal sanction should be vacated as moot and leave that issue to the Tax Court. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 23 L. Ed. 2d 491, 89 S. Ct. 1944 (1969).
I. Illegal Governmental Activity
The Ryans' first contention is that they should not be compelled to answer the interrogatories because the very questions put to them by the Commissioner are the product of illegal activities by federal agents. They assert that there were three patterns of illegal governmental activity. First, they claim that over the years, federal agents planted electronic devices in the Ryans' telephone and intercepted conversations, and the information gleaned therefrom is linked to the interrogatories. Second, they claim that IRS agents improperly obtained information from sitting grand juries and by issuing false grand jury subpoenas, and that they utilized this information in developing the interrogatories. Third, they assert that IRS agents and customs agents obtained information through illegal searches and seizures of the Ryans' papers in violation of the Ryans' Fourth Amendment rights.
As stated above, Judge Drennan did not rule on the merits of these contentions, but held that he would decide them immediately prior to trial in the context of the Ryans' motion to suppress. Although the parties have addressed such thorny questions as whether the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment is applicable to civil proceedings in the Tax Court, see Patrick v. United States, 524 F.2d 1109, 1115 n. 8 (7th Cir. 1975), we need not reach the merits of the claims of illegal governmental conduct if Judge Drennan's decision to defer ruling on these issues was correct. The question is one of timing.
Initially, it is clear that Judge Drennan had established an orderly method for disposing of the claim of illegal governmental conduct in a timely manner. At the hearing on the motion to suppress in 1972, he had narrowed and defined the issues to be tried at the evidentiary hearing. At the Ryans' request, the evidentiary hearing had been postponed until trial. When the Ryans interposed the grounds for suppression as an excuse for not answering interrogatories, they interfered with the orderly procedure established by the Tax Court. At no time did the Ryans request that the evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress be held before their answers to interrogatories were due.
The interruption would have been justified, however, if the Ryans were correct in their assertion that they need not answer interrogatories which are the product of illegally obtained information. But the Ryans' position fundamentally misconceives the role of discovery in a civil proceeding and we reject their argument.
The basic premise underlying the discovery procedures of the Tax Court Rules like those of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is that any matter which is relevant to the subject matter of a pending case is subject to discovery unless it is privileged. Tax Court Rule 70(b); compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). A party may not object to discovery on the grounds that the information sought would not be admissible at trial, if that information appears reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Tax Court Rule 70(b); compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Furthermore, the court may, in the interest of justice, enter a protective order to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense. Tax Court Rule 103; compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The Ryans' claims of illegal governmental conduct do not fall within either of the two recognized limitations to the scope of discovery recognized in the rules, privilege and irrelevancy. Consequently, under the rules, the Ryans may not rely on their claims of illegal governmental conduct as an excuse for not answering the interrogatories.
The Ryans nevertheless complain that the Commissioner may use the interrogatories to "launder" illegally obtained information. This contention confuses the scope of discoverable information with the scope of information admissible at trial, and is entirely without merit. Tax Court Rule 70(d) provides that no information obtained through discovery shall be considered as evidence until offered and received as evidence. The answers to interrogatories, therefore, cannot be used for or against the Ryans in the Tax Court action unless they are independently determined to be admissible. And that question will be determined at the hearing on the Ryans' motion to suppress. Moreover, at oral argument in this court, the Commissioner took the position that any information obtained through the interrogatories would be within the scope of the motion to suppress. Therefore, if the Tax Court later accepts the Ryans' theory that an exclusionary rule should be fashioned to bar information obtained through illegal governmental conduct, the interrogatories could not be used to transform inadmissible evidence into admissible evidence.*fn2
II. Fifth Amendment Privilege
Second, the Ryans contend that the Tax Court erred in rejecting their claim that there was a reasonable danger of self-incrimination. They assert that the Tax Court wrongfully placed the burden of proving the possibility of a future prosecution upon them. The established rule is that the privilege against self-incrimination extends only to instances where the witness has reasonable cause to fear danger from answering the question. Zicarelli v. New Jersey Investigation Comm'n, 406 U.S. 472, 478, 32 L. Ed. 2d 234, 92 S. Ct. 1670 (1972). The court, not the witness, must decide whether the witness's claim is justified and the court may order the witness to answer if it clearly appears that no danger of prosecution exists. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 95 L. Ed. 1118, 71 S. Ct. 814 (1951). The trial judge is in the best position to consider whether, in the particular factual circumstances, a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered could be harmful to the witness. Zicarelli, supra, 406 U.S. at 480-81. Of course, he must be sensitive to the fact that the witness frequently cannot prove that his claim is legitimate without surrendering it. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 11-12, 12 L. Ed. 2d 653, 84 S. Ct. 1489 (1964); Hoffman, supra, 341 U.S. at 486-88.
The Ryans assert that the Tax Court overlooked several significant factors in rejecting the privilege for the reason that the likelihood of further prosecutions was too remote. First, Raymond Ryan had already been prosecuted three times for non-tax offenses relating to foreign transactions. Second, although the six-year statute of limitations for criminal tax prosecutions had expired for the period from 1958 to 1965, there was a continuing possibility that Ryan might be prosecuted for other criminal acts. Finally, even if the information elicited in the interrogatories was not damning in itself, it could lead to other information which, in turn, could lead to indictments for crimes still within the statute of limitations. These possibilities of prosecution still appear to be remote. But even assuming arguendo that the Ryans' fear of prosecution was reasonable, we accept the Commissioner's contention that the grant of immunity by the District Court for the District of Columbia is valid and is co-extensive with the scope of the privilege. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 32 L. Ed. 2d 212, 92 S. Ct. 1653 (1972). The grant of immunity obviates any question that Judge Drennan improperly rejected the Ryans' claim of privilege.
Against this obvious conclusion, the Ryans have raised a series of substantive and procedural reasons why the grant of immunity is invalid. None of them has any merit. First, the Ryans contend that the immunity order denied them due process of law because they were neither notified of a hearing on the immunity request nor given an opportunity to be heard before the order was entered. The Ryans rely on cases holding that the due process clause requires some kind of notice and some kind of hearing before a person may be deprived of a governmentally created property or liberty interest. E.g., Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 32 L. Ed. 2d 556, 92 S. Ct. 1983 (1972); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 29 L. Ed. 2d 90, 91 S. Ct. 1586 (1971); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287, 90 S. Ct. 1011 (1970). These cases are inapposite. The procedural protections of the due process clause come into effect only if a person is threatened with deprivation of a property or a liberty interest. A grant of immunity does not infringe on any property or liberty interest of a witness. Rather, an immunity order is effectively an exchange of one safeguard for another. The witness relinquishes his privilege to remain silent and avoid incriminating himself and receives a promise from the government that the information he gives will not be used against him, directly or indirectly, in a subsequent criminal prosecution. As a matter of constitutional law, the witness suffers no detriment from an immunity order and therefore has no right to be heard.
Nor does the immunity statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 6001-03, require that the witness be notified of a prospective grant of immunity, suggesting that no notice is required. United States v. Leyva, 513 F.2d 774, 776 (5th Cir. 1975). The absence of a statutory requirement that the witness be notified is consistent with the limited role of the court in issuing a grant of immunity. As this court recently noted, In re Daley, 549 F.2d 469, 479 (7th Cir. 1977), the immunity statute delegates the authority to obtain an immunity grant solely to the executive branch of government. The United States Attorney determines whether a grant of immunity is in the public interest, and the district court may not review that judgment. The court may only scrutinize the record to ascertain that a request for immunity complies with the procedural and jurisdictional requirements of the statute. In these circumstances, there is little need for an adversary hearing before the court approves a request for immunity, because the court is exercising a ministerial function. While nothing in the statute bars the court or the United States Attorney from notifying the witness, see United States v. Taulbee, 476 F.2d 804, 805 (9th Cir. 1973), or hearing any objections, see In re Bonk, 527 F.2d 120, 123 (7th Cir. 1975), these procedures are not required by the constitution or by the immunity statute. Moreover, at the contempt hearing before the Tax Court, the Ryans had an opportunity to raise every objection they could have raised at an immunity hearing. In re Kilgo, 484 F.2d 1215, 1221 (4th Cir. 1973); United States v. Handler, 476 F.2d 709, 714 n.6 (2d Cir. 1973).
