text:
Unboxing Live 062: DXG USA A80V 1080p camcorder
Posted by Andru Edwards Categories: Cameras, Features, Handhelds, HDTV, Portable Video, Videocasts
Cheap handheld camcorders seem to be all the rage these days, so it's rare that we focus on them unless they have some sort of standout feature set. Heck, the iPhone 4 records 720p H.264 video itself. Today, we are focusing on the DXG USA A80V handheld camcorder because we think it has a few features that set it apart from the pack.
The A80V is a 1080p camcorder that records at 30 fps, 1080i at 60fps, and 720p at 60fps. All videos are recorded in H.264 MOV file format, which is perfect for pulling directly off the camcorder and viewing/editing immediately. A lot of similar cameras require a transcode before you can view or play with the files. It's got a 10 megapixel CMOS sensor, 5x optical zoom, 10x digital zoom, 3-inch touch display, and even an HDMI output (with HDMI cable included.)
You can get the DXG USA A80V for $239 on Amazon.
Unboxing Live 046: Canon DM-100 camcorder microphone
Posted by Andru Edwards Categories: Accessories, Cameras, Features, Peripherals, Portable Video, Videocasts
In this episode of Unboxing Live!, we give you a look at the Canon DM-100 microphone attachment. If you've ever been unimpressed by the audio quality of your camcorder recordings, adding a dedicated, external microphone might be exactly what you need. The Canon DM-100 attaches directly to your mini shoe-equipped Canon HD camcorder, and drastically improves the quality of the sound. We give you a look at the DM-100 settings and physical features.
Kodak Zi6 HD Pocket Video Camera unboxing gallery
Posted by Andru Edwards Categories: Cameras, Features, Galleries, HDTV, Portable Video
Continuing our look at pocket HD camcorders, we were able to get our hands on a new Kodak Zi6 Pocket Video Camera, which shoots in 720p high definition, at a full 60 frames per second. In case you were wondering, that's unique for ultra-portable HD camcorders. There isn't much storage space on-board, but that is rectified by the SD card slot, which supports up for a 32 GB SD card. The Kodak Zi6 also includes an SD AV cable, as well as an HD cable, allowing you to plug the camera directly into an HDTV to view the content on it. It takes two AA batteries, and they throw in two rechargeable AAs, as well a charger. We've taken a bunch of images of the device, which you can find in our Kodak Zi6 gallery. If you are interested in picking on up, here's a Kodak Zi6 coupon link, where Kodak is offering $30 off. Not bad.
Read More | Kodak Zi6 gallery
Gallery: Kodak Zi6 HD Pocket Video Camera unboxing gallery
Creative Vado HD camcorder unboxing gallery
When it comes to the handheld camcorder market, there are a few key players. Of course, there are the Flip cameras that everyone knows and loves, but more recently these cameras have started to sport high definition recording features. While the Flip Mino HD is out there, we've also got the Kodak Zi6, as well as the Creative Vado HD. In this particular unboxing gallery, we give you a closer look at the Creative Vado HD. As you'll see, aside from the camera, which has an integrated USB stick for transferring videos to your computer, it also includes a rubber case, and even a USB extender cable, which is a very welcome addition. Hit the Creative Vado HD gallery to get a look at all the images.
Gallery: Creative Vado HD camcorder unboxing gallery
Flip Mino unboxing gallery
Posted by Andru Edwards Categories: Cameras, Features, Galleries, Portable Video
A few weeks ago, the Flip Mino was unleashed, becoming the first Flip Video camcorder that included a rechargeable internal battery. All Flips before that run on standard AA batteries. The Flip Mino is also a bit smaller than the original Flip Video camera, and the Flip Ultra. At a price of $179, it's fairly decent. It's certainly convenient, since it's so light and has such a small footprint. Check out our Flip Mino unboxing gallery to get a look for yourself.
Read More | Flip Mino unboxing gallery
Gallery: Flip Mino unboxing gallery
Unboxing Live 011: Canon XH-A1 High Definition Digital Camcorder
Posted by Andru Edwards Categories: Cameras, Features, HDTV, Videocasts
Nate True is back, guest-hosting another edition of Unboxing Live. This time we have the super-fantastic Canon XH-A1 High Definition Digital Video Camcorder. The Canon XH-A1 is $4,000 of pure, high definition enjoyment, and we give you a peek at what's inside the box.
Let us know what you think, or what you want us to unbox next!
© Gear Live Media, LLC. 2007 – User-posted content, unless source is quoted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Public Domain License. Gear Live graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, videos, articles, blogs, forums, scripts and other service names are the trademarks of Gear Live Inc.


text:
Picking the right gown for the red carpet can be a challenge, but these Emmy nominees always rise to the occasion and get it right. But, in case they're having trouble choosing or just want a second opinion, we've got our eyes on these stunning dresses for them to wear come Sunday night. You can't really go wrong with Valentino, Lanvin, or Dior, right? So, consider the red carpet open — let the dress selecting begin!
Join The Conversation
Loving the Robin Wright choice
Like us on Facebook
Related Posts

subset: commoncrawl


text:
1 Vehicle Found
Used 2017 Chevrolet Tahoe LT
Wilson e-price $47,391
See Important Disclosures Here
Current Offers
- Wilson e-price $47,391
Available Specials
- Save $$$ with no doc fees!1
Offer Disclosure
1See Dealer For Complete Details
- Miles
- 19607
- Exterior
- White
- Interior
- Cocoa/dune
- Drive Wheels
- Stock Number
- Engine
- EcoTec3 5.3L V8
- Transmission
- Automatic
- Location
- Wilson Chevrolet
Add vehicles to compare. You can compare up to 3 vehicles at a time.
Tax, title, license and dealer fees (unless itemized above) are extra. Not available with special finance or lease offers. Prices reflect financing, See dealer for details Tax, title, license (unless itemized above) are extra. Not available with special finance, lease and some other offers.
Chevy Malibu at Wilson Chevrolet in Winnsboro, near Columbia, SC
Introducing the Chevy Tahoe in Winnsboro, available at Wilson Chevrolet. This full-size SUV offers the best in both capability and comfort: A notable 355 horsepower and 383 lb.-ft of torque pack a punch, and the quiet, refined interior will have you riding in the lap of luxury on each trip. Enjoy the most up-to-date in modern systems, including available 4G LTE Wi-Fi, plus each of the updated safety functions you need to put your mind at ease, even with your most priceless cargo in tow. Top this off with an EPA estimated 23 MPG, and you're looking at a full-size SUV that seriously can do it all. Visit Wilson Chevrolet to test drive your Chevrolet Tahoe in Winnsboro today, or give us a call at (866) 773-9969 to schedule your test drive.
SEARCH used 2017 Chevrolet Tahoe INVENTORY FOR SALE NEAR COLUMBIA, SC AT WILSON CHEVROLET
Get the Wilson Chevrolet no-fee guarantee on used 2017 Chevrolet Tahoe vehicles in Winnsboro, SC, and see for yourself how Wilson customer service keeps our customers coming back again and again, and recommending us to their family and friends.


text:
Have a Senseo or HomeCafe? You Deserve Better Coffee.
BetterCoffee for your Senseo or HomeCafe Brewer
We're delighted that you found us. And whether you bought your Senseo machine at one of the major retailers or ordered it online we're sure you love the idea of a fresh, hot cup of delicious coffee in about 30 seconds.
The only problem is that the Senseo coffee is neither fresh, nor delicious. (In our own, ultimately selfserving opinion :-) But we're here to help! Let's compare:
|Senseo and Home Cafe Pods
|Coffee Pods from BetterCoffee.com
|And that means...
|Senseo pods are less fresh because they are packed many to a bag. Once you open the bag, all the Senseo pods inside start to degrade -- quickly!
|All our coffee pods are indivudually wrapped in an oxygen free environment. They stay "roaster fresh" for months.
|BetterCoffee pods stay fresh for months -- and since they are individually wrapped, you can try one cup of each flavor before you settle on a favorite.
Senseo coffee pods come in only 11 Varieties.
HomeCafe pods come in only nine varieties!
|BetterCoffee offers over 150 different varieties of coffee pods for Senseo and HomeCafe!
Try a new coffee every other day for a year!
Read comments and rankings about each coffee pod flavor before you buy.
|Senseo and HomeCafe sell what's common.
|BetterCoffee sells what's best. ... we keep only the finest coffee pods in our store.
You can shop with confidence -- knowing that you're getting only the best selection.
|Decaf and Flavored Coffee Pods
Senseo pods come in just one decaf and two flavored coffee pod varieties.
Homecafe offers just one decaf and two flavors.
BetterCoffee offers over 30 decaffeinated coffee pod varieties. (Including Swiss Water Process pods.)
And we offer 50 varieties of flavored coffee pods!
Enjoy a decaf coffee that tastes full strength.
Branch out from Hazelnut and Vanilla: Chocolate Macadamia anyone?
|Senseo pods are packed many to a bag -- that spoils freshness and means you won't want to try multiple different coffees at the same time.
|All the coffees pods we sell come individually wrapped.
|Have a different flavor every day. Serve a different flavor to each of your guests.
|Value and Convenience
|Senseo pods and Homecafe Pods require Two Pods for an 8 oz cup of coffee!
|ALL the coffee pods we sell make a full 8 oz. cup of coffee, with just a single pod.
|You save: You'll use half as many of our pods, but they don't cost twice as much!
All Senseo and HomeCafe coffees are blends of different beans.
No single origin coffees.
No estate grown coffees.
No fair trade coffees.
No organic coffees.
BetterCoffee offers only the finest coffee pods:
100% Arabica
|If you're looking for a special pod, we've got it.
|Coffee Quality
|Senseo Pods and HomeCafe coffee pods are blended coffees which use beans of less than top quality.
|BetterCoffee's roasters use only the top 5% of coffee beans worldwide. And, ALL of our coffee pods are made from 100% Arabica Beans.
|There is NO OTHER PLACE on the Internet where you will find such an exclusive selection of only high quality pods.


text:
Butterick 4698; ca. 1948; Misses' Dance Dress: Off Shoulder Neckline. Beautiful and bouffant, a dance dress to make many memorable evenings. The bodice has a flattering off-shoulder neckline and draped detail. The flared skirt is four-gored. Look at the flower accent (purchased) in B. "Quick and Easy" to sew.
Featured in Butterick Pattern Book, Early Summer 1949
Links to reviews/blog posts Edit
Sources/Vendors Edit
Gallery Edit
[insert your photos of this pattern made up]
Wishlist Edit
[insert your username, and make sure your preferences allow for people to contact you via e-mail. Do not list your email address here!]


