text:
As thousands of Borders bookstores closed their doors, comic bookstores are finding new customers looking to satisfy their book fix.
CEOs of several comic book publishers told retailers at Comic Con Friday that the comic book industry is surpassing the rest of the book industry this year.
Ted Adams, CEO of comic book publisher IDW, told retailers on Friday that the surprising increase was probably a result of former Borders customers turning to their local comic stores.
And, unlike non-graphic books, publishers and retail storeowners say comic books will survive the surge in digital publications because fans still want to collect comic books. Fans have told publishers they will not make the switch to digital – it's just not the same the CEOs said.
"There are some ways to tell a story that are inherently more favorable toward print than they are toward digital," said Bob Wayne, senior vice president of sales for DC Comics. "Retailers have that collectability."
Yet comic book storeowners took these sunny projections with a large grain of salt by storeowners. Many owners are barely breaking even, and are deeply concerned that the publishers are not actually looking out for storeowners' interests.
Jason Deveau, co-owner of Jay Ron Racing and Collectables in Rhode Island, says he's worried about his store and other comic book retailers. When he graduated high school, there were 18 stores in his area. Now he owns one of three.
"The thing that scares me is that they were talking a lot about what they were planning on doing," Deveau said. "But what concerns a retailer like myself is – prices keep going up and I'm losing customers."
Cheaper options for comic book fans now, such as Amazon.com, present further problems for storeowners, Deveau said. The demographics of comic bookstore customers is also gettingprogressively older, and retailers can't depend on kids to keep their businesses strong.
"Our customers are more than just people who come in to get books," said Rei Valentine, Deveau's girlfriend and business partner. "We see them, we talk to them, we know if so-and-so's wife had a baby. But at the same time, they have to live in this terrible economy as well. If they can get it somewhere else cheaper, they're going to."
For retailers to survive, Valentine said, they'll need publishers to cut deals and give them incentives to stay in business.
Publishers at the Comic-Con meeting said they would consider offering storeowners more retail specials – such as supplying 30 comic books for the price of 10. Retailers said deals like those are a small way publishers can save the stores.
"What we really need is for these guys to help us be competitive so that this economy doesn't screw us over," Valentine said.


text:
Vichy LiftActiv CXP Day Moisturizing Cream: Will It Fix Your Wrinkle Problems?posted on 31 Oct 2013 05:37 by louis78iris
Is your skin completely dry? The Vichy LiftActiv CPX Day could just be the hydrating cream to enable you to hydrate your skin. In addition to a variety of demanding moisturizers, it has Continuous Release Supplement C and Peptide 2, active ingredients believed to stimulate the skin's natural manufacturing of elastin and collagen. Collagen and elastin are in fee of keeping the skin's flexibility. Furthermore, they supply the skin its ability to rejuvenate itself.
When reviewed with other moisturizing items in its team, the LiftActiv CPX Dry is swiftly taken in by the skin and gives much longer lasting moisturizing. A lot of individuals state their skin really feels really soft after just the first use, and that their completely dry skin had a significant, noticeable change after lengthy term, regular use.
Dry skin is more apt to be ruined. Wrinkles are not triggered entirely by completely dry skin. Even though it's been shown that the substances in Vichy LiftActiv CPX Day cream boost skin suppleness, there is serious concern concerning the bioavailability of these compounds when applied topically.
If you would certainly like to minimize your creases, you require to have a look at other skin care items that have better client contentment ratings. As an example, there's the well known eb5 face cream. This item has anti-oxidants (for decreasing maturing), sunscreen (for quiting skin damage), and a ton of supplements (for feeding the skin). Alpha Hydroxy products, on the other hand, can conveniently provide you a more youthful appearance by scrubing and tightening up the skin. Like many anti-wrinkle options, these products drop very short of the Vichy item in hydrating efficiency.