Next, the Ryans complain that the government's procedures in obtaining the immunity order were defective in three respects.*fn3 First, they complain that the record does not affirmatively show that the Acting United States Attorney, Earl Silbert, personally decided to request the immunity order. The motion presented to the district court was signed for Silbert by an Assistant United States Attorney, Lester Seidel. Second, the record contains no affidavits. Third, the United States Attorney requested the immunity order after, not before the Assistant Attorney General had given his approval. Not one of these objections invalidates the immunity order. As for the signature, the statute has no requirement that the United States Attorney, rather than one of his assistants, personally sign the petition, although the statute does require that the United States Attorney must make the request. Since the motion for a grant of immunity was brought in the name of the United States Attorney, and the motion was signed in his name, it was in substantial compliance with the statute. United States v. Silkman, 543 F.2d 1218, 1220 (8th Cir. 1976). There is no suggestion that Assistant United States Attorney Seidel was acting outside the scope of his duties.*fn4
The Ryans' second objection is that the record of the immunity hearing contains no affidavits of the United States Attorney or the Attorney General. The simple answer to this objection is that § 6003 does not require that a request for immunity be supported by affidavits or take any particular form. In re Santiago, 533 F.2d 727, 729 (1st Cir. 1976); United States v. Smith, 532 F.2d 158, 160 (10th Cir. 1976). The record here does contain letters demonstrating the approval of the Attorney General and the motion was signed in the name of the United States Attorney. That is sufficient.
Finally, the Ryans assert that according to the immunity statute, the United States Attorney must make the initial decision to seek an immunity order, and then must secure the approval of the Attorney General. The sequence of events was transposed in this case. First, Meade Whittaker, Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service, asked the Assistant Attorney General to authorize the United States Attorney to seek the grant of immunity. The Assistant Attorney General agreed and wrote a letter to Earl Silbert, United States Attorney, authorizing him to obtain the order. Nothing in this order of events violates § 6003. The essential fact is that the United States Attorney and the Attorney General, or Assistant Attorney General agree on the need for the order before the United States Attorney files the motion in court, and that is what occurred here. Di Bella, supra, at 1177.
Additionally, the Ryans claim that the record does not contain facts showing that the prosecutor had any basis for making the judgment that the grant of immunity would be in the public interest. Since that judgment is entirely a matter for the executive branch, unreviewable by a court, there is no need for the record to contain any facts supporting the decision of the United States Attorney. In re Daley, supra; In re Kilgo, supra, at 1219. The Ryans also claim that the immunity order was improper because it was too broad and did not specify what questions would be asked of the Ryans. The fact that the immunity order was broad does not invalidate it; the scope of the use immunity afforded the witness corresponds with the scope of the information obtained from the witness. The breadth of the immunity order does not affect principles of relevancy or other evidentiary rules that will limit the admissibility of evidence at trial. Moreover, § 6003 does not require that the immunity order specify precisely what questions will be put to the witness.
Finally, the Ryans claim that since a tax fraud penalty could be imposed on them, they are not adequately protected by the immunity grant. They contend that the Fifth Amendment's ban on self-incrimination would bar the imposition of a fraud penalty pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6653(b)*fn5 on the basis of their compelled testimony, but since the immunity order only shields against the use of their testimony in a criminal case, they have no guarantee under the order that their testimony will not be used against them to establish fraud. Ultimately, they assert, their testimony could be used to impose a penalty which, though civil in form, is criminal in nature. This position, which erroneously assumes that the privilege is broader than the immunity grant, is without merit.
The Fifth Amendment states that "no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." By its own terms, it applies only to criminal cases. It is true that in some instances, the civil-criminal distinction is hard to ascertain. The Supreme Court has held that the privilege against self-incrimination may be invoked in a forfeiture proceeding against property intended for use in violating the provisions of the internal revenue laws under 26 U.S.C. § 7302. United States v. United States Coin and Currency, 401 U.S. 715, 730, 91 S. Ct. 1041, 1049, 28 L. Ed. 2d 434, 444 (1971). This holding, however, is predicated on the fact that the forfeiture statute, though civil in form, is only intended to impose a penalty upon those who are significantly involved in a criminal enterprise. 401 U.S. at 723; Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 689, 40 L. Ed. 2d 452, 94 S. Ct. 2080 (1974). Therefore, the forfeiture penalty is closely related to a criminal sanction, and the privilege against self-incrimination is operative. The fraud penalty facing the Ryans, however, is a purely civil penalty. Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 401, 58 S. Ct. 630, 633-34, 82 L. Ed. 917, 921-23 (1938); Plunkett v. C.I.R., 465 F.2d 299, 303 (7th Cir. 1972). It is not limited to persons involved in criminal activity and there is no need to probe behind the civil form of the proceedings to discern its true nature. Consequently, we reject the Ryans' assertion that § 6003 may not be used to secure evidence in a tax fraud deficiency action.
III. Marital Privilege
The Ryans next claim that they need not answer the interrogatories due to the marital privilege against adverse spousal testimony. This privilege, where recognized, permits each spouse to preclude the adverse testimony of the other and sometimes also permits each spouse to decline to testify against the other. Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 3 L. Ed. 2d 125, 79 S. Ct. 136 (1958); 8 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 2227-2245 (McNaughton rev. 1961). The Tax Court held that the privilege against adverse spousal testimony was only available in criminal cases and therefore was not applicable in civil tax proceedings. The Court also noted that the privilege had been subject to policy criticisms and that proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 505 would have restricted the privilege to criminal cases. We agree that the privilege against adverse spousal testimony provides no screen to the Ryans, but in light of the arguments made on appeal, find it necessary to give our reasons in more detail.
As the Tax Court stated in its memorandum decision, the Internal Revenue Code provides that proceedings in the Tax Court shall be conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence applicable in trials without a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 28 U.S.C. § 453. Since July 1, 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence have been in effect in all United States District Courts. Rule 501 provides that the privileges of a witness shall be governed by principles of federal common law:
Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or provided by Act of Congress or in rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience. However, in civil actions and proceedings, with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be determined in accordance with State law.
In determining whether the privilege should be recognized in this case, several principles are useful in interpreting the common law "in light of reason and experience." First, the Supreme Court has recognized that privileges must be narrowly construed because they block the judicial fact-finding function. "Whatever their origins, these exceptions to the demand for every man's evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed for they are in derogation of the search for truth." United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1039, 94 S. Ct. 3090 (1974). Second, it is important to decide whether the privilege is applicable taking into account the particular factual circumstances of this case. The intention of Congress in enacting Rule 501 was that "recognition of a privilege based on a confidential relationship and other privileges should be determined on a case-by-case basis." 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, p. 7059. See United States v. Allery, 526 F.2d 1362, 1366 (8th Cir. 1975). In making the case-by-case determination, it is helpful to weigh the need for truth against the importance of the relationship or policy sought to be furthered by the privilege, and the likelihood that recognition of the privilege will in fact protect that relationship in the factual setting of the case. United States v. King, 73 F.R.D. 103, 105 (E.D.N.Y. 1976). This court has refused to extend the marital privilege against adverse spousal testimony when it was unlikely that it was necessary to further its underlying rationale. United States v. Doughty, 460 F.2d 1360 (7th Cir. 1972).
The essential reason for the privilege against adverse spousal testimony is to foster family peace and harmony, for the benefit of husband, wife, children, and the public. Hawkins, supra, 358 U.S. at 77. If the communication is personal in nature, the privacy interests of husband and wife are also at stake. United States v. Kahn, 471 F.2d 191, 194 (7th Cir. 1972), reversed on other grounds, 415 U.S. 143, 39 L. Ed. 2d 225, 94 S. Ct. 977 (1974). The Ryans, who were married for about 40 years, realistically do not contend that recognition of the marital privilege would have been necessary to protect their marriage. They do not allege that the denial of the privilege would have had any effect on their marriage at all. Since the interrogatories do not seek information relating to intimate marital communications, no privacy interest of the Ryans is threatened. The Ryans' policy argument is that the privilege is necessary to avoid a distaste or repugnance for forcing one spouse to condemn the other through testimony. Since that distaste stems from the fear that forcing husband to speak against wife, or wife against husband will be likely to destroy the marriage, it is of little force here. Against any repugnance is a much more weighty policy - that in favor of fair and full enforcement of federal tax laws. United States v. King, 73 F.R.D. 103, 106 (E.D.N.Y. 1976); cf. United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 447, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1046, 96 S. Ct. 3021 (1976); Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 27 L. Ed. 2d 580, 91 S. Ct. 534 (1971). The policy is particularly strong given the lumbering history of this case. The Ryans have resisted every attempt to wrest information about their income for the years in question, and have steadfastly refused to volunteer information. If some method to obtain the information other than through the interrogatories existed, it is likely that the Commissioner would have utilized it during the eight years that the action has been pending. Finally, we note that the actual harm which one Ryan's testimony would unleash upon the other is diminished by the grant of use immunity to both Ryans, precluding the use of the information in any subsequent criminal proceedings. United States v. Doe, 478 F.2d 194 (1st Cir. 1973).