text:
MALAYSIA: Proton and Nissan discuss technology transfer
Malaysia's Proton Holdings is discussing technology transfer opportunities with Nissan Motor as it looks to strengthen its new product pipeline and reduce development costs.
Get full access to all content, just $1 for 30 days
A Message From The Editor
just-auto gives its paid members access to the very best automotive market coverage.
And now there's just-auto plus, our premium membership that gives you exclusive component forecast data, company profiles and extended news coverage - just for premium members.
Today I can offer you 30 days access for $1 - and that includes just-auto plus.
Dave Leggett, editor of just-auto
* plus VAT if applicable
Only on


text:
Question: Using geometric mean return as a criterion which investment is
Using geometric mean return as a criterion, which investment is to be preferred in Problem 1?
In Problem 1
View Solution:
In Problem 1
View Solution:
Answer to relevant QuestionsGiven the following investments, if RL is 3%, what investment is preferred using Roy's safety-first criterion? For the following returns: What is the average return in each market from the point of view of a U.S. and a Japanese investor? Write the CAPM shown in Problem 4 in price form. In Problem 4 Given the following situation: Draw the minimum variance curve and efficient frontier in expected return standard deviation space. Be sure to give the coordinates of all key points. Draw the security market line. Explain how you might use general equilibrium theory to evaluate the performance of one or more common-stocks managers.
Post your question


text:
Product Spotlight
Featured Research
Quick Stats
You are here
New York State Officials Say "Tax Parity" Bad Deal for Counties
Battle over taxes between Oneida Nation and local government continues.
WAMPSVILLE, N.Y. -- If local politicians have their way, a sales tax parity agreement between the Oneida Indian Nation and New York state will never come to pass, reported the Oneida Daily Dispatch.
On Tuesday, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing the Oneidas said, in his opinion, the Nation and New York were close to an agreement on sales tax. Eric Facer said the essential ingredients in a tax parity agreement have been laid out and he is optimistic a deal can be reached in the near future.
The Oneida Nation owns 12 Sav-On convenience stores around Madison and Oneida counties and currently does not pay any sales tax to New York State on retail sales. The main commodities in discussion are tobacco and fuel, which the Oneidas sell at a much lower price than non-Indian retailers.
Last May, state legislators brought the sales tax issue to the forefront, insisting Gov. Pataki take action on the issue. The tax parity format designed by the Nation is one used successfully by several other Indian nations in many Midwest and Western states.
According to the Dispatch, the Oneidas have outlined the following terms:
* The state will collect no taxes on reservation sales by Indians.
* The Oneidas will enact and collect taxes that are at least equal to state and local sales tax.
* The Nation will set prices for tobacco and fuels that are equal to the cost of the item to the Nation, including a tribal tax of 5 percent.
* The funds the Nation collects through taxes will be used for governmental services and won't be used to fund commercial enterprises such as the Turning Stone Casino and Resort.
* The state and the Nation will share information and submit to binding arbitration and judicial review to ensure compliance.
On Wednesday, Assemblyman Bill Magee, D-111, said the provisions of the proposed agreement are absurd. "It's a joke ... it's ridiculous," said Magee. "They say their prices will be comparable to other retailers, but the presence of their enterprises is so significant in Madison County that it's not going to send consumers to non-Indian retailers ... there will still be those people who will go to the Indians to save a few pennies."
The retail taxes collected by the Nation will be dedicated to government functions such as infrastructure, health, education and housing. Magee questioned how that part of the proposed agreement can ever be watched over, and to what infrastructure the Nation is referring.
Magee said as far as funding for housing, the Oneida Nation's White Pines Village was paid for through federal HUD money. The assemblyman added that he couldn't gauge support on the tax-parity issue from fellow legislators but did say he constantly tries to educate his colleagues on the Native American issues in his district.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said that the tax parity idea should be looked at, according to Magee. "I don't know how much support there is for this. All I can say is that gas taxes are used to build and maintain roads ... the only roads they need to maintain lead to the casino.
"In a sense, they're already collecting taxes, and now in Madison County, they've got an extra 1-percent edge in sales tax since the county passed that resolution this week."
Madison County Board of Supervisors Chairman Rocco DiVeronica agreed with Magee's stance. "Our position is very clear. We want the Oneida Indian Nation to be a part of the Central New York community and if they want to be a part of it, stop looking for ways to shift the tax burden to everyone else ... be constructive, and accept the responsibilities along with the benefits."
In the city of Oneida, the largest population center in the county, only two of the seven gas stations are non-Indian. DiVeronica told the Dispatch that no non-Indian convenience stores or gas stations are going to want to come into Oneida with the Nation as competition.
"Price parity or not ... it's not going to happen," said DiVeronica. "I know, you know it, and Eric Facer knows it. Price parity is too little, too late."
In 1995, there were 32 non-Indian gas station/convenience stores near or in the land claim area. Since that time, eight have closed and eight have been purchased by the Oneidas.
"A tax parity agreement with the Oneida Indian Nation is a bad idea for Madison County. Under such an agreement, the Nation's tobacco and fuel prices will still be lower than at non-Oneida stores.
"They have already eliminated the competition. The Oneida Indian Nation will still have most of the sales ... and now at higher prices."
"I wrote an open letter to Gov. Pataki," said Oneida Mayor James Chappell. "Basically, tax parity is a shame.
"The state is strapped for money, the loss of sales tax to the counties, and the cities like Oneida and Sherrill make it hard for us to service our citizens.
"And, it's really a consumer tax, not a tax on Indians."


text:
Sunday 12 September 1999
It was Sunday, under the sign of Virgo. The US president was Bill Clinton (Democratic).
In that special week of September people in US were listening to Bailamos by Enrique Iglesias.
In UK Mambo No 5 (A Little Bit Of...) by Lou Bega was in the top 5 hits.
Armour of God, directed by Jackie Chan, was one of the most viewed movies released in 1999
while When the Wind Blows by James Patterson was one of the best selling books.
If you liked videogames you were probably playing Bass Masters 2000 or Medal of Honor.
But much more happened that day: find out below..
You can also have a look at the whole 1999 or at September 12 across the years.
Old Newspapers
Have a look at the old newspapers from 12 September 1999 and get them!
Which were the most popular movies released in the last months ?
TV Series
Which were the most popular TV series released in the last months ?
Find out your future
Get a FREE Numerology report based on the digits of 12 September 1999!
Wish him/her..
Historical Events
Which were the important events of 12 September 1999 ?
- Also see September 12 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics)
- Maryland (United States) - Defenders Day
- Cape Verde - National Day
- Ethiopia - National Revolution Day (1974)
- RC Saints - Holy Name of Mary
Famous Birthdays:See famous people born on 12 September
Famous Deaths:
- Bill Quackenbush: Canadian-American ice hockey player and coach (d. 1999).
- Indonesia announces it will allow international peace-keepers into East Timor.
- Under international pressure to allow an international peacekeeping force, Indonesian president BJ Habibie announced on 12 September that he would do so.
Music Charts
Which were the top hits in that special week of September 1999 ?
Top #10 songs in the USA
Search For Your Ancestors
Subscribe to our Newsletter
Don't miss our monthly news, no spam guarantee Click here to Subscribe
...and if 12 September 1999 was your Birth Date then Join our Birthday Club!
Make this date unforgettable
Genealogy: find out your family heritage
Magazine Covers
What news were making the headlines those days in September 1999?
- EW: Entertainment Weekly: no.502
- Time: TIME Magazine Cover: Why We Take Risks -- Sep. 6, 1999
- SportsIllustrated: Sports Illustrated: no.9706
Which were the most popular books released in the last weeks ?
Remember when
What videogames would you be playing back in the days ?


text:
What is JotForm?
JotForm is a free online form builder which helps you create online forms without writing a single line of code. No sign-up required.
At JotForm, we want to make sure that you're getting the online form builder help that you need. Our friendly customer support team is available 24/7.
We believe that if one user has a question, there could be more users who may have the same question. This is why many of our support forum threads are public and available to be searched and viewed. If you'd like help immediately, feel free to search for a similar question, or submit your question or concern.
Autoresponder for incomplete payments ONLYAsked by mr108 on September 20, 2013 at 07:21 AM
Is it possible to create an Autoresponder that is sent out ONLY to submissions/visitors that end up in 'Incomplete Payments' category? This would serve as a reminder to complete the pyment and they would also receive a link to reopen filled up form.
my form is here: http://www.jotform.co/mr108/donationtopurusha
JotForm Support
I'm afraid it is not possible to create an email notification that sent only incoplete payments, however you can configure your payment tool in order to send incomplete payment notifications to your email.
In order to configure teh "Pending Payment E-Mail" please follow the next steps:
1 - Click at the payment tool "properties" icon .
2 - Click at "Show properties"
3 - Set the "Pending Payment E-Mail" to YES.
Hope it helps
please let us know if you need further assistance
In general I've noticed that all of you, Support guys and gals, are really great! You respond quickly and give complete answers.
Best regards,


text:
Monday, August 21, 2017
Bento Box Launches Original Content Division
Burbank-based animation studio Bento Box Entertainment, which is best known for producing the animation for FOX TV's Bob's Burgers and Comedy Central's Brickleberry, is now ... Continue Reading →
CLIP: Jason Schwartzman Guests on 'Out There'
Indie darling Jason Schwartzman (Moonrise Kingdom, Bored to Death, Fantastic Mr. Fox) will make a guest voice appearance the latest episode of IFC's original animated series ... Continue Reading →
Putting Himself 'Out There'
How South Park veteran Ryan Quincy tapped his awkward phase for IFC's first original cartoon. Cheer up, Generation X: There's a new adult-targeted toon on the TV block that's ... Continue Reading →
New 'Out There' Toon to Premiere on IFC
IFC will premiere a new animated series by former South Park director and producer Ryan Quincy on February 22. The show, which is called Out There, features the voices of Fred Armisen ... Continue Reading →
GKIDS' Ghibli Line Up Returns to NY's IFC
Back by popular demand, U.S. distributor of international animated films GKIDS is returning to New York's IFC Center for another five week run of its retrospective on Japan's Studio ... Continue Reading →
Toon Boom & Bento Box Introduce New Pipeline
Toon Boom Animation and Bento Box Entertainment have created an exclusive and state-of-the-art digital animation production pipeline uniquely designed for Bento Box's production on ... Continue Reading →
Quincy's 'Out There' to Debut on IFC in Jan.
IFC will premiere a new animated comedy titled Out There in January 2013. The cabler announced the news at its upfront event in New York City this week. The 10-part half-hour series ... Continue Reading →
'Portlandia' Gets Bent with 'Zero Rats'
A recent episode of Fred Armisen and Carrie Brownstein's IFC skit show Portlandia, which lampoons the city of Portland, Ore. and its colorful denizens, got some extra animated oomph ... Continue Reading →
Mondo's 'Happy Tree Friends' Celebrate Christmas
Mondo Media's beloved and wacky Happy Tree Friends returns with an original Christmas episode titled "Clause For Concern." The episode features the lovable father/son duo of ... Continue Reading →