Vichy LiftActiv CPX Day for dry to really dry skin is classified as an innovation anti-wrinkle treatment procedure, leading you to assume it could make your wrinkles disappear entirely. Years of using extreme elegance products, extended sunlight direct exposure, or forget can cause great damage to the skin. The framework of skin and hormone adjustments in the physical body are sophisticated, and not effortlessly managed topically.
You can considerably lessen creases on your skin if you maintain wonderful skin treatment in the beginning and all throughout your life. If you have dry skin, the Vichy LiftActiv CPX Day is one of the ideal items you could purchase.
A great deal of individuals specify their skin really feels extremely soft after only the initial usage, and that their dry skin had a critical, noticeable adjustment after long term, regular use.
Wrinkles are not triggered totally by completely dry skin. If you would certainly such as to lessen your creases, you really need to have an appearance at other skin care products that have much better customer contentment rankings. Vichy LiftActiv CPX Day for dry to really completely dry skin is labeled as a breakthrough anti-wrinkle procedure technique, leading you to think it can make your creases fade away totally. You could substantially lessen creases on your skin if you keep wonderful skin treatment in the beginning whiten face

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Dell has the Dell Inspiron 17R Special Edition 3rd Generation Core i7 1080p 3D Blu-ray 17.3" Laptop (Stealth Black Anodized Aluminum) for $1300 - $60 off with coupon code 8439DPW?FG2PF1 [Exp 3/29] = $1240 with free shipping. Includes 3D glasses. Windows 8 64-bit installed.
Intel Core i7-3630QM 2.4GHz, 8GB RAM, 1TB HDD + 32GB SSD NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 2GB, 1080p 17.3" 3D LED, Blu-ray


text:
5.0 grains of N320 in my 9mm, yikes!
View Single Post
October 22, 2012, 05:40 PM
Misssissippi Dave
Senior Member
Join Date: December 5, 2009
Posts: 1,411
Looks like it is time to pull 50 bullets and load the proper amount of powder in them. 9 mm is a high pressure load to start with. If you know the amount of powder exceedes the max amount for the bullet you are loading there is only one thing to do. Pull the bullets and load them with the proper amount. At least all the primers won't have to come out and the bullets can be still used when you get the right amount of powder in the case. It is a pain to have to do this but it is much better than blowing up your pistol or worse.
I don't know just which bullet you are using. 320 is a fast burning powder. I would prefer a slower burning powder for a heavy bullet. You are already at max or above for that load. Going beyond is just not good.
Last edited by Misssissippi Dave; October 22, 2012 at
Misssissippi Dave
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Misssissippi Dave
Page generated in
seconds with


text:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY v.Annotate this Case
Argued January 9, 2007 - Decided March 13, 2007-
Before Judges Kestin, Weissbard and Lihotz.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Ind. No. 04-03-00352.
David J. Goldstein (Goldstein and Weinstein) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellant (Michael J. Nedick, attorney; Mr. Nedick, on the brief).
Maura K. Tully, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Stuart Rabner, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Ms. Tully, of counsel and on the brief).
Defendant, Peter Risko, appeals from his conviction following a jury trial of fourth-degree possession of a firearm by a person not permitted to have weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7b. Defendant was sentenced to a seven-year prison term with five years of parole ineligibility. Defendant presents two arguments in support of reversal:
A. The Trial Court Violated Defendant's Due Process And Confrontation Clause Rights, When It Ordered That The Same Jury Which Heard The Drug Possession Charges To Try The Unrelated Weapon Charges, And Permitted The State To Rely Solely Upon The Evidence Introduced At The Prior Drug Trial To Support The Weapons Charge.
B. The Court's Ruling, In Directing The Same Jury To Hear The Gun Case Was Premised On A Misinterpretation Of New Jersey Case Law And Violated All New Jersey Precedent.
C. The Court Improperly Admitted Into Evidence At The Gun Trial, Testimony Of Uncharged Crimes, Prior Bad Acts, And Other Irrelevant And Inflammatory Evidence, Thereby Depriving The Defendant Of A Fair Trial.