As further support for overruling the Ryans' claim of marital privilege, the Commissioner argues that with rare exceptions, the privilege is only recognized in criminal cases. In Hawkins, supra, 358 U.S. at 77, the Court preserved the privilege in a trial "where life or liberty is at stake." In United States v. Van Drunen, 501 F.2d 1393, 1396 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1091, 95 S. Ct. 684, 42 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1974), this court held that the privilege should be limited to cases where a "spouse . . . observes evidence of the other spouse's crime." Moreover, Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 505, which was adopted by the Supreme Court but rejected by Congress, would have restricted the privilege to criminal cases. Proposed Rule 505 does provide some guidance in interpreting the scope of privileges under Rule 501. United States v. King, supra, at 105; 2 Weinstein's Evidence para. 501[01] at 501-20.5 (1977).*fn6
We acknowledge that an argument can be made that no policy supports the distinction between allowing the privilege against adverse spousal testimony in criminal cases but not in civil cases. As one commentator put it,
If it be said that there is a greater "repugnancy" in denying a man his life or liberty on the strength of his spouse's condemnation than is felt when only his property is at stake, it can also be argued that the least defensible and most "repugnant" aspect of the privilege is that which allows thieves and murderers to go free for such reasons of "sentiment." Reutlinger, Policy, Privacy and Prerogatives: An Initial Examination of the Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence as They Affect Marital Privilege, 61 Cal. L. Rev. 1353, 1384 (1973).
Indeed, the Advisory Committee's Note to Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 505 fails to explain why the criminal-civil distinction was suggested, other than commenting that some states have adopted the distinction. A partial explanation could be that the privilege has the greatest societal value in criminal cases because it encourages the preservation of a marriage that might assist the defendant spouse in his or her rehabilitation efforts. United States v. Van Drunen, supra, at 1396. This rationale would not be applicable in a civil case.
Nevertheless, it is not necessary to fully defend the civil-criminal distinction in order to reject the marital privilege in this case. The independent policy reasons lead us to conclude that it should not be recognized here. We adhere to this court's statement in the Van Drunen case that the privilege should be limited to instances in which it makes the most sense, where a spouse who is neither a victim nor a participant observes evidence of the other spouse's crime. 501 F.2d at 1397.
The Ryans assert that even if the marital privilege, as construed under the standard of reason and experience of Rule 501, is not applicable in this case, Rule 501 excepts Acts of Congress which provide otherwise. They contend that Congress has expressly preserved the marital privilege in civil cases in § 14-306(a) of the District of Columbia code. That section provides:
In civil and criminal proceedings, a husband or his wife is competent but not compellable to testify for or against the other.
Unlike other sections of Title 14 of the District of Columbia Code, Proof, § 14-306(a) does not expressly state that it is applicable to federal courts in the District of Columbia.*fn7 If Congress had intended the husband-wife privilege of § 14-306(a) to apply to the federal courts in the District of Columbia, it could have clearly so provided. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that when the intended scope of a section of Title 14 is not specified, the court would not extend the section to federal courts and imply a rule for the federal courts of the District of Columbia which is different than that in other federal courts. United States v. Hairston, 161 U.S. App. D.C. 466, 495 F.2d 1046 (1974). We conclude that § 14-306(a) of the District of Columbia Code is not an act of Congress providing otherwise within the meaning of Rule 501.
To summarize, we conclude that the Tax Court properly postponed its ruling on the Ryans' claim of illegal government surveillance because these claims would not excuse the Ryans from their duty to answer the interrogatories. The Tax Court properly rejected the Ryans' claim of the privilege against self-incrimination because the grant of use immunity removed the danger of self-incrimination. Finally, the Tax Court was correct in rejecting the privilege against adverse spousal testimony given the factual circumstances of this case.
No objection is made to the power of the Tax Court to impose contempt sanctions, or the choice of sanctions imposed. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed and the cause is remanded to the Tax Court for further proceedings.
Affirmed and Remanded.
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:
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Florida legislators are pushing ahead with a bill designed to make it clear people can show a gun, or even fire a warning shot, without drawing a lengthy prison sentence.
The legislation was partially inspired by the case of Marissa Alexander, a Jacksonville woman who was given a 20-year prison sentence after firing a gun near her estranged husband during an argument. Alexander's conviction was thrown out by an appeals court and she is scheduled to have a new trial this year.
A similar bill was proposed last year, but it went nowhere. But with increased attention to Alexander's case and Florida's gun laws, the measure is moving ahead. A Senate committee on Wednesday voted in favor of the bill (SB 488) while a House committee has also voted in favor of similar legislation (HB 89).
Both bills would grant the same protections already in place under Florida's "stand your ground" law to people who only threaten to use force. It would make sure that people who show a gun would be immune from Florida's "10-20-Life" law, which requires anyone who shows a gun while committing certain felonies to be sentenced to 10 years in prison. If someone is shot and wounded, the sentence increases to 25 years to life. The law, implemented in 1999, has been credited with helping to lower Florida's violent-crime rate.
Marion Hammer, who represents the National Rifle Association, told legislators that while the gun rights group supported the sentencing law, it is being used to prosecute people who are "exercising self-defense." She said the "10-20-Life" law was intended to stop sentence reductions and plea deals for "gun-wielding criminals."
Florida's prosecutors are not opposing the bill, but that did not prevent a testy exchange between State Attorney Bill Cervone and bill sponsor Sen. Greg Evers, R-Baker, over the legislation.
Cervone objected to anecdotes used during the committee hearing about prosecutors going after Floridians who brandished a gun. Cervone, who represents the judicial circuit that includes Gainesville, told legislators they were "only hearing from folks who are one side of this." He said if someone is in prison, it was after a jury and judge rejected the claim of "self-defense."
That drew a stern rebuke from Evers, who told Cervone that the bill "speaks loudly" and says "this Legislature will not put up with folks who are using their lawful right to display a gun or fire a warning shot." Evers then recounted a story about a 74-year-old retired man in the Panhandle who was given a sentence because he had a shotgun visible.
Cervone said a better approach may be to remove aggravated assault from the list of offenses that draws a mandatory minimum sentence.
Some Senate Democrats said they still have concerns about the legislation. Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, said he wants to make sure that legislators don't go too far and start "encouraging people" to show or shoot firearms. Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, said legislators should instead give more discretion to judges instead of changing the state's gun laws.