text:
Reconstructing the history of holography
- Authors
- Publisher
- International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE)
- Publication Date
- Source
- Legacy
- Keywords
This paper discusses large-scale but gradual changes in the subject of holography that have only recently become readily observable. Presenting an analysis of publications in holography over the past half century, the paper illustrates and discusses the evolving shape of the subject. Over 40,000 international information sources have been recorded, including some 20,000 papers, 10,000 conference presentations, 7,000 patents, 1,000 books, nearly as many theses and at least 500 exhibitions. This statistical and sociological approach is combined with the identification of specific factors – notably the role of individuals, conferences, proof-of-concept demonstrations and exhibitions – to suggest that the development of holography has been unusually contingent on a variety of intellectual and social influences. The paper situates these observations about holography and holographers in the context of a wider discussion about the styles, purposes and difficulties of historical writing on technological subjects. It further suggests that this ongoing process of both recording and reconstructing technological history can be aided by identification of sources sometimes overlooked or undervalued by practitioners: unpublished archival materials such as private file collections; business records; accounts of unsuccessful activities; and, by no means least, anecdotal accounts inter-linked between participants.


text: File:Sore-bum.gif Arse is the British equivalent of ass (the posterior). Similar words and phrases: Ass Asshole Butt Retrieved from "http://slangtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Arse?oldid=4040" Ad blocker interference detected! Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected. Categories: Pages with broken file links Add category Cancel Save


text:
Late night internet shopping is often a bad idea, but it unlikely that you will ever reach the same sort of scale as Google who last night spent a massive $700m (£460m) on the acquisition of ITA Software which as I'm sure you all know is a specialist aggregator of airline flight information.
In a move that was audaciously (and unsurprisingly) described as "pro-competitive" and "pro-consumer" Google aim to make it easier for users to find and search for information on flight times which means that presumably before long Google could be your first stop when looking for flights.
Funnily enough the claims of "pro-competitive" have done very little to ease the ringing of alarm bells among online booking agencies who will see this as a direct attempt by Google to muscle their way into the already crowded market, and will fear that that they will begin to start competing by starting to directly sell tickets.
This has been quickly denied by Google who said that they have "no plans to start selling tickets too customers" and rather that "[The ITA] technology opens exciting possibilities for us to create new ways for users to more easily find flight information online, and we're looking forward to welcoming them to Google."
This didn't stop an apparent attempt by Kayak and Expedia to make an offer to stop this going ahead (that was thwarted by 'exclusive negotiations' and probably Google's larger cheque book), and Kayaks chief marketing executive Robert Birge made his opinion clear when he said: "They have dominance on the general search side, When you couple that with ITA's airline relationships there is reason to be concerned."
Despite the buzz of news surrounding this, it is unlikely that you will know (or have even heard of) ITA due to the background nature of its work. In essence it provides key data such as prices, availability and flight times to the travel industry, and works in the gap between the airlines and travel agencies that directly deal with customers.
So could we be seeing some kind of 'Google Travel' in the future? Unfortunately (as I imagine it would be very good) I doubt it, at least in the short term, as Google will be quite happy to sit back on the additional traffic that they will inevitably get from this information which will come as a relief to many of the companies that have probably spent the last week coming up with anti-Google contingency plans.
Of course the concerns that they have are very valid: Google is becoming (or rather has become) and you get the feeling that whatever market Google decided to put their hand to they would be able to sail straight in based on their brand alone.
Is this a worrying concept? Well in my opinion this is something we will possibly never know the answer to: one the one hand it is brilliant being able to get all your information from one company, and Google does have a very 'friendly' image and has a habit of doing everything that it wants to very well and as we've heard recently, they may be planning to go up against Facebook with their own 'Google Me' social network.
However it is very worrying that they can spend £460m on a company and it still manages to be one of their smaller purchases (DoubleClick and YouTube were bought for $3.1bn and $1.65bn respectively), and we could be in danger of having an internet that is dominated by Google.
Whilst this is all very theoretical, it is a topic that this purchase has done a good job of reigniting and I imagine it will continue to rumble on for some time to come…
Via — Guardian