D. The Court, After Directing The Jury To Consider Highly Prejudicial And Irrelevant Evidence In Its Deliberations, Refused To Give Any Type Of Limiting Instruction To Minimize The Prejudice To Defendant.
We reject defendant's first argument but agree with his second. As a result, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
On January 6, 2004, Detective Shayne Bodnar of the Woodbridge Police Department applied for and received "anticipatory" search warrants for two motor vehicles, a Lincoln Navigator and a BMW model 540, both owned by defendant, as well as for defendant's residence, 594 Hyatt Street, Avenel, New Jersey. The affidavit in support of the application for those warrants was based upon information provided by three different informants, as well as an independent investigation conducted by the Woodbridge Police Department. Rather than summarize the warrant, we set out the pertinent provisions in full.
During the month of June 2003, an investigation into the distribution of Cocaine by a Mr. Peter W. Risko from the address of 594 Hyatt Street, Avenel, New Jersey 07001 was initiated.
During the months of June through July 2003, Detective Lieutenant Robert Hubner received information from a confidential informant, who has proved reliable in the past and who has assisted in an investigation leading to the arrest of suspects for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substances and the execution of a search warrant involving the Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substances. This confidential informant, who had close personal contact with Mr. Peter W. Risko, who in fact resides at 594 Hyatt Street, Avenel, New Jersey 07001, and who has previously purchased Cocaine and has been present while Mr. Peter W. Risko distributed Cocaine in the past. This confidential informant stated that Mr. Risko continues to sell Controlled Dangerous Substances, to wit, Cocaine, and has recently moved his Cocaine from Hyatt Street to an unknown apartment in Perth Amboy to better conceal his drug operation from law enforcement observation.
During the month of October, this Detective received an anonymous tip from a concerned citizen who reported that they had observed Mr. Peter W. Risko in a Lincoln Navigator, bearing New Jersey registration PPB-16C, being gray in color, SUV 4-door, distributing Cocaine to numerous persons on Woodbine Avenue outside of the Woodbine Apartments, which is considered a high drug area in Woodbridge Township. This concerned citizen stated that Mr. Risko was observed inside of his Lincoln Navigator parked on Woodbine Avenue, and subsequently vehicles would park near the Navigator, exit, approach the Navigator on foot, at which time the concerned citizen would observe hand-to-hand transactions where cash was handed to Mr. Risko and packages were then handed back to customers on the street, who would then return to their vehicles and leave the area. It was noted these transactions took only as long as the transactions themselves, after which Mr. Risko would leave the area.
During the month of December, I obtained an additional confidential informant, who has provided information in the past relating to narcotics activity which was found to be truthful. This confidential informant stated that Mr. Risko is a large scale distributor of Cocaine in the Middlesex County area, specifically Woodbridge. The confidential informant further stated that Mr. Peter W. Risko employs several runners, persons who sell Cocaine for him, and that Mr. Risko only distributes ounce quantities of Cocaine at a time. This confidential informant has purchased ounce quantities of Cocaine from Mr. Risko in the past. This confidential informant further stated that Mr. Risko has in his possession two (2) weapons, an AK-47 and a .45 caliber handgun which he keeps at the residence of 594 Hyatt Street, Avenel, New Jersey 07001. This confidential informant stated that he never keeps Cocaine for long periods of time inside the address of 594 Hyatt Street, Avenel, New Jersey, however, has distributed from his house to the confidential informant in the past. This confidential informant further corroborated information received in the past that Mr. Risko will distribute from his Lincoln Navigator and also from a vehicle described as a 1 999 BMW 540, 4-door, silver, bearing New Jersey registration LTL-42R, showing a leasee [sic] of Peter W. Risko Jr. and an address of 594 Hyatt Street, Avenel, New Jersey 07001. A Division of Motor Vehicles check found that a 2003 Lincoln Navigator, gray