This Week's Celebrity Instagrams (11/26-12/2)
This Week's Celebrity Instagrams (11/26-12/2)
1. Little Legend and Puddy 😍😍😍😍Source:Instagram 1 of 30
2. "You on point Phife?" "all the time,Tip". 💥 #bannedfromnormalSource:Instagram 2 of 30
3. Vegan! The Impossible burger at CrossroadsSource:Instagram 3 of 30
4. Lawrence #BeforeandAfterEpisodes 1-4: 184lbs 13% body fatEpisode 8: 196lbs 8% body fat S/O @coachdaveboxing with the works outs and @kildareriordan with the nutritionSource:Instagram 4 of 30
5. Jus haaaanngin outSource:Instagram 5 of 30
6. Meanwhile back at home in Atlanta GA someone mad they not on the 🛳. 😳Source:Instagram 6 of 30
7. No limits... Photo cred: Chris Bridges @ludacrisSource:Instagram 7 of 30
8. new newSource:Instagram 8 of 30
9. Apparently my 260lbs is too much for the actual vines in the Hawaiian jungles to hold me without breaking and me falling hundreds of feet. So for safety purposes, I'm forced to swing thru #Jumanjj on wires strong enough to hold 12 adult buffaloes and 1 adult Rock. #OnSet #Jumanji #IronicallyIEatBuffaloDailyForLunch #MoreManThanNatureKnowsWhatToDoWithSource:Instagram 9 of 30
10. hey ma! 🎎#wcw 💙Source:Instagram 10 of 30
11. Surprise visit to our factories!!! #GoodAmerican #USASource:Instagram 11 of 30
12. 😍❤Source:Instagram 12 of 30
13. Peachy Keen 🔥✨⚡Source:Instagram 13 of 30
14. If this don't look thankful I don't know what does. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours. #UltraBlessed #24kMagic #SweetPotatoFlySource:Instagram 14 of 30
15. Late nights @nbcmarlon with the writers... we in here!!!Source:Instagram 15 of 30
16. There goes my baaaaaaaaabbbbyyyyy #QueenKingMagic!!! We're up to something! Ira BIG!!! Stay out our buisness -Source:Instagram 16 of 30
17. You want to win every game you play but when you come home to these faces... who cares. #ILoveYouGirls best part of my day, everyday!Source:Instagram 17 of 30
18. Steady,steady..... full size jenga.. "I got this one "???? Or do I ?Source:Instagram 18 of 30
19. Cornrows kind of day 😉@dontaysavoy2 you convinced me and I love. ❤Source:Instagram 19 of 30
20. #BrotherlyLove #tbtSource:Instagram 20 of 30
21. MoreSource:Instagram 21 of 30
22. #basel #TeamLOVE @kingcombsSource:Instagram 22 of 30
23. Just introduced a special screening of @directher 's groundbreaking (must see) documentary @13thfilm with my brother @themichaelealy | @unitedblackout #blackoutblackfridaySource:Instagram 23 of 30
24. Me & Vanessa Williams giving #DuckLips #Pose on the set of #DaytimeDivas @vh1 - Coming Soon to a tv near you. Lol. - My make up done by @makeupsurgeonSource:Instagram 24 of 30
25. This picture just makes me wanna praise the Lord, you hear me!!!!!! Yes Lord brotha #TEDDYCAMPBELL What a #man !!! You are everything right on this picture husband ......... #gorgeous #stylish #classy #strong #masculine #king #sexy #debonair #gentlemenstyle And that #bible in your hand just seals the deal for me (probably cause i know that, that is what helped you become just as amazing as you look😘). While my heart and mind experiences the goodness of God at #church on Sundays, my eyes experiences the goodness of Teddy😍. Amen somebody🙌🏽. "Bless the Lord oh my soul and all that is within me bless his holy name" #myman #myhusband #goodman #blackman #dapperman #godlyman #goodfather #mybestfriendSource:Instagram 25 of 30
26. Yesterday was my mama's 53rd birthday!!!!! Got to celebrate with her all day. If this is what I have to look forward to I can't wait. Looking like a soft bucket a cocoa butter. Yaaaaaaaaaas! 😍😍😍 love you mommy!Source:Instagram 26 of 30
27. "Shout out to @PureAtlanta for getting the family right"....I'm loving this jogger. 😍😍Source:Instagram 27 of 30
28. This pic warms my heart ❤ #myLogiebeans and aunt aunt umba @itowandabraxton 😘Source:Instagram 28 of 30
29. You will always be my baby😜. #HappyBirthdayReginae #mybaby18Source:Instagram 29 of 30
30. GC "Gods Child" Red on Red SweatSuit available now at www.MonicaApparel.com ... Take Your Crown wherever you go!! I'm pictured in a Medium... Go to the site now for other options ... cc: @trukernellSource:Instagram 30 of 30
One thought on "Lawmakers Push Bill To Legalize Warning Shots During Confrontations"
IT'S A NEW YEAR TIME FOR A NEW JOB!!! Start working from your home and make $90/h… Only basic computer skills needed and reliable internet connection… Get your first weekly check at the end of this week… Stop wasting time and start now….. open and click home tab>>

subset: commoncrawl


text:
"Why do we fall? So that we can learn to pick ourselves back up again", "The winter is coming!" – nothing speaks to my heart like these lines. Well, honestly there are too many to write down for my intro but I just thought I would give you an idea of who or rather what this blog is all about.
Hi there, my name is Peggy and I am the Diary Fairy. Welcome to my blog "Diary Star" and it's my virtual world where I aim at raving and ranting as much as possible without being held responsible for my thoughts (Apologies in advance if I sound too brash at times). Well, I presume most anonymous bloggers tend to come online just so they can live vicariously a life otherwise not possible. In real life, I'm an insurance sales agent working for One Sure Insurance, and I consider myself to be damn good at my job. I keep in touch with the many motor traders we have on board, and make sure that all of my clients are happy with the cover they are getting. One Sure is probably the largest motor trading insurance broker in the UK, so I'm glad to be here.
Okay, so you probably have guessed what gets my grey cells firing on all cylinders. The world of make belief, a life lived in front of the cameras and the fame it brings – that is my kryptonite. However, being the only employee/owner of the website, I decide what to write and what not to.
If you would like me to write on something, may be share your post or give you a shout out then do drop a mail or fill in the contact form.
Peggy xoxo


text:
How Would You Rate the Difficulty of Escaping From MCSO Custody, on a Scale of 1-10?
Keep this in mind: an overwhelming majority of Maricopa County Sheriff's Office inmates never escape from jail.
Also, keep this in mind: some guy dressed up milk cartons in his jail uniform, climbed through the ceiling, and apparently jumped over a fence in his underwear at 9 a.m. on Sunday.
See also:
-MCSO Inmate Escapes After Duping Guards by Putting Milk Cartons in Jail Uniform
-Joe Arpaio and MCSO Had Literally Nothing to Do With Arrest of Escaped Jail Inmate
-Rocky Marquez Walked Out of an MCSO Jail Yesterday
Adan Orduno was caught about nine hours after his escape from the psychiatric unit, when he apparently thought he'd be meeting up with his ex-fiance, and instead met with an undercover MCSO detective.
Upcoming Events
Arizona Coyotes vs. Nashville Predators
TicketsSat., Dec. 10, 6:00pm
Phoenix Suns vs. New Orleans Pelicans
TicketsSun., Dec. 11, 6:30pm
Phoenix Suns vs. New York Knicks
TicketsTue., Dec. 13, 7:00pm
Phoenix Suns vs. San Antonio Spurs
TicketsThu., Dec. 15, 7:00pm
Other sophisticated escape plans, in just the last year, include getting pushed out of jail in a laundry cart, and just walking out of jail after swapping wristbands and pretending to be someone else.
Based on these elaborate schemes, how would you rate the perceived difficulty of escaping from an MCSO jail on a scale of 1-10, with "10" being the most difficult?
Cast your vote below:
Get the ICYMI: Today's Top Stories Newsletter
Catch up on the day's news and stay informed with our daily digest of the most popular news, music, food and arts stories in Phoenix, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.
In Case You Missed It
Upcoming Events
Arizona Coyotes vs. Columbus Blue Jackets
TicketsSat., Dec. 3, 6:00pm
Arizona Cardinals Game Zone - 12/4 - NOT A GAME TICKET
TicketsSun., Dec. 4, 11:10am
Phoenix Suns vs. Indiana Pacers
TicketsWed., Dec. 7, 7:00pm
Arizona Coyotes vs. Calgary Flames
TicketsThu., Dec. 8, 7:00pm
Sponsor Content


text:
An animatronic busty dancer lasciviously moves and converses with the public, speaking with a men's voice and hyper sexual tones. The life like robot imagined and produced by Jordan Wolfson, dressed up with a leather dress and white thigh-high vinyl boots, sassily swivels her hips and watches her spectator through her dirty greenish mask. The dirt reveals the past of the robot; she has escaped from something but isn't hurt; she's here with us and she's ready to put up her show. Like a real spectacle, the public is only allowed for a couple of minutes with the dancer. A closed set, a twosome controled by an assertive and repetitive speech and a powerful vision.
Jordan Wolfson is interested in the strange. Therefore he is not focused on the meaning of his art. He is aware of the influence of You Tube and other social media platforms within its generation but he is fascinated by the power of images, the way they are thrown at us and the way we accept it, with or without consequences. The artist works in a non associative way, giving us a non judgmental rendering of his vision. Like his life in Los Angeles where he now resides, his pieces are intuitive and fictional. His concept and art statement has lead the public and the art world to label him as a provocative contemporary artist.