text:
Claims that there is no law that establishes liability for an individual income tax have been made for years. Nevertheless, the courts have repeatedly ruled indictments for income tax prosecutions are valid with United States v Vroman, 975 F2d 669 (9th. Cir. 1992) being a prominent example. A challenge to the indictment for failure to allege a crime has been formatted as a rebuttal to the Vroman opinion. The claims of the Vroman court are concluded to be spurious and do not comply with Supreme Court adjudication for Due Process or the requirements for a valid indictment.
Court caption
The defendant is aware that on numerous occasions in various income tax cases challenges that income tax indictments were flawed have been presented to their courts---and the courts have denied the motions as frivolous and have imposed sanctions. If this analysis is frivolous, the defendant is certain the court will identify the error in logic or law and properly chastise this imprudence.
Opinions by courts to uphold indictments are similar, as are the allegations made within the indictments. Indictments typically rely upon IRC 7201 or 7203 as imposing an income tax and make numerous conclusions of law. Because of the similarity, an appellate court Opinion will be examined as representative of the grounds this court might use to dismiss a challenge to the instant indictment.
A bellwether case that compiles considerable discussion is United States v Vroman, 975 F2d 669 (9th. Cir. 1992). The grounds identified and analyzed by the Vroman court to uphold the conviction are similar to other circuits. But this is a colossal understatement. Vroman has been followed in the First Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit, in IRS publications, along with copious citations in the Ninth Circuit as authority for the validity of an income tax indictment without the necessity of alleging a statutory duty. Vroman appears to be single-handedly negating an 800 year bulwark against government oppression, neutering Due Process, directly contradicting Supreme Court adjudication, and extending jurisdiction beyond the constitutional limits of a Case.
The points in Vroman include:
1) the indictment alleged a known legal duty for an income tax by citing 26 U.S.C. 7203;
2) the defendant was proven to be a taxpayer required to file an income tax return;
3) the defendant was not prejudiced by failure to cite 26 U.S.C. 6012; and
4) F.R.Cr.P. 7(c)(3) condones an indictment that alleges an erroneous offense.
ITEM 1: IRC 7203 identifies an income tax violation.
Quotes from Vroman include the indictment must gcontain the elements of the offense charged and fairly inform a defendant of the chargech and gThe indictment here set(s) out the elements of section 7203 with sufficient clarity to apprise Vroman of the charges
against him and is drawn with sufficient specificity to foreclose further prosecution upon the same facts.h
The requirements established for a valid indictment compose a long history. The essential object behind the evolved verbiage is the historical descendent of 800 years adjudicatory evolution. Few remaining clauses of King Johnfs forced acceptance of the Magna Carte are as lucid today as the provision within the 39th paragraph: gNo free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the law of the land.h That provision terminated King Johnfs arbitrary confiscation of wealth under guise of taxation and incarceration under pretext of sedition. It is considered the origin of Due Process. Munn v Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 123.
When our forefathers penned the Constitution of the United States, the provision was preserved in Article III, Section 2. gThe Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United Statesch Any document that does not present a Case to the court does not authorize a use of the power of the court. Muskrat v United States, 219 U.S. 346. gA ecasef arises c(when it is in) such a form that judicial power is capable of acting on it.h In Re Summers, 325 U.S. 561, 567 (1945). A gcaseh must identify a right of a party for the court to enforce. Calderon v Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740. If it is not a case, the court does not have jurisdiction. Raines v Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997); Osborn v Bank of America, 22 U.S. 738, 819 (1824). An indictment without a known legal duty does not identify a putative violation of a federal statute that can be punished.
A valid indictment is a fundamental component of Due Process. "No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federalc It is as much a violation of due process to send an accused to prison following conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made." Cole v Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1947). And again: "Conviction upon a charge not made would be sheer denial of due process." De Jonge v Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 362. (1937); Dunn v United States, 442 U.S. 100, 106-107. Courts are not authorized to deny constitutional rights.
In addition, the Fifth Amendment also mandates indictments allege an offense for the court to proceed. Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887); Stirone v United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960).
Terminology has evolved over time. Whether it is called the Law of the Land, a Case, Due Process, a charge, an offense, liability, or a crime, it relates to the same objective. Current verbiage requires a government pursuing a tax obligation to identify a gknown legal dutyh beholding to the tax agency. Cheek v United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).
Casual readers of the Vroman opinion sometimes believe the court declared a listing of elements eliminates the necessity of alleging a law of the required "known legal duty." Such a conclusion would be inane. Elements are used to prove a variance from a required duty. If no duty is identified, the listing of elements would have nothing to prove.
The term gelementh is frequently accepted as synonymous with a fact. However, elements can include both facts and law as obliquely observed by the Vroman court: "26 U.S.C. 7203 requires the government to prove three elements: (one) the taxpayer was required to file a return." An object is not a taxpayer unless that status is established by law; any requirement to file a tax return must also be established by law.
Hamling v United States 418 U.S. 87, relied upon by Vroman, stated the situation: the indictment must gfirst contain the elements OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED and fairly informs a defendant OF THE CHARGE against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.h id. 117 (emphasis added). And again: gAn indictment must set forth each element OF THE CRIME IT CHARGES.h Almendarez v United States, 523 U.S. 224, 228 (1998). emphasis added. Hamling and other Supreme Court Opinions give no support for an indictment that relies exclusively upon elements without a charge being alleged.
A lengthy record of Supreme Court adjudication has unwavering requirement for a charge to be alleged for a valid indictment: Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887); Stirone v United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960); Russell v United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962); United States v Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985). gTo uphold a conviction on a charge that was neither alleged in an indictment nor presented to a jury at trial offends the most basic notions of due process. Few constitutional principles are more firmly established than a defendant's right to be heard on the specific charges of which he is accused.h Dunn v United States, 442 U.S. 100, 106 (1979).
The Vroman court, along with numerous other court Opinions, would have us believe the lawful duty is alleged by citing 26 U.S.C. 7201 or 7203. Indeed, the Vroman court declared the gcoffense of failure to file an income tax return under 26 U.S.C. 7203 ch But how can 7203 identify a required known legal duty for an income tax ?
The Supreme Court, citing the Congressional Record, has observed Chapter 75, Part 1 (IRC 7201 through 7215) apply to all taxes. gCongress specifically stated that it placed all these provisions in the same part of the Code because it wished them to apply to taxes generally, including income taxes. See S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 147; H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 108.h Sansone v United States, 380 U.S. 343, 348 (1965).
In United States v. Farr, 536 F3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2008), the Tenth Circuit labeled the provisions as generic. If they are generic and can apply to all taxes, they clearly cannot identify a duty for any specific tax.
But the question still remains: Where did the Vroman court identify the defendant had a duty as a gtaxpayerh? Or had taxable income ? Or was required to file forms ?
Perhaps the uncertainty can be approached by considering the second assertion by the Vroman court.
Item 2: The defendant was proven to be a taxpayer required to file an income tax return.
The Vroman court declared the government must prove, as one of the elements, that gthe taxpayer was required to file a(n income tax) return.h In addition, the Vroman court declares gsection 7203 sets out the elements with sufficient clarity to apprise [defendant] of the [income tax ] charges against himch
The indictments on behalf of the IRS are pervasive conclusions of law based upon assumptions of law, such as: the defendant becomes a gtaxpayerh upon accusation; any money received from wages or money deposited in a bank is gtaxable incomeh; receiving wages or depositing money in a bank establishes a responsibility for an individual to file forms with the federal government. Assumptions or conclusions of law have no standing.
Rumor has it that the constitutional right of an individual to pursue a livelihood as secured within the clause of Liberty includes being paid for that labor and depositing such funds in a bank. Is the exercise of a constitutional right now subject to be purchased at a price or the object of an unidentified revenue tax ?? Is the exercise of a Constitutional Right now the grounds for incarceration and dispossession if the citizen does not submit to extortion ?? If that law exists, the element is not alleged and submitted to contestation.
Does receiving funds from exercising the constitutional right to pursue a livelihood become an event that requires forms be filed with the government ? Or is such an action now the basis for a criminal act ? That substantial element (that would be in direct conflict with the concept of a constitutional right) has not been alleged and submitted to contestation.
Rumor additionally has it that the courts are only concerned with the power to tax. If the power to tax exist, it is not a concern of the court if the tax destroys the object of taxation. As applied to the instant case, if the power to tax income exists then Congress can confiscate 100 percent of a citizenfs earnings and provide for the citizenfs existence only what pittance Congress bestows in their largess. A nation of free sovereign citizens has been reduced to a nation of slaves---by only one law.
If the act or event that makes an individual responsible for an income tax (the known duty) is not identified, the essential element of what must be proven has not even been alleged: By what law (element) has the defendant been alleged to have a legal duty as a gtaxpayerh? By what law (element) has the defendant been required to have a legal duty to submit forms to the IRS ?? By what law (element) has wages received, or a deposit made, become a taxable value initiating a legal duty to the IRS ?? No legal requirement has been alleged that facts can prove. All evidence submitted at trial relate to assumptions that exist only in the mind of the prosecutor.