"I'm not telling anyone what to think. I don't have that responsibility. I'm expressing myself. It's as simple as that." He uses art as a safe place where he can express, without fear, his traumas and anger.
Jordan Wolfson art work is exhibited as part of a group show at the Whitney Museum in New York until September 2015, and at the Serpentine Gallery in London this fall 2015


text: I think it is an interesting topic. I would want each one to say and then motivate why they made the decision. I will start!!! Hard to say... iPod touch 3G because it is an "familiar territory", if you know what I mean, and the camera and mic will make an good addition to the features list! Also an upgrades to the processor, RAM and graphics are imminent and this will make it an good gaming device. The Zii EGG is interesting in specs but the lack of apps, tweaks and top quality games makes me chose the iPod. The Zune... we still have to see. It has an interesting UI but nothing more. It is more of an concept but, for sure, I didn't hear the last from the Zune HD... In my opinion the Zii is better in features than the iPod or Zune but the iPod makes up with all the Tweaks that you can get from the Internet that makes it an incredible device! Winner: iPod touch 3G


text:
Exclusive: Rory Markham Talks Dan Hardy, UFC 95
(Skip to the 1:27 mark, where the ass-kicking begins. And don't try to act like you aren't digging the music, [...]Read More
(Skip to the 1:27 mark, where the ass-kicking begins. And don't try to act like you aren't digging the music, [...]Read More
(It's lonely at the top. It's probably lonely wherever Jon Koppenhaver is, too. Photo courtesy of MMA Splatter.)Major [...]Read More
(When in doubt, knock him out: Fedor Emelianenko proved his status as the best in the world with his Read More
(Fine, I'll say it. We missed you, Jason.) When MMA iconoclast/showboat Jason "Mayhem" Miller announced he was [...]Read More
(Kimo is upset about your 2.7 GPA, but only because he knows you could do better if you would just [...]Read More
(Quit it, Fredson — Mario is in no mood.)Contradicting an earlier report that said top WEC featherweights Wagnney [...]Read More
(Props: MMA Mania) The UFC has released the official fight order for UFC 96 (March 7th; Columbus, OH). [...]Read More
(Upon entering, the town extends its middle finger to you, gentle traveler.)As loyal reader Walter informed us, Stockton, [...]Read More
("He was better than me that night," says Kos about his loss to GSP.)Josh Koscheck knows he's not your [...]Read More
(Props: Japan-MMA.com) With DREAM's next set of tournaments just around the corner — [...]Read More
(Photo courtesy of MMA Junkie.) Shortly after Karo Parisyan's unfortunate post-UFC 94 drug test results [...]Read More
(Go 'head and tell Matt Hughes he don't know the difference between sweat and grease. Wish a motherf*cker would.)As sick [...]Read More
(Yeah, it's a nice shirt, but you know what? I'm just going to wait until it's selling for three dollars [...]Read More
(We could have used some painkillers during this fight too, now that you mention it. Photo courtesy of Read More
(There's gotta be an easier way to earn five grand. Photo courtesy of UFC.com.) $424,000 in [...]Read More
(While he's fairly confident you all know who's #1, Frank Shamrock still doesn't like to chance it.)Five Ounces [...]Read More
(Will brawl for food.)Now that Strikeforce is getting its Pro Elite ducks in a row, we're all wondering what, if [...]Read More
(Fuck a body-cavity search. Props to TMZ.) More details about War "Jon Koppenhaver" Machine's weekend arrest, [...]Read More
("No Love" has "No Job." Photo courtesy of UFC.com.)Now that the country is losing jobs at a rate [...]Read More
In this video from "Inside MMA," Lyoto Machida does his best to explain how [...]Read More
(Shit's about to get real, son. Real bad.)Five Ounces of Pain is passing along a report that everyone's [...]Read More
(Fabiano complicates Tamura's life at WEC 37. Photo courtesy of WEC.tv.)According to a new article on [...]Read More
(Props: MMA Mania)Maybe the epic visual presentation for St. Pierre vs. Penn 2 has spoiled us, but we're [...]Read More
(More headkicking in store for Shamrock in '09?)Ever since Strikeforce purchased "select assets" from Pro Elite we've been [...]Read More
(Georges St. Pierre and Firas "Take About 20 or 30 Minutes and Go Fuck Yourself" Zahabi drill some standup at Tri-Star. [...]Read More
(Seth Petruzelli: Not exactly a crowd favorite.) Former greatest pound-for-pound boxer in the world Roy Jones Jr. is testing [...]Read More
Props to MMA Scraps and MMA Linker… (Lauzon/Stephens) (Neer/Danzig)Read More
(Josh, this isn't really the best time to tell your fishing stories. Photo courtesy of UFC.com) Last night's [...]Read More
(Photo courtesy of Combat Lifestyle.)We're closing in on the start time for UFC Fight Night 17, an event [...]Read More
(Ah, the good old days…)New rules regarding cornermen and the application of Vaseline will be on display at tonight's UFC [...]Read More


text:
See Details on eBay
Seller: rcn1984 (2,723) 100%,
Location: Asbury Park, New Jersey,
Ships to: US & many other countries,
Item: 252659918701
Untested,looks unused in VG condition,box is falling apart.
See More
How can we make PicClick Insights better for you? Email us feedback!
8 Views, N/A Watching, Good amount of views. 0 sold, 1 available.
Great seller with very good positive feedback and over 50 ratings.


text:
|Publication number
|Publication type
|Application number
|Publication date
|Nov 1, 1988
|Filing date
|Nov 27, 1985
|Priority date
|Nov 25, 1985
|Fee status
|Also published as
|Publication number
|Dany Sylvain, Douglas J. Millar, Gilles Dupuis
|Original Assignee
|Northern Telecom Limited
|Export Citation
|BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
|Patent Citations (16), Non-Patent Citations (4), Referenced by (34), Classifications (14), Legal Events (7)
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
This invention relates to echo cancellation, and is particularly concerned with the operation of echo cancellers in repeaters in 2-wire bidirectional transmission paths.
It is well known to use echo cancellation techniques to reduce echoes typically arising from hybrid junctions between 2-wire and 4-wire transmission paths. For example, Kelly, Jr. et al. U.S. Pat. No. 3,500,000 entitled "Self-Adaptive Echo Canceler" illustrates echo cancellers, each comprising a transversal filter and a subtracting circuit, provided at opposite ends of a 4-wire transmission path adjacent to respective hybrid junctions to 2-wire transmission paths.
In order to provide for amplification and equalization of signals, such as voice frequency signals, transmitted in both directions via a 2-wire transmission path, it is known to provide a repeater including equalizing amplifiers for signals in the two transmission directions. As the amplifiers operate as 4-wire devices, i.e. separately for the two transmission directions, such a repeater also includes hybrid circuits for converting between the 2-wire and 4-wire paths, and echo cancellers for cancelling the local echoes produced by these hybrid circuits. Thus such a repeater has the general configuration of a 4-wire transmission network as illustrated in the above-mentioned patent, except that the long-distance, and consequently attenuating, 4-wire path of such network is replaced by local connections via amplifiers providing gain.
The presence of amplifiers providing gain in the signal paths between two echo cancellers in such a repeater gives rise to stability problems in certain operating conditions in the presence of simplex (one-way only) and full duplex (simultaneous both-way) signals. In particular, such problems arise from a divergence of the coefficients of the transversal filters, away from their optimum values, under the influence of residual echo signal components.
An object of this invention, therefore, is to provide improved repeater apparatus and improved methods of operation of such apparatus.
According to one aspect this invention provides apparatus comprising: hybrid circuit means for coupling a two-wire transmission path to four-wire transmit and receive paths; echo cancelling means in the four-wire transmit path for cancelling echoes on the transmit path of signals on the receive path; amplifying means for amplifying signals on the transmit path; and control means responsive to the power ratio between signals on the transmit path before and after the echo cancelling means for controlling the gain of the amplifying means.
According to another aspect of this invention there is provided a repeater for a 2-wire bidirectional transmission line, the repeater comprising: two unidirectional transmission paths, one for each transmission direction, each comprising echo cancelling means and amplifying means; two hybrid circuits for coupling the unidirectional transmission paths in the 2-wire transmission line; and control means responsive to the power ratio between signals on each unidirectional transmission path before and after the echo cancelling means for controlling the gain of each amplifying means.
In an embodiment of the invention the control means is responsive to the ratio of the power of signals on either one of the unidirectional transmission paths before the echo cancelling means to the power of signals on the same unidirectional transmission path after the echo cancelling means exceeding a given value to reduce the gain of the amplifying means in that unidirectional transmission path and, where each echo cancelling means comprises a transversal filter having self-adaptive filter coefficients, to prevent adaptation of the filter coefficients of the transversal filter of the echo cancelling means of the other unidirectional transmission path.
Preferably the control means is also responsive to the ratio of the power of signals on each unidirectional transmission path before the echo cancelling means to the power of signals on the same unidirectional transmission path after the echo cancelling means both falling below a given value to increase the gain of both amplifying means for a predetermined period, and for allowing adaptation of the filter coefficients of both transversal filters during the predetermined period during which the gain of both amplifying means is increased, and for preventing adaptation of the filters coefficients of both transversal filters and decreasing the gain of both amplifying as the end of the predetermined period.
The invention will be further understood from the following description with reference to the acompanying drawings, in which:
FIG. 1 schematically illustrates in block diagrammatic form parts of a repeater which operates in accordance with this invention; and
FIGS. 2 and 3 are state diagrams illustrating operating states of the repeater of FIG. 1.
Referring to FIG. 1, parts of a 2-wire repeater for voice frequency signals are shown coupled between 2-wire bidirectional transmission lines 10 and 12. For convenience of explanation herein, signals transmitted from the line 10 to the line 12, i.e. from left to right as illustrated in FIG. 1, are referred to as signals of a left channel, and signals transmitted in the opposite direction from right to left as illustrated are referred to as signals of a right channel.
For the left channel, signals from the line 10 are supplied via a hybrid circuit 14 and a coder 16, and via a summer 18 of a left echo canceller which also comprises a left transversal filter 20, to an equalizing amplifier 22 which has a gain Gl (at a given frequency of for example 1 kHz). Equalized and amplified left channel signals from the output of the amplifier 22 are supplied via a decoder 24 and a hybrid circuit 26 to the line 12. The coder 16 and decoder 24, commonly referred to together as a codec, serve in known manner to convert the left channel signals between a digital form for handling within the repeater and an analog form for transmission on the lines 10 and 12.
Conversely, signals for the right channel are supplied from the line 12 via the hybrid circuit 26, a coder 28, a summer 30 which forms with a right transversal filter 32 a right echo canceller, an equalizing amplifier 34 having a gain Gr, a decoder 36, and the hybrid circuit 14 to the line 10.
The left echo canceller serves to cancel echoes of the right channel signals which pass to the left channel via the hybrid circuit 14. To this end, the right channel signal is filtered by the left transversal filter 20 the output of which is supplied to a subtracting (-) input of the summer 18, coefficients of the left transversal filter 20 self-adapting in known manner in dependence upon the left channel signal at the output of the summer 18, supplied to the filter 20 via a line 38. Similarly, echoes of the left channel signal are cancelled by the right echo canceller, adaptation of the coefficients of the right transversal filter 32 being dependent upon the right channel signal at the output of the summer 30 and supplied to the filter 32 via a line 40.
In addition to the known arrangement of components as described above, the repeater includes a control circuit 42 and detectors 44, 46, 48, and 50. The detectors 44 to 50 serve to monitor the signal power of respectively the left channel before and after the summer 18 and the right channel before and after the summer 30, these signal powers being referred to as Tl, Tl', Tr, and Tr' respectively. The control circuit 42 is responsive to the outputs of the detectors 44 to 50 in the manner described in detail below, and serves to control the gains of the amplifiers 22 and 34 and to inhibit or allow adaptation of the coefficients in the transversal filters 20 and 32. Inhibition of the adaptation of the coefficients corresponds to a freezing or holding of the coefficients at their current values, and can be considered to be equivalent to opening the line 38 or 40 to remove the control signal for adaptation in the respective transversal filter.
The above description with respect to FIG. 1 relates to a repeater in accordance with the invention in the form of discrete components, this being preferred for a clear explanation of the invention. In a preferred implementation of this embodiment of the invention, however, all of the components shown within a broken line enclosure 52 in FIG. 1 are constituted by a single mask programmed digital signal processing integrated circuit device (dsp i.c.), for example the Texas Instruments dsp i.c. known by the designation TMS320.
In a known form of repeater, not including the elements 42 to 50 as illustrated in FIG. 1, a problem arises in the case of full duplex signals, for example data signals, which are simultaneously transmitted in the two directions of transmission. In known repeaters a full duplex situation is detected using a double-talk detector, and the adaptation of the transversal filter coefficients is prevented while the double-talk condition is present. A double-talk decision is conventionally reached when for example the signal power Tl at the output of the coder 16 is greater than the signal power Rr at the input of the decoder 36 minus a predetermined level Z; this fails to produce a double-talk decision in the event that Tl<Rr-Z (where the values are expressed in decibels), which is a condition which is quite likely to occur in repeaters where gain is provided by the amplifiers 22 and 34. In addition, it has been found that in practice merely preventing adaptation of the filter coefficients in response to a double-talk condition is not sufficient to ensure reliable data transmission in the presence of gain provided by the amplifiers 22 and 34.
The known form of repeater also exhibits a disadvantage in the case of simplex, or one-way, transmission. For example if a signal is present on the right channel but not on the left channel, then an echo of the right channel signal is present on the left channel and is largely removed by the left echo canceller. However, a residual echo remains at the output of the summer 18. In the prior art this residual echo has been removed by a center clipper (not shown), but this has the disadvantage of introducing a switching effect and removing the desirable subjective feeling of presence over the left channel, this being particularly noticeable due to the gain provided by the amplifier 22. If no center clipping is used, the residual echo is amplified by the amplifier 22 and has an adverse effect on the coefficients in the right transversal filter 32, consequently adversely affecting the transmission path of the right channel signal.
These disadvantages are substantially eliminated by the operation of the repeater illustrated in FIG. 1 with the elements 42 to 50 in the manner described below with reference to the state diagrams in FIGS. 2 and 3, which relate to full duplex and simplex situations respectively.
In each of these situations, for each channel, a measure of the enhancement of echo return loss due to the respective echo canceller is used as a factor in determining the operating state of the repeater. This echo return loss enhancement, or ERLE, for each channel is the ratio of the signal power Tl or Tr, detected by the detector 44 or 48 respectively for the channel before the respective summer 18 or 30, to the signal power Tl' or Tr' detected by the detector 46 or 50 respectively for the channel at the output of the respective summer 18 or 30. In other words, the ERLE is the ratio Tl/Tl' for the left channel and Tr/Tr' for the right channel. If these signal powers are expressed conventionally in decibels as power ratios, then the ERLE is the difference in decibels between the respective power ratios.
The advantage of using the ERLE as a factor in determining the operating state of the repeater is that it facilitates providing a clear distinction of full duplex and simplex situations, even in the presence of gain provided by the amplifiers 22 and 34. For example, in the simplex situation with a right channel relative signal level of 0 dB at the output of the amplifier 34 and no left channel signal, the echo of the right channel signal appearing on the left channel at the output of the coder 16 may be at -3 dB and the left echo canceller may reduce this to -30 dB at the output of the summer 18. This gives an ERLE of (-3--30=) 27 dB, this value being typical of a simplex situation. If a full duplex situation exists, with the same right channel signal level and a left channel signal at a relative level of 0 dB, then the detectors 44 and 46 will both detect power levels of about 0 dB giving an ERLE of 0 dB, this low value being typical of a full duplex situation. If the left channel signal is at a much lower relative power level, for example -12 dB, then the detector 44 detects a level of about -3 dB due to the echo and the detector 46 detects a level of about -12 dB due to the left channel signal, giving an ERLE of (-3--12=) 9 dB, which is still sufficiently small (and clearly distinguishable from the 27 dB figure for the simplex case) to indicate a full duplex situation, even though the left channel signal level is much less than the level of the echo from the right channel.
Referring now to FIG. 2, three states of the control circuit 42, and hence of the repeater as a whole, are illustrated and are referenced 60, 62, and 64. The state 60 is a normal operating state which prevails for example in the absence of signals in both directions of transmission, in which the tranversal filter coefficients adapt themselves in conventional or normal manner and in which the amplifiers 22 and 34 have predetermined normal gains Gl and Gr respectively. The states 62 and 64 relate to full duplex situations as discussed below.