An indictment must set forth each element of the crime that it charges. Almendarez v United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998); Russell v United States, 369 U.S. 749. The Government must prove each element to a jury. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 149 (1968). Even in civil actions, the absence of an essential element being claimed by the petitioner is taken as evidence that the element is non-existent. Scheid v Fanny Farmer, 859 F2d 434, 437; OfBrien v DiGrazia, 544 F2d 543, 546 n.3. gBecause the missing element in the present case was essential, its complete absence cis a fatal defectcThe first four elementscdo not by themselves state ANY federal crime. The court thus had no jurisdiction to try (defendant) under that countcand its judgment must be vacated.h United States v Hooker, 841 F2d 1225, 1232 (4th cir 1988) emphasis in original. gThe taxing statute must describe the transaction, service, or object to be taxed.h United States v Community TV, 327 F2d 797, 800.
The Vroman court concluded the defendant was a gtaxpayerh without any allegation, proof, or submission to contestation. gTaxpayerh is a legal term identifying the object as gsubjecth to a specific tax. Ref. IRC 7701 (a)(14). A gsubjecth is an inferior position. The Supreme Court has declared taxation is a matter of sovereignty, and that over which an agency is not sovereign cannot be an object of taxation. Are the citizens of the United States no longer sovereign ? Ref. Perry v United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935).
Since taxes and legal responsibilities can only be imposed by statute, we must look to the indictment to find the statute alleged to impose that subservient status or a requirement to file forms. The only possible statute identified in the indictment is IRC 7203. Indeed, the Vroman court identifies 7203 as the responsible statute. But how can this be?
IRC 7203 was used in Grosso v United States, 390 U.S. 62, in the prosecution of gambling violations of IRC 4401 and 4411. gThose liable for payment of that tax are required to submit each month Internal Revenue Service Form 730...failure to pay the excise tax and to file a return are separately punishable under 26 U.S.C. 7203.h id 65. Notice should be taken that those grequiredh and gliableh are identified within Chapter 35 (4401 to 4424) while punishment is established by 7203.
IRC 7203 was also used in Marchetti v United States, 390 U.S. 39, for gambling violations. United States v Knox, 396 U.S. 77, 82 (1969) also acknowledged IRC 7203 could have been used to prosecute wagering violations.
IRC 7201 and 7203 were used in Ingram v United States, 360 U.S. 672, in violations of 4401, 4411, and 4421 wagering tax provisions. Ref. Footnote #1. The court declared: gLiability for the federal tax is imposed by 4401 and 4411 of the IRCch id 675. The gknown legal dutyh was within Chapter 35; it was not in Chapter 75.
IRC 7201, 7203, and 7206 were also utilized in prosecutions of wagering tax violations by: U.S. v Merlo, 704 F2d 331 (6th. Cir. 1983); U.S. v Sheer, 278 F2d 67; Burks v U.S., 287 F2d 117; U.S. v Shaffer, 291 F2d 689; U.S. v Minker, 312 F2d 632; Bohn v U.S., 260 F2d 773; U.S. v Claney, 276 F2d 617; U.S. v Stoffey, 279 F2d 924; Application of Leahy, 298 F2d 233; George v U.S., 346 F2d 137; Tyler v U.S., 397 F2d 565; U.S. v Stavros, 597 F2d 108; Edwards v U.S., 321 F2d 324; U.S. v Sams, 340 F2d 1014; Scaglione v U.S., 396 F2d 219; U.S. v Magliano, 336 F2d 817; Rutherford v U.S., 264 F2d 180; U.S. v Gaydos, 310 F2d 883; U.S. v Sette, 334 F2d 267; U.S. v Simon, 241 F2d 308; Clay v U.S., 246 F2d 298; Merritt v U.S., 248 F2d 19; Field v U.S., 263 758; Barnhill v U.S., 279 F2d 105; Rosen v U.S., 293 F2d 938; U.S. v Woodson, 303 F2d 49; U.S. v Nicholson, 303 F2d 330; U.S. v Brooks, 303 F2d 851; U.S. v Marchointe, 309 F2d 435; U.S. v Whiting, 311 F2d 191; U.S. v Viale, 312 F2d 595; U.S. v Grossman, 315 F2d 94; U.S. v LaHaye, 548 F2d 474; U.S. v McGee, 572 F2d 1097; U.S. v Snyder, 549 F2d 171; U.S. v Dumaine, 493 F2d 1257; Townsend v U.S., 253 F2d 461; U.S. v Kessler, 449 F2d 1315; U.S. v Haimowitx, 404 F2d 38; U.S. v Willoz, 449 F2d 1321; U.S. v Salerno, 330 FSup 1401; U.S. v Wilson, 214 FSup 629, U.S. v DiPrimio, 209 FSup 137; U.S. v Nicholas, 224 FSup 310.
IRC 7201, 7202, 7203, 7204 or 7210 were applied in violations of corporate/ employment tax requirements in: Ivan Allen Co, v U.S., 422 U.S. 617 (1975) [IRC 7201 could be applied to IRC 531-537, footnote 11]; Gundlach v U.S., 262 F2d 72; U.S. v Mollet, 290 F2d 273; U.S. v Stevedores, 310 F2d 47; Botta v Scanlon, 314 F2d 392; Ryan v U.S., 314 F2d 306; U.S. v Becker, 259 F2d 869; U.S. v Rothbart, 723 F2d 752; Huges v U.S., 899 F2d 1495 (6th. Cir 1990) ; U.S. v Gonzales, 58 F3d 506, (10th. cir 1995) ; U.S. v Neal, 93 F3d 219 (6th. Cir 1996); U.S. v Mounkes, 204 F3d 1024 (10th. Cir 2000); U.S. v Farr, 536 F3d 1174 (10th. Cir. 2008).
IRC 7201, 7203 or 7206 were utilized in prosecutions for liquor law violations in: Wilson v U.S., 320 F2d 493; U.S. v Cook, 412 F2d 293; U.S. v One Ford, 304 F2d 419; U.S. v Champion, 387 F2d 561; Benefield v U.S., 370 F2d 912; U.S. v Davis, 369 F2d 775; U.S. v Goss, 353 F2d 671; Hyche v U.S., 286 F2d 248; Ingram v U.S., 241 F2d 708; Dowling v U.S., 249 F2d 746; Brown v U.S., 253 F2d 587; West v U.S., 259 F2d 868; OfNeal v U.S., 273 F2d 549; Tucker v U.S., 279 F2d 62; King v U.S., 282 F2d 398; Monnette v U.S., 299 F2d 847; Blumenfield v U.S., 306 F2d 892; U.S. v Denton, 307 F2d 336; U.S. v One Pontiac, 308 F2d 893; U.S. v Lemons, 309 F2d 168; U.S. v Ivey, 310 F2d 229; Davis v U.S., 385 F2d 919; U.S. v Rector, 488 F2d 1079.
IRC 7203 was used for a violation of 4461 involving coin operated gaming devices in U.S. v Menk, 260 FSup 784.
IRC 7201 and 7206 were applied in U.S. v Pesaturo, 476 F3d 60, (1st cir. 2007), U.S. v Wisenbaker, 14 F3d 1022 (5th. cir. 1994), and U.S. v Townsend, 31 F3d 262 (5th. Cir 1994) for violating sections 4041 and 4081 for excise taxes on petroleum products.
IRC 7201 and 7202 were used for admission tax violations in U.S. v Nigro, 262 F2d 783, and U.S. v H.J.K. Theatre, 236 F2d 502.
IRC 7201 and 7202 were used in Reynolds v U.S., 288 F2d 78 (1961) in connection with the selling of bolita tickets.
IRC 7206 was used in violations of 4261 and 4291 for air transportation taxes in U.S. v Nielsen, 1 F3d 855 (9th. Cir. 1993).
IRC 7203 was used for a sugar tax violation in Call v U.S., 265 F2d 167.
IRC 7207 was used for an estate tax violation in U.S. v Alker, 254 F2d 292.
IRC 7206 was used for a marijuana tax violation in U.S. v Alvere, 470 F2d 981.
IRC 7206 was used for concealing property from levy in U.S. v Bergman, 306 F2d 653.
This list is not exhaustive.
It is manifestly obvious that the legal duty for each of the cases listed above was not found in Chapter 75. It is equally obvious that if Chapter 75 provisions do not identify the legal duty in the listed cases, neither can they identify a legal duty for an income tax issue.
Without a legal duty being identified in the instant indictment, the instrument is void from its inception and does not present a case to the court for adjudication.
Item 3: The defendant was not prejudiced by failure to cite 26 U.S.C. 6012 in the indictment
The Vroman court along with other circuits and prosecutors have gone outside of the indictment and volunteered numerous additional statutes claimed to not be necessary. Since the original indictment does not identify a known legal duty, the practice is an attempt to put a putative charge in an invalid indictment. Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887) and Stirone v U.S., 361 U.S. 212 (1960) rejected that precise action. The practice further evidences the original indictment contained voids of putative applicable statutes.
It is well determined that courts or prosecutors are not at leisure to amend or add charges to indictments. gA cryptic form of indictment in cases of this kind requires the defendant to go to trial with the chief issue undefined. It enables his conviction to rest on one point [law] and the affirmance of the conviction to rest on another. It gives the prosecution free hand on appeal to fill in the gaps of proof [law] by surmise or conjecture. The Court has had occasion before now to condemn just such a practice.h Russell v United States, 369 U.S. 749, 766. citations omitted; Rabe v Washington, 405 U.S. 313 (1972).
And again: gIf it lies within the province of a court to change the charging part of an indictment to suit its own notions of what it ought to have been, or what the grand jury would probably have made it if their attention had been called to suggested changes, the great importance which the common law attaches to an indictment by a grand jury, as a prerequisite to a prisonerfs trial for a crime, and without which the Constitution says eno person shall be held to answer,f may be frittered away until its value is almost destroyedc(this courtfs unanimous opinion has been) that a court cannot permit a defendant to be tried on charges that are not made in the indictment against him.h U.S. v Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 142-143 (1985) internal citations omitted.
But the Vroman court explains: gCorrect citation to the relevant statute, though always desirable, is not fatal if omitted.h and also gerrors in the citation or its omission shall not be grounds for dismissal of the indictment or reversal of the conviction if the error did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice.h
There are several items that should be considered. First, by what authority does the Vroman court make the statement that omission of a statutory duty alleged is not a fatal error in an indictment ?? The defendant finds NO support for that conclusion outside of recent appellate income tax prosecutions. In fact, it is directly in conflict with Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1887) and Stirone v U.S., 361 U.S. 212 (1960).
Revenue collection by the Federal government is not exempt from Due Process requirements including the non-broadening of indictments. In Boyd v United States, 116 U.S. 616, the court rejected an appeal to apply the revenue statute beyond the clear reading of the law. In United States v Carroll, 345 U.S. 457 (1953), the court dismissed the indictment that was not supported by a clear application of the alleged revenue statute: g(E)very citizen is entitled to fair warning of the traps which the criminal law lays.h id p. 460.
In fact, the Ninth Circuit rejects its own concept in non-tax cases. In United States v Lo, 231 F3d 471 (9th. Cir. 2000), the court declared: gFailure of an indictment to state an offense is never waived.h id 481.
Second, the Vroman court is considering an indictment where the erroneous cited statutory duty is a slight variance. The status of prejudice as an issue relevant to an indictment without any identified offense has been declared a non sequitur. Harris v U.S., 149 F3d 1304, 1308 (11th. Cir 1998); Kelly v U.S., 29 F3d 1107, 1113 (7th. Cir. 1994); U.S. v Milestone, 727 F2d 264, 269 (3rd cir. 1980). In United States v Brown, 995 United States 1493 (10th. cir. 1994), the court held an indictment that did not allege essential elements such as not identifying a crime resulted in a void indictment. gThe absence of prejudice to the defendant does not cure what is necessarily a substantive jurisdictional defect in the indictment.h id 1505, and even the Ninth Circuit agrees. gDespite the (guilty) plea, if cthe indictment would fail to state an offense against the United States the district court would be deprived of jurisdiction.h United States v Ventre, 338 F3d 1047, 1051 (9th. Cir. 2003).
Jurisdictional errors and constructive amendments via substitution of alternative charges have similar fatal results: U.S. v Patino, 962 F2d 263 (2nd cir. 1992); Harris v U.S., 149 F3d 1304, 1308 (11th. cir. 1998); U.S. v Adamson, 291 F3d 606, 616 (9th. Cir. 2002); U.S. v Collins, 350 F3d 773, 775 (8th. Cir. 2003); U.S. v Narog, 372 F3d 1243, 1247 (11th. cir. 2004); U.S. v Mueffelman, 470 F3d 33, 38 (1st. Cir. 2006); U.S. v Harrill, 877 F2d 341 (5th. Cir 1989). A constructive amendment, often by an erroneous jury instruction to convict a defendant of a crime not alleged, at least had a crime alleged in the indictment. In the instant indictment, there is NO crime alleged.
When faced with an indictment issued by a grand jury that did not allege a crime, but had been modified by the trial court to identify a crime, the Supreme court established a fundamental premise: gIt is of no avail, under such circumstances, to say that the court still has jurisdiction of the person and of the crime for, though it has possession of the person, and would have jurisdiction of the crime, if it were properly presented by indictment, the jurisdiction of the offense is gone, and the court has no right to proceed any further in the progress of the case for want of an indictment. If there is nothing before the court which the prisoner, in the language of the Constitution, can be held to answer, he is then entitled to be discharged so far as the offense originally presented to the court by the indictment is concerned. The power of the court to proceed to try the prisoner is as much arrested as if the indictment had been dismissed or a nolle prosequi had been entered. There was nothing before the court on which it could hear evidence or pronounce sentence.h Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1887). Jurisdictional negation removed. United States v Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002).
In Stirone v United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960), the supreme court applied the same result for the conviction of an offense not charged in the indictment. gIf (the defendant) was convicted of a charge the grand jury never made against him, (it) was fatal error.h id 217-219 .
The Supreme Court nullified the conviction of a crime that was not charged in the indictment as a violation of Due Process. "No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal. If, as the State Supreme Court held, petitioners were charged with a violation of 1 [and convicted of 2], it is doubtful both that the information fairly informed them of that charge and that they sought to defend themselves against such a charge; it is certain that they were not tried for or found guilty of it. It is as much a violation of due process to send an accused to prison following conviction of a charge on which he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made." Cole v Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1947).
gIt is well settled that (even) the entry of a guilty plea does not act as a waiver of jurisdictional defects such as an indictmentfs failure to charge an offense and the defendant may raise such failure at ANY time (including habeas corpus)h United States v White, 258 F3d 374, 379 (5th. Cir 2001), emphasis in original. Habeas Corpus, even after completion of sentence, is not moot if collateral consequences---such as restriction of gun ownership, lose of voting rights, sullying of reputation---still exist. Spencer v Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998).
ITEM 4: F.R.Cr.P. 7(c)(3) authorizes an indictment that does not allege a statutory violation.
Vroman considers F.R.Cr.P. 7(c)(3) [herein after the Rule] only as it applies to prejudice from an erroneous cited statutory citation. That premise is not challenged. However, the Rule has been cited in other adjudication to uphold the validity of indictments to challenges of no alleged statutory duty.
It is submitted the instant indictment has been shown to be void of any statutory known legal duty. The Rule will be analyzed as potentially applied to the instant indictment.
FRCrP 7(c)(3) reads: gUnless the defendant was misled and thereby prejudiced, neither an error in a citation nor a citation's omission is a ground to dismiss the indictment or information or to reverse a conviction.h
By any objective reading, the Rule supports an indictment without any citation of a statutory duty or a known legal duty. The committee that formulated the Rule for Congressional approval relied upon United States v Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219 (1941) and Williams v United States, 168 U.S. 382 (1897) to contend the prior cases established that provision. That was a misrepresentation. Both adjudications involved erroneous cited statutory duties.
United States v Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219 (1941) stated: gIn order to determine whether an indictment charges an offense against the United States, designation by the pleader of the statute under which he purported to lay the charge is immaterial. He may have conceived the charge under one statute which would not sustain the indictment but it may nevertheless come within the terms of another statute. (A statute other than the one cited) may draw the sting of criminality from the allegations.h id. 229.
In Williams v United States, 168 U.S. 382 (1897), the court declared: gIt is wholly immaterial what statute was in the mind of the district attorney when he drew the indictment, if the charges made are embraced by some statute in forcecWe must look to the indictment itself, and, IF IT PROPERLY CHARGES AN OFFENSE under the laws of the United States, that is sufficient to sustain it, although the representative of the United States may have supposed that the offense charged was covered by a different statute.h id 389, emphasis added.
The Rule is a negation of an 800 year old fundamental right which has been enshrined within our Constitution. The Rulefs destruction of our Right to be confronted with the law alleged to have been violated is in direct conflict with clear and unambiguous adjudication of the Supreme court quoted herein. It is in conflict with provisions granting jurisdiction to a Case, it is in conflict with established Fifth Amendment requirements for an Indictment and of gDue Process of Law,h it is in conflict with the Sixth Amendment provision gto be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.h It is an unacceptable method to amend the constitution and must be declared void.
As declared in Vroman, circuit precedent is not controlling where prior panel did not consider an argument the later panel finds persuasive. United States v Faulkner, 952 F2d 1066, 1071 n.3 (9th. Cir 1991). The ninth circuit has accepted a district court not complying with the mandate of the circuit court where the mandate was clearly erroneous. United States v Cuddy, 147 F3d 1111 (1998). g[C]learly erroneous rulings that would work a manifest injusticeh are cause for review of law of the circuit. Tahoe-Sierra v Tahoe Plan, 216 F3d 764 (9th. Cir 2000); United States v Alvarez, 142 F3d 1243 (10th. Cir 1998); United States v Bartsh, 69 F3d 864, 866 (8th. Cir. 1995); United States v Callaway, 972 F2d 904, 905 (8th. Cir 1992).
FRCrP 12 does not apply to an indictment that does not charge a violation.
Let us not be mislead. The lack of a known legal duty within the indictment is not an accidental oversight. It is a deliberate institutional strategy that has been in place for decades. Section One of the 1939 IRC Code addressed gevery individual.h The 1954 rewriting addressed anyone with gtaxable income.h Anyone using the tabulated values invoked the implication they had taxable income. An individualfs concept of what the law might have been cannot be used against them. Prior acquiesce to government demands does not establish a legal requirement for an unidentified duty. Only a law can impose a tax, and Due Process requires the law be alleged and submitted to contestation.
It is well established a tax agency pursuing tax litigation has the burden of proof to not only evidence the statute that imposes the tax, but due process also requires the agency to submit it to contestation and to carry the burden of proof as to its validity. Speiser v Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 529 (1958); Spreckles Sugar v McClain, 192 U.S. 397. If the agency can avoid identifying putative authority for the tax, any challenge to the tax by the defendant inherently reverses the burden of proof. The court will require the defendant to prove there is no possible way the tax might be valid. There is no possible way to question the validity of a law not identified. That burden of proof is impossible to meet. The placement of the burden of proof may be decisive of the outcome. Cities Service Oil Co. v Dunlap, 308 U.S. 208.
A generic statute such as 7201 or 7203 cannot identify a known legal duty nor has it ever been so applied in numerous cases involving taxes other than income tax cases. The event that would impose the status of taxpayer on the defendant (an essential element) has never been alleged and put into contestation. Prejudice is an irrelevant consideration for an indictment that does not identify an offense. F.R.Cr.P. 7(c)(3) as written to permit an indictment without a crime alleged is in conflict with fundamental constitutional Due Process and must be declared null and void.
Without a charge in the indictment, the court has no authority to proceed and must dismiss the indictment.
DISCLAIMER: Let nothing written herein, or hereafter verbally presented to the court, be construed or implied that the defendant is making any challenge to the unidentified tax which might allow the court to reverse the burden of proof imposed upon the tax agency by Due Process. The exclusive purpose of this Motion is to determine the statutory gknown legal dutyh for which the accused is responsible and the consideration of any physical evidence, such as deposits, remuneration for physical services, the existence of government forms, etc., is irrelevant until such legal duty is identified WITHIN THE INDICTMENT and thereby submitted to contestation with the burden of proof as to its validity upon the movant.
John Doe, address, phone number , date Notice of service
A student of criminal law, familiar with writing and serving motions, might review:
by Lawyers Cooperative Publishing {KF 8836 F4}
Volume 7 on Criminal Procedure includes
20:212 Defects in the Indictment or Information,
20:217 Failure to Charge Offense.
Volume 9 includes
22:801 regarding citation of laws,
22:927 Defects in the Indictment, and
22:938 Failure to Charge Offense.
Also see, FEDERAL PROCEDURE, LAWYERS EDITION {KF 8835 F43},
Volume 27, 62.487 to 62.503. Conviction of a crime by an indictment that does not
charge an offense can be challenged even after completion of sentence. (See the above.)
Presentation forms are described in WEST FEDERAL FORMS, Volume 5 {KF8836 W4}
7302 is titled Motion by Defendant to Dismiss Indictment.
7308 has a motion for failure to state a crime.
MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE Third Edition {KF8820 A313 M63}
607.04 and 612.04 are current and excellent.
- The judicial requirements of Due Process place the burden of proof on the movant to evidence the court has jurisdiction of the question presented in the pleading. It is also a requirement for the movant to allege and evidence the defendant had a duty beholding to the movant. A couple of cases applying the principals to tax issues include Speiser v Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 529 (1958)and Spreckles Sugar v McClain, 192 U.S. 397. Shepardizing the cases, and following the headnote key numbers in the Federal Digest system, can readily locate additional cases.


text:
Durham, NCUSA
November 9, 2010
Historical and contemporary thriller/suspense.
I've enjoyed the book club since it started - particularly the great group of members!
A fabulous group of women. I love the conversation, whether I like the book or not!!!
Already a member? Log in.
Already a member? Log in.
Meetup members, Log in
By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy


text:
PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale
my move set for Metal Gear Solid 2 Sons Of Liberty Raiden
- Topic Archived
- Page 1 of 2
- Last
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
- Boards
- PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale
- my move set for Metal Gear Solid 2 Sons Of Liberty Raiden
MKWARRIOR2000 3 years ago#1
side circle tossed grenade hold circle to switch between regular grenades & stun grenades tap circle to throw either grenade.
up circle saving ladder recovery move
down circle BDU uniform changes his moves.
Neutral circle while in uniform AK 47.
Side circle over there? Raiden's eyes light up - as the enemy soldiers do in MGS2 when you are spotted, as he 'scans' the area immediately in front of him for spies. If an enemy is caught in this sight [captioned as '1' below], a large, bright-red excalamation mark appears over Raiden's head, along with the soundbite from Metal Gear Solid* and the opponent is momentarily stunned, letting our their own unique surprised squeal.
This enables Jack to then follow with the AK, or simply gives him leeway to do whatever he fancies. However, to enable the stun and succeed with the move, the enemy has to be in front of Raiden and on the ground - keeping in mind the requirements of staying in the BDU, this move is quite risky. It also extends only to the end of Final Destination, so a very far away enemy may not be affected.
As with all moves within the BDU uniform, "Over There?" is considered lethal. This is because of the role Raiden is playing as the Russian soldier, which was factored into the simulation.
Switches to Lethal
up circle I Got 'Em! - This move is unorthodox, but so is the entire BDU special move. Essentially, this is not your ordinary recovery, or a recovery at all as being knocked enough will send Raiden back into his normal form anyway. Rather, this move incorporates two others of the mercenaries gang to aid BDU Raiden.
By the press of (B), a ladder will lower in the background directly behind Raiden. Two seconds later, another BDU-uniformed operative climbs down the ladder to its lowest steps, then looks onto the battlefield using his trusty pair of binoculars he keeps hung around his neck. Anyone in this vertical spectrum - within one stage builder block - for the next five seconds is then 'spotted' by the person in the background, with the usual red exclamation mark above both Raiden and the scout, as well as the 'surprise' sound effect from Metal Gear Solid.* After five seconds or the enemy being spotted, the ladder ascends along with the mercenary.
Suddenly, cypher! Yes, as a result of being 'spotted,' a gun-holstering cypher appears from the opposite side of the screen. This machine is destructable - it will blow up after sustaining fifty-percent damage. It will also leave the battlefield after ten seconds. While on-screen, it will first of all move into a position ninety-degrees from the enemy, at which point it will move its gun appendage up and down until it is aimed any opponent. (These two processes do not count towards the ten second time limit that the cypher endures.) It then fires one round,* reloads for one second and repeats this pattern. The round can hit only once, but this is true for several frames, so dodging on-foot or midair isn't possible. To evade this, its target must get behind the cypher [it can only move its appendage from straight-forward to downward]; they could climb on top of the cypher as well, perhaps forcing Raiden to shoot it himself! This all
This move can only be used again after fifteen seconds have elapsed. Due to the nature of the BDU uniform, it is likely Raiden will only be able to use this move once per stock, but it does make up for that weakness of BDU Raiden's neutral special when a foe is in the air compared to on the ground.
*[15%] Switches to Lethal
To be continued
MKWARRIOR2000 (Topic Creator)3 years ago#2
About neutral circle Raiden brings his gun's reticule to his eye line and fires at a simple press of (B), as he will if performed whilst running or in the air. This motion is practically instant, but has major setbacks because Raiden only shoots directly forward (shorter opponents won't be hit) and there is some minor ending lag.
At the end of the move, Raiden pulls the slider back on the M9 then reloads, or, if equipped with the SOCOM, simply reloads a cartridge; the SOCOM is slightly faster here. The gun is already within Raiden's eye line when running or walking, so the small amount of lag taken to lift is gone, at the cost of accuracy [the gun bobs up and down, especially when running]. Holding (B) will prompt Raiden to stop and shoot in place, or continually shoot if running or in the air, until hitting solid ground. The non-lethal weapon used here is the M9, the lethal weapon is the SOCOM.
When the M9 is used, darts are fired from the gun singularly as described above. As with other non-lethal weapons, this move has a purpose beyond causing damage - as well as leaving a large needle wherever it hits on the opponent's body, the darts release a chemical into the opponent's body that will eventually cause them to 'fall asleep', which translates in Smash to the victim dazing off. If in the air when the chemical is activated, they will free fall. Shooting an opponent once has no effect, but shooting them after that will activate the drug thirty seconds from that point, with each successive dart after that bringing the time down by one second. Like with the SOCOM, headshots are encouraged - a head shot after the initial dart will reduce time until activation by two seconds, rather than one. Some characters like Kirby and Meta Knight share the misfortune of having any shot regarded as a headshot, this is in counteraction to them being too low to hit when on-foot. Because of the reloading mechanism, it is nigh impossible to score multiple shots in a short time, so Raiden has to rely upon tactics. The amount of time spent dazed is always two second in the air [free falling] and four seconds on the ground. Calculating when the reactants will hit the opponent is extremely important here, as after that, the process begins all over again. Likewise, the opponent must be wary of the mighty M9 tranquilizer - that's enough time to use a falcon punch!
After falling asleep or being killed, the 'needle counter' - the amount of darts that have connected with the victim - resets and shots connected when the opponent is 'asleep' do not count. This goes for all moves regarding the needle count.
The SOCOM's best use is in hitting the opponent head, as it this deals high damage* and a half-second worth of stun. Obviously, hitting the opponent in that region will have a varying degree of difficulty, but otherwise the damage is quite minimal* and there is no stun. This weapon is therefore best used in unison with other attacks to surprise the enemy, or at opportune moments when the enemy is below Raiden or in a good position for a headshot; some characters like Kirby and Meta Knight share the misfortune of having any shot regarded as a headshot, this is in counteraction to them being too low to hit when on-foot. An advantage of the SOCOM over the M9 is its standardised reloading, meaning it has a slightly faster rate of fire.
MKWARRIOR2000 (Topic Creator)3 years ago#3
Side Special: Tossed Grenade - Jack tosses a grenade from his waist, which ricochets off the ground and sides of the stage until exploding two seconds later. The nature of the grenade is that it is extremely 'bouncy', reacting accordingly to any crack or bump in the floor or walls of the arena. Raiden is forced into a throwing animation upon pressing (B) and will not throw the grenade if interrupted, but if (B) is held, he can carry the grenade for as long as the player wishes, whereby the same rules as written above apply when the projectile is thrown (i.e. this is like Link's bombs, not Snake's grenades); press (B) again to throw the grenade. The player cannot use other special moves if a grenade is being held.
Dependant on the type of grenade, it will either release phosphorous, igniting momentarily and burning the surrounding area or release a type of gas that will cause the recipient to fall dazed in a similar time span.
The non-lethal version of this move, the stun grenade, releases a blinding light when it explodes. This light is powerful enough to bring any foe to a daze similar to if their shield was broken, only for one second – the catch is that the opponent has to be stood nearly on the exact point of impact for the grenade to have this desired effect, so even a simple jump could render this move entirely useless! Fear not, though, Raiden mains, as being within an entire two stage builder's block of the flash adds one to the foe's needle count or begins one. [Personally, death by snoo snoo is my preferred method of exhaustion.]
to be continued
MKWARRIOR2000 (Topic Creator)3 years ago#4
The incendiary grenade is far more straight-forward than its non-lethal counterpart – phosphorous is released when the item 'explodes,' which is then ignited, in fire, by fuels in the grenade. This spreads over a large area [two stage builder blocks from the centre of the grenade outward] for three frames of near-instantaneous damage,* which lack in punch but do stun the opponent, negating any action they were performing. The last frame of damage has minor knockback, meagre enough that it only knocks out an enemy over two-hundred-percent damaged. Raiden is unaffected by the flames.
*[3%, 4%, 5%] Lethal
Up Special: Saving Ladder - This is Raiden's primary recovery. As soon as the (B) button is pressed, a ladder appears on Raiden's location and he automatically grabs it, with propeller noises now evidencing a helicopter out-of-frame. As it is a rope ladder, you can control its sway; use the left control stick's x-axis. You can also make Raiden climb the ladder higher or lower using the y-axis of the control stick - change which way he is facing on the ladder by pressing (L) or (R) [it comes in from a side-view]. No matter where Raiden is, the ladder will only be available for four seconds before it ascends beyond view, whereas Jack will fall off the ladder with any carried momentum from swaying on the ladder. The further down the ladder you are, the more sway you have, but the less controlled it is - you could potentially sway too much and be thrown off, so be careful! Sway can potentially force the ladder back or forward by two stage builder blocks with continued pushes back and forth.
Note that while the helicopter's aim is to get to the centre of the stage, its speed will not change depending on distance, so it will not always take you there. However, it will always ascend beyond the stage's ceiling in four seconds, so speed going upwards varies widely depending on how high or low you are when you summon the helicopter.
If the ladder is caught underneath a stage or hard platform, the same will happen and Raiden can be attacked during the move, making it a precocious ascent. When no buttons are pressed, the helicopter will carry the ladder in a monotonous ninety-degree angle toward the top-centre of the stage, which is obviously not always the best approach from below the stage or with different types of enemy in the air.
By pressing (A) at any time, Raiden can freely jump off the ladder with an extra kick of momentum compared to if he just waited to hit the ceiling. Raiden can also throw a grenade if he is holding one, or fire his gun, or even don his BDU uniform disguise whilst on the ladder, possibly surprising the opponent. The same rules apply on the ladder as they would on the ground with all of these weapons, except that they exhert some sway on the ladder depending on their different recoils. For example, the high recoil of the AK47 will send it flailing in the opposite direction, not preferrable for a sidewards recovery. Also remember that, as the move switches Jack to non-lethal you can only use such moves whilst on the ladder, due to (L) and (R) being dedicated to changing sides of the ladder.
As well, a Raiden main must remember that enemies can use the ladder as well by pressing up on the control stick whilst in front of it. Jack will always spawn at the bottom of the ladder and swaying it too severely to the left or right will send people hanging at the bottom off of it, perhaps to their dooms; initiating this move close to the stage is therefore unrecommendable. If no enemy attempted to attack Raiden, he could get back to the stage from any distance using this move, but its shortcomings force the user to make a stealthy approach. [Stealth in Metal Gear? Why, I never.]
Switches to Non-Lethal
I didn't mean to say to press b
MKWARRIOR2000 (Topic Creator)3 years ago#5
Switches to Non-Lethal
Down Special: BDU Uniform - This move differs from some of Raiden's other specials in having only one method. This is a slight advantage if the opponent thinks that, "Raiden used his tranquilizer - now he can't use his BDU uniform", only to be shot ad nauseum with the AK47.
Raiden's BDU uniform serves as his down special's non-lethal version in this moveset, but was used in Metal Gear Solid 2 to infiltrate an enemy base infested with BDU-wearing soldiers. The outfit allowed Jack to fit in with the mercenaries present on the ship, although only when holding an AK47 and it was tight-fitting, meaning that even the slightest nudge by the enemy would force Raiden out of the uniform. These elements all play a role in the BDU. This is a sort of role-playing game.
Firstly, as soon as the (B) button is pressed, the "changing sound" is heard and Raiden is wearing the uniform.* There is no way to stop this transformation and for the first three seconds of it, Raiden is invincible. However, keeping in with limitations provided in MGS2, Jack's movement is extremely blighted - he can only use special moves and they're all altered to fit his new outfit - he can only walk and cannot jump, luckily he packs enough firepower in this form to defend himself.
After the initial three seconds, any attack powerful enough to knock Raiden further than one stage block builder will eject him out of "BDU mode." This also applies if Jack is knocked out, but remember that the uniform cannot be used again in the same stock, even Raiden's usual body suit will change as the uniform's balaclava is taken, leaving Jack with his head poking out of the uniform (this happened in the game). This effect remains until the end of the stock.
Neutral Special: AK 4 Life - This is BDU Raiden's most versatile move - classifying as a lethal move due to its brutality, but the BDU Uniform as a whole is regarded as a non-lethal move. While (B) is held, Raiden brings his AK47 to his eyeline pretty much instantly and begins firing in this way. There are several things you can do from this point - press (A) to make Raiden crouch [unfortunately he can't duck walk], which lowers the line of fire to hit smaller enemies. Press the button once more to make Raiden stand. From both positions, you can use the control stick to alter the AK's trajectory by intervals of forty-five degrees - straight forward, up-right, straight up, up-left and backward. Jack's line of fire is a little off-place compared to other gunslingers like Fox or Falco, but his bullets have similar properties to their beams, besides being yellow to represent metallic properties; this makes the shots hard to avoid.
Each hit from the AK is surprisingly damaging* and every shot has as much stun as Falco's blaster, bar the knockback. Due to this, it is difficult to evade further attacks when being shot straightforwardly on the ground, but it should never come to that if the opponent takes note of Raiden's transformation and stays airbourne. Essentially, this is one of Raiden's best moves if used in the right situations, be it gimping or simply being an annoying camper, but using Jack's other special moves in his BDU form is essential in keeping the opponent from halting this momentum. Remember, only once per stock, so don't waste it. The AK need never be reloaded and can possibly shoot forever, at a speed as fast as Fox's blaster.
*[3%] Switches to Lethal
MKWARRIOR2000 (Topic Creator)3 years ago#6
Down Special: Nomad - Raiden rips off his balaclava and reverts to his normal moveset. Once this has been done, Jack cannot use his down special again until his next stock, or for the duration of the match if he is not knocked out again. Though in his normal form moveset-wise, Raiden looks almost entirely different, as he is still wearing his BDU uniform bar the balaclava. This is the only consequence, however - his set of moves remains the same bar the removal of his down special, much like how he loses his balaclava in Metal Gear Solid 2 and the uniform is rendered useless.
Switches to Lethal
square combo close combat 101 switches to non lethal running square cartwheel switches to non lethal side square HF blade lunge The very tip end of the HF blade is its sweetspot in this move.
The blunt side of the blade differs here in, per usual, lacking knockback where there is a sizable amount in the sharp side, as well as damage.* There is an advantage, though - there is no ending lag on the end of the move as there is on the red side [not literally]; the lack of lag means that connecting this move with others is far easier, making the process of 'stacking needles' less of a hassle.
*[7%] Non-Lethal
Sweetspotting Raiden's lethal side tilt is a good way of knocking out your opponent* - the spot is located at the tip of the blade, although wherever the opponent is hit, the damage is the same.* When not sweetspotted, this move will simply nudge the victim an insignificant distance and may leave Jack open during the small elapse of lag afterward, but this is unlikely unless you foolishly initiate this move when they are close enough to attack. This move is always best used from a short distance.
*[13% + 2% x # of Recurring Tilts] *[KOs Starting at 85%] Lethal
down square slice Raiden brings down his sword from above his head in an axe-handle like position, cutting foes in all dimensions. The move can end here, but Jack can follow with a sidewards slice of his blade if prompted to with (A) when the blade is near the ground. You can also dastardly change styles at this point with (L) or (R), effective considering the quirks of both versions - this is quite difficult with the time given, as you must switch styles then press (A) within the next half-second to initiate the second strike, otherwise the move will end here with your switched style selected. The second slice functions similarly to the first - its main purpose is in dismissing of those who avoided the first attack, by their own distinction or the Raiden player's wilyness. Though this move extends all the way around Raiden, it only hits right in front of him.
The scale of the initial strike can also hit floored enemies - this may prove a useful tool due to its fast delivery. This move has strange properties about it. Raiden can hit grounded enemies with the blunt side here, send low-percent damaged enemies high into the air with the sharp side and this makes for a very confusing opposition when this move is used, especially when styles are changed mid-move. Also, dis-jointed hitboxes - the second strike in fact stretches to a whole stage builder block in front of Raiden. Who said I wasn't using Snake as inspiration?
up square Pirouette - Raiden creates a spiral with the HF Blade, leaping forward one stage builder block - possibly hitting twice, during the 'spiral' stage of the attack and at the very end when the blade is brought downward. The attack hits from just above Raiden to up to one stage builder block in front of him, making it a quite decent long-ranged attack for the sword. It does, however, leave Raiden somewhat open to an attack from behind if it is roll dodged. If hit by the first, it is impossible to dodge the second attack - barring intervention from other players or items.
MKWARRIOR2000 (Topic Creator)3 years ago#7
up square Pirouette - Raiden creates a spiral with the HF Blade, leaping forward one stage builder block - possibly hitting twice, during the 'spiral' stage of the attack and at the very end when the blade is brought downward. The attack hits from just above Raiden to up to one stage builder block in front of him, making it a quite decent long-ranged attack for the sword. It does, however, leave Raiden somewhat open to an attack from behind if it is roll dodged. If hit by the first, it is impossible to dodge the second attack - barring intervention from other players or items.
The pirouette has a slight vacuum effect,
it pulls in enemies within one stage builder block for the secondary lunge strike.
The blunt version of this move routinely does smaller damaged compared to the sharp version, on both the first* and second strikes,* but has unique knockback. The second strike will knock foes to the ground, enabling the use of the his down tilt. As there are two rather close hitboxes here, this is a good starting point for a needle counter.
*[5%] *[6%] Non-Lethal
Though there is some decent knockback on the first hit, the red version of this move has exponential sweet spotting on the second strike; similarly to Jack's side tilt, it is at the very tip and end of the attack.* The first* and second* strike are also quite damaging. This move does not knock the opponent to the floor like its non-lethal sibling, rather the entire assault sends the victim in an orthodoxly straight direction, in front of Raiden.
*[7% + 2% x # of Recurrent Tilts] *[9% + 2% x # of Recurrent Tilts] *[KOs Starting at 90%] *[KOs Starting at 75% (not sweetspotted: 100%)] Lethal
neutral aerial Shock Therapy Raiden takes his sword in hand and rolls in mid-air, doing a full loop before coming back into his original falling stance. This move hits all around Raiden - although the area is reduced from normal, due to Raiden being crawled up into a ball. Another attribute of the attack is that Jack is 'electrified' during it, aiding him in hitting further enemies by expanding the reach of his sword. Generally, all enemies within one stage builder block of the move will be hit, either by the lightning or the sword itself. A downside of this lightning is that it negates either resonation or the needle counter effect. Similar cries to when shocked in Metal Gear Solid 2 play during the move's duration,* perhaps a sign that it is quite painful.
This is all slightly out-of-character for Raiden, but this is a game, just like usual. The move can hit up to four times, counting at a half-second per hit as the player rotates; it takes two seconds for Raiden to finish this move, so it is somewhat written for the supposed victims. Each separate hit does the same amount of damage* and an opponent can be hit all four times quite easily - they need to be in the air and below Raiden; there is a slightly downward curvature in the move's trajectory. The likelihood of knocking an opponent out with this move is slim, as it only stuns momentarily, although the very last possible hit of the four carries minimal vertical knockback - it knocks out opponents starting at 110%. As always, keep in mind the style of the move - it switches to lethal, due to its brutality.
*[4%, 4%, 4%, 4%] Switches to Lethal
MKWARRIOR2000 (Topic Creator)3 years ago#8
side aerial Semtex Explosive - In Metal Gear Solid 2, there are several sneaking sections where the player must avoid setting off plastic explosives - usually semtex. This includes a sniper section where Raiden must snipe all control boxes for the semtex and sometimes, a foolish player could simply run into a room with laser-powered detectors, setting off explosives all over the Plant [where MGS2 is set]... Here's your revenge - blow up the semtex!
By the press of (A), Raiden will toss the semtex and then follow it with his now drawn SOCOM. He will follow it in its natural trajectory until it explodes (this happens when it hits hard ground or opponents) or falls behind hard platforms or beyond the blast lines. If (A) is pressed again before the semtex falls out of sight, Raiden will shoot it, initiating the explosion himself - but be careful, as it will damage Jack if shot when within two stage builder blocks. The explosion generated is extremely powerful* and the knockback is strong enough to knock enemies out standing enemies at just 70%, making it imperative for enemies to evade when Raiden pulls out the semtex; for the first two seconds of the move, Raiden is vulnerable to the explosion and can be attacked once he throws the semtex by team mates, which is one second after the move is initiated. This would allow for the plastic explosive to fall to its own making. The trajectory is as expected - it's a bag with some explosives in it, after all, it falls in a golden arches shape with ever increasing speed.
A notable weakness of this move is Raiden's vulnerability after throwing the semtex. The player only gains control of Jack again once the Semtex is out of sight or if it has been detonated. As shooting it right away will damage and possibly kill Raiden, he is especially in danger, leaving himself wide open for attack. Thus this move is best used as a very precise gimp or bait, otherwise it will prove ineffective against skilled players. Fear not, though, Raiden mains - this is still one of The White Devil's best KO moves!
Switches to Lethal
up aerial Mine - These abominable, purple nightmares plagued all who entered the Plant's flooded Core 1 areas, exploding on contact whilst battling with some of the worst swimming controls in any video game. Yessir, these things were extremely aggravating for most first-time players, but certainly memorable and Raiden takes them with them into Smash!
This move is essential in Raiden's air game, as it aids in discriminating those who try to attack from above. An opponent should be weary of the air mine, its illogicalities allow it to stay in place for the duration of its stay and it can be summoned at any time with no lag
At the press of (A), Raiden raises his hands above him in an inconspicuous position, summoning a mine into that location, directly one building block above him. Creating the mine is almost momentary, but the mine can be detonated by Raiden. Detonating the mine is simple: land on it, at which point it explodes and deals decent damage* as well as knockback, powerful enough to knock out at seventy-five percent vertically. However, after thirty seconds on the field, the mine disappears. Throughout its lifespan, the mine will always remain where Jack originally placed it, even when a stage changes in any particular way. Only one mine can be summoned at any time by Raiden.
*[12%] Switches to Lethal
MKWARRIOR2000 (Topic Creator)3 years ago#9
down aerial Grenade Launcher - Raiden pulls out his RGB-6 for some violent reconaissance in this move, opting to use gravity to his advantage. After one second of starting up lag as Jack prepares the grenade launcher by aiming it straight down - hopefully at his opponents - he then shoots a grenade from it, but continued pushes of (A) can mean up to six grenades can be shot.
Each propelled grenade deals good damage,* but the real usefulness of the grenades comes in their incredible downward knockback, making this an effective spike. The downside of this is that the projectiles can only be fired straight down, so Raiden mains will have to either be very accurate or gather a degree of momentum going into the move, enabling what would essentially be a carpet bombing across the bottom of the screen. Due to the lag - as well as a second of ending lag as Raiden re-equips his old weapon - this move functions solely as a good spike in most cases, but can be quite the surprise if an opponent is chasing Raiden from below.
*[8%] Switches to Lethal
forward throw I Hate Ames - In Metal Gear Solid 2, the directional microphone was used by Raiden to listen in on far away, drawn out and boring conversations most of the time, but it was also used to find General Ames, a hostage with a pacemaker that can be heard using the microphone. Dressed in your BDU uniform, you, as the player, are to then discover Ames without drawing attention to yourself.
This is revenge for that mission. Raiden stabs his opponent sadistically with the directional microphone, mockingly saying, "you're Ames, aren't you?" like he does in his game - or maybe it's just an accident, make of it what you will. The stab causes the opponent to be knocked from Raiden with middling power, but the damage is good.*
*[8%] Switches to Lethal
Back Throw: Strangle - Raiden removes one arm from his grab to remove the dog tags hidden inconspicuously around his neck - where were they before? Nevermind, then he strangles the victim using them! This ends momentarily, thankfully and Jack turns round, delivering a boot to the enemy's back for good measure. They are then released and knocked back a fair distance - not nearly enough for a knock out, but to create distance. Damage is, again, good* and coming out of this move will also put Raiden in lethal mode.
*[7%] Switches to Lethal
Up Throw: Stinger Missile - Equipping the beastly Stinger missile launcher, Raiden aims it upward and pulls his opponent on top of it. He then pulls the launcher's trigger and - much to the foe's dismay - launches them into the air. Miraculously, the missile doesn't explode and the enemy is able escape the its trajectory [it travels beyond the blastline], but they still take damage from the ride up there.*
Raiden unequips the Stinger once the opponent starts falling from the top of the screen and the missile itself can never explode, making this all a rather canned move, but it enables Jack to attak the opponent as they fall - although completely in control at that point.
Switches to Lethal
MKWARRIOR2000 (Topic Creator)3 years ago#10
Down Throw: Locker & Loaded - This move is the only throw which has two versions to it - lethal and non-lethal - however, which move that is used depends entirely on the state of the enemy. If the enemy is dazed from their being 'put to sleep' by the many non-lethal darts, blunt swords or chloroform napkins, the non-lethal version is initiated, if not, the lethal version. Though one could take advantage of a dazed enemy effectively with one of the many lethal damage rackers or knock out moves, the locker is definitely the funnest way to do it.
The lethal version of this move is simplistic - an electrified panel appears like in Raiden's up smash, except this time this time in the foreground and Jack isn't the one being punished! Raiden turns to face the players and drops the foe onto the panel, seemingly electrocuting them; they are then launched with medium knockback into the air. Damage is decent,* but this is more of a punishment in comparison to its non-lethal companion. Once the victim has been launched up, the panel disappears and Raiden returns to his normal stance.
*[7%] Lethal
This move is only initiated if the grabbed opponent is dazed using the needle counting system - that is, they have been knocked out using any combination of darts, blunt HF blade sides, tranquilizing rifles or passed time. When down is pressed, a grey locker - little taller, but twice as wide as Raiden appears in front of the victim, facing halfway toward the camera and toward Jack. Immediately, he opens the locker door with one hand and pushes in the foe, closing the door after. If the foe had woken up during the past few events, now would be when they could actually do something - by mashing buttons, one can escape the locker by barging down the door with the average amount of mashing used to escape a grab. If the trapped foe does mash enough to escape, the locker door will collapse and the structure will then start to fade away immediately.
That's not all, though. By approaching the locker and holding down on the control stick toward it, Raiden will start to push the locker. He can push it fast - about one building block a second. Note that throughout all of this, the opponent can wake up and start mashing buttons. The aim of Jack in pushing the locker is pushing it off the ledge, the foe inside along with it. If able to do this, the enemy can still escape, but it is far tougher than before. The locker falls at the same rate that Ganondorf does when he uses his down special in the air and it gathers momentum as it goes. If the foe does escape in midair, they will still carry all of that momentum, making locker falls on stages like final destination near-definite knock outs.
If hit by a falling locker, a character takes damage* and severe downward knockback - enough that being hit by one below a stage's lowest platform is practically impossible to recover from. Raiden can be attacked whilst pushing the locker, but he can also be aided by team mates [visually, they seem to be pushing Raiden], making the locker move at twice the speed it usually would.
*[15%] Non-Lethal
- Boards
- PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale
- my move set for Metal Gear Solid 2 Sons Of Liberty Raiden
Report Message
Terms of Use Violations:
Etiquette Issues:
Add user to Ignore List after reporting