Between the individual states 60, 62, and 64 FIG. 2 illustrates conditions which, if and when satisfied, cause transitions between the states as shown by arrows in FIG. 2. Thus a transition from the state 60 to the state 62 occurs if, for a predetermined period of one second provided to distinguish a full duplex situation (typically data transmission lasting for an extended period of time) from a double-talk situation (typically lasting for a very brief period), the signal power levels Tl and Tr detected by the detectors 44 and 48 are both greater than a threshold level T and the ERLE for the left and right channels are both less than a given ratio X.
The threshold level T is selected to be a low level suitable for distinguishing between signals and noise, and is for example about -40 dBm. The ratio X is selected for convenience for distinguishing between simplex and duplex situations, and may vary in a predetermined manner for each channel in dependence upon the signal power level Tl or Tr which is present on the respective channel. In an embodiment of the invention, for each channel the ratio X is selected to be 12 dB for an input signal power level on the channel of less than -20 dBm and is selected to be 17 dB for an input signal power level on the channel of greater than -20 dBm.
From the above description it should be appreciated that the control circuit 42 responds to the signal power levels detected by the detectors 44 to 50 to reach the state 62 in a full duplex situation. In order to provide for long term stability of operation of the repeater in this situation, this state 62 is adapted for only a short predetermined period of, for example, 200 ms, whereupon the control circuit 42 adopts the state 64 for the remainder of the duration of the full duplex situation. As illustrated in FIG. 2, for the 200 ms period that the control circuit 42 has the state 62, it controls each of the amplifiers 22 and 34 to have a gain which is 4 dB above the normal gain of the respective amplifier, and allows continued adaptation of the coefficients of both of the transversal filters 20 and 32. On entering the state 64, the control circuit 42 controls the amplifiers 22 and 34 to resume their normal gains, (i.e. it decreases the gains of the amplifiers by the same amount of 4 dB) and freezes the coefficients of both transversal filters by preventing continued adaptation.
The result of the above control sequence is that, during the 200 ms period that the state 62 is occupied, the coefficients of the transversal filters are adapted to stablize the repeater circuit (in particular the closed loop via the amplifier 22, filter 32, summer 30, amplifier 34, filter 20, and summer 18) at the increased gain of the amplifiers. On entering the state 64, the coefficients are frozen and the gain of each amplifier is reduced to provide a singing (or oscillation) margin of 4 dB. This margin is sufficient to ensure long term stability of the repeater.
As also illustrated in FIG. 2, the state 64 is maintained until both of the signal power levels Tl and Tr fall below the threshold level T, indicating that the full duplex situation has ended. In this case the normal state 60 is resumed.
Referring now to FIG. 3, the normal state 60 of the control circuit 42 is shown with two states 66 and 68 which correspond to simplex transmission states for signals on respectively the right and left channels only. As the state 68, and the transitions between this state and the normal state 60, are the converse to those for the state 66, merely relating to transmission in the opposite direction, a detailed description of these is not necessary.
As illustrated in FIG. 3, a simplex state of a signal on only the right channel causes a transition from the normal state 60 to the state 66 by detection of signal powers Tl (this being an echo) and Tr by the detectors 44 and 48 which are greater than the threshold level T, by the detection of an ERLE for the left channel which is greater than the ratio X, and by the detection of an ERLE for the right channel which is less than or equal to the ratio X, the threshold level T and the ratio X having the same values as discussed above. In the state 66, the control circuit 42 prevents continued adaptation of the transversal filter 32, thereby freezing its coefficients so that they do not diverge from their current values, and reduces the gain of the amplifier 22 by 3 dB in order to reduce the level of the residual echo signal on the left channel. This gain reduction and the freezing of the coefficients obviate the need for center clipping as in the prior art.
As also illustrated in FIG. 3, the normal state 60 is resumed from the state 66, the gain of the amplifier 22 being returned to normal and adaptation of the filter 32 being resumed, in response to either the ERLE of the left channel falling below the ratio X or both of the signal power levels Tl and Tr falling below the threshold level T.
Whilst a particular embodiment of the invention has been described in detail, it should be appreciated that numerous modifications, variations, and adaptations may be made thereto without departing from the scope of the invention as defined in the claims. In particular, it is observed that the invention is not limited to the particular signal power levels, gain changes, and time periods discussed above.
|Cited Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|Oct 31, 1966
|Mar 10, 1970
|Bell Telephone Labor Inc
|Closed loop adaptive echo canceller using generalized filter networks
|Oct 31, 1966
|Mar 10, 1970
|Bell Telephone Labor Inc
|Self-adaptive echo canceller
|Aug 16, 1976
|Feb 14, 1978
|Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated
|Bidirectional voice frequency repeater
|Jun 4, 1979
|Aug 4, 1981
|Tellabs, Inc.
|Residual echo suppressor for echo canceller
|Sep 5, 1979
|Nov 23, 1982
|Communications Satellite Corporation
|Double talk detector for echo cancellers
|Mar 5, 1981
|Jan 17, 1984
|Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated
|Partial band - whole band energy discriminator
|Mar 5, 1981
|Jan 1, 1985
|At&T Bell Laboratories
|Adaptive filter including a far end energy discriminator
|Jan 27, 1983
|Oct 8, 1985
|At&T Bell Laboratories
|Echo suppressor for improving echo canceler performance
|Oct 13, 1983
|Mar 18, 1986
|British Telecommunications
|Echo canceller with adaptive residual center clipper controlled by echo estimate
|Sep 7, 1984
|Apr 22, 1986
|At&T Bell Laboratories
|Bidirectional adaptive voice frequency repeater
|Sep 21, 1984
|Aug 19, 1986
|Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
|Circuit arrangement for controlling the transmission capacity of the receiving branch of a transmission system
|May 21, 1984
|Sep 2, 1986
|Communications Satellite Corporation
|Echo canceller with extended frequency range
|Dec 27, 1982
|Dec 9, 1986
|International Business Machines Corporation
|Canceller trained echo suppressor
|Title not available
|Title not available
|Title not available
|"Echo Canceller Utilizing Pseudo-Logarithmic Coding", O. Horna, Conference NTC '77 Conference Record, CA., U.S.A., Dec. 5-7, 1977, pp. 7-1 to 7-8.
|Echo Canceller Utilizing Pseudo Logarithmic Coding , O. Horna, Conference NTC 77 Conference Record, CA., U.S.A., Dec. 5 7, 1977, pp. 7 1 to 7 8.
|Translation of Japanese publication 57 42242, Mar. 9, 1982, translation made Sep. 1987.
|Translation of Japanese publication 57-42242, Mar. 9, 1982, translation made Sep. 1987.
|Citing Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|Jun 9, 1988
|Apr 17, 1990
|Tellabs Incorporated
|Double talk detector for echo canceller and method
|Oct 10, 1991
|Sep 14, 1993
|Cermetek Microelectronics, Inc.
|Solid state isolation device using opto-isolators
|Sep 25, 1992
|Apr 26, 1994
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Network echo canceller
|Aug 20, 1990
|Aug 30, 1994
|French State, represented by the Minister of the Post, Telecommunications and Space, (Centre National d'Etudes des Telecommunications)
|Device for processing echo, particularly acoustic echo in a telephone line
|May 14, 1993
|Oct 4, 1994
|Jrc International, Inc.
|Double echo cancelling system
|Sep 11, 1992
|Nov 15, 1994
|Polycom, Inc.
|Method for fail-safe operation in a speaker phone system
|Jul 7, 1994
|Jun 27, 1995
|Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson
|Apparatus and method for reducing the risk of undesirable parameter drift of an adaptive filter used for echo cancellation
|Feb 14, 1994
|Mar 19, 1996
|Brooktree Corporation
|Echo canceller
|Jul 13, 1994
|Jul 9, 1996
|Wacoal Corp.
|Lumbar support garments
|Feb 28, 1994
|Sep 24, 1996
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Network echo canceller
|Feb 9, 1995
|Jan 28, 1997
|Lucent Technologies Inc.
|Method and apparatus for echo removal in a communication system
|Mar 21, 1996
|Feb 11, 1997
|Paradyne Corporation
|Adaptive transmit levels for modems operating over cellular
|Feb 23, 1996
|Jul 8, 1997
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Noise replacement system and method in an echo canceller
|Apr 29, 1994
|Sep 16, 1997
|Motorola, Inc.
|Audio signal processor and method therefor for substantially reducing audio feedback in a cummunication unit
|Sep 26, 1995
|Oct 7, 1997
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Method and apparatus for canceling echo accounting for delay variations
|Feb 23, 1996
|Nov 11, 1997
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Method for controlling echo canceling in an echo canceller
|May 21, 1996
|Aug 4, 1998
|Qualcom Incorporated
|Method and apparatus for echo canceling accounting for companding induced quantization error
|Jul 24, 1996
|Aug 18, 1998
|Ericsson Inc.
|Echo canceller for non-linear circuits
|Jan 27, 2000
|Aug 12, 2003
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|System and method for implementation of an echo canceller
|Aug 31, 1999
|Dec 16, 2003
|Nortel Networks Limited
|Method and apparatus for performing echo cancellation
|Feb 23, 2006
|Nov 11, 2008
|Tellabs Operations, Inc.
|Echo canceller employing dual-H architecture having improved non-linear echo path detection
|Nov 27, 2001
|Jun 27, 2002
|Ishai Schwarzband
|Bidirectional signal repeater
|Dec 8, 2003
|Jun 9, 2005
|Pessoa Lucio F.C.
|Method and apparatus for dynamically inserting gain in an adaptive filter system
|Feb 23, 2006
|Jun 29, 2006
|Laberteaux Kenneth P
|Echo canceller employing dual-H architecture having improved non-linear echo path detection
|Dec 18, 2006
|Jul 26, 2007
|Bernard Widrow
|Simultaneous two-way transmission of information signals in the same frequency band
|Sep 21, 1992
|Apr 28, 1993
|Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
|Method and arrangement for echo cancelling
|Nov 5, 2004
|Aug 30, 2006
|Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for dynamically inserting gain in an adaptive filter system
|Apr 17, 1992
|Oct 29, 1992
|France Telecom
|Device for treating the residual echo of a cancellor which cancels the echo signal of a digital speech signal
|Sep 28, 1992
|Apr 15, 1993
|Cermetek Microelectronics, Inc.
|Solid state isolation device using opto-isolators
|Sep 24, 1993
|Apr 14, 1994
|Qualcomm Incorporated
|Network echo canceller
|Dec 18, 2001
|Jun 27, 2002
|Telrad Networks Ltd.
|Bidirectional signal repeater
|Dec 18, 2001
|Sep 12, 2002
|Telrad Networks Ltd
|Bidirectional signal repeater
|Nov 11, 2002
|May 22, 2003
|Mikom Gmbh
|Digital repeater having bandpass filtering, adaptive pre-equalization and suppression of natural oscillation
|Nov 11, 2002
|Dec 18, 2003
|Mikom Gmbh
|Digital repeater having bandpass filtering, adaptive pre-equalization and suppression of natural oscillation
|U.S. Classification
|379/406.08, 379/345, 370/291
|International Classification
|Cooperative Classification
|European Classification
|May 28, 1986
Owner name: NORTHERN TELECOM LIMITED, P.O. BOX 6123, STATION A
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST.;ASSIGNOR:DUPUIS, GILLES;REEL/FRAME:004611/0048
Effective date: 19860707
|Sep 2, 1986
Owner name: BELL-NORTHERN RESEARCH LTD., P.O. BOX 3511, STATIO
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST.;ASSIGNORS:SYLVAIN, DANY;MILLAR, DOUGLAS J.;REEL/FRAME:004611/0103;SIGNING DATES FROM 19851218 TO 19851220
Owner name: NORTHERN TELECOM LIMITED, P.O. BOX 6123, STATION A
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST.;ASSIGNOR:BELL-NORTHERN RESEARCH LTD.;REEL/FRAME:004611/0104
Effective date: 19851220
|Dec 6, 1991
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 4
|Nov 17, 1995
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 8
|Dec 16, 1999
|Fee payment
Year of fee payment: 12
|Dec 23, 1999
Owner name: NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION, CANADA
Free format text: CHANGE OF NAME;ASSIGNOR:NORTHERN TELECOM LIMITED;REEL/FRAME:010567/0001
Effective date: 19990429
|Aug 30, 2000
Owner name: NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED, CANADA
Free format text: CHANGE OF NAME;ASSIGNOR:NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:011195/0706
Effective date: 20000830
Owner name: NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED,CANADA
Free format text: CHANGE OF NAME;ASSIGNOR:NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:011195/0706
Effective date: 20000830


text:
iHerb カスタマーレビュー
のセーブ: ¥103 (14 % オフ)
Reviewer2300181により Apr 03, 2012 に掲載
I use it with coconutflour and other gluten free flours to bake pizza
Great quantitiy for the price! ♥♥♥ Click on my username for more reviews!
gettingwellにより Jul 10, 2013 に掲載
I love using this as an alternative to wheat flour because it doesn't have gluten and is full of nutrition. It is full of vitamins, protien and minerals. This is such a great price compaired to going to a health food store. I love that packs it in a plastic bag to prevent any issues during shipping and I get my order in 2-3 days!
Good and versatile GF flour
5598399106105531991により Dec 31, 2014 に掲載
I used it a lot in GF baking and this is my favourite brand. It is a shame iHerb upped the international shipping costs so much, because now I can't afford it anymore, because the postage would be almost $14 for a bag of flour that costs $5.37, which is ridiculous.
Millet Flour
Reviewer1623885により Oct 03, 2012 に掲載
Another great gluten-free flour.
Great quality
Reviewer1896114により Jun 27, 2012 に掲載
Great for gluten free diets. Great cost and value!
love it
Reviewer2259021により Jan 25, 2012 に掲載
I mix this flour and teff flour for my waffle. I like it a lot.
Arrowhead Mills Millet Flour
5591546534286850157により Nov 11, 2012 に掲載
Nice and mild. Fresh.
Very happy
tinathereseにより Jan 24, 2012 に掲載
Tastes good in pancakes
so glad we can buy quality commercially ground flour
Reviewer2990905により Feb 09, 2010 に掲載
Of course, grinding yourself would be the freshest.
For baking
4702771872311853173により Mar 09, 2015 に掲載
Glad to have this for when needed.


text:
Online Class
Patternmaking Basics: The Bodice Sloper
with Suzy Furrer
Knitted in soft cotton, this beautiful shawl will become a family heirloom. Ribbon trim can be changed to any colour making this suitable for baby boy or girl. Would also make an exquisite Christening shawl. Looks complicated however is really quite simple to knit, suitable for the intermediate knitter. YOU CANNOT RESELL MY PATTERN HOWEVER YOU CAN SELL THE FINISHED ITEM. Copyright (c) 2011 Oge Designs All Rights Reserved. GAUGE 26 stitches = 4 inches (10cm) in pattern. SIZING / FINISHED MEASUREMENTS Length 109cm (42 inches) approx, Width 104cm (41 inches) aprox.


text:
A detached 4 bedroom house set in the sought after coastal village of dinas cross. sympathetically upgraded by the current owners it offers good sized accommodation and also utilises…
Thinking of selling or renting your property?
Get a instant valuation today!
Free Instant Valuation
Find out if you are charging enough rent or what your property would be worth if you were to sell now


text:
Login/Create Account
Check Out the new Remax App
Ask About This Home
De Jong Property: 13.56+/- Acres Total; Cherries(5.4+/- Acres on Mahaleb Rootstock, 20% Early Garnet; 50% Late Garnet; 30% Lodi,6.8+/- Acres assorted experimental early Cherry variety seedlings planted in 2013;.733+/- Acre Vnyd.,Old Vine Zinfandel on Dogridge Root Stock; Drip Irrigation; On Wire. Seller to retain Mineral Rights on subject property. 2.(a)Any and all Proprietary Plant Material are to be identified upon request.(b)Property may be subject to farming or other contracts shall be a


text:
For sale by Omotem Ventures MEMBER 5 Mar 5:04 amOjokoro, Lagos
Cute black MK handbag with gold design at an affordable price
I do not want to be contacted by telemarketers.
Stay safe!
Watch out for:
More on staying safe
Diligence is the price of success
Download our app
Connect with us
How to sell fast
Help & Support
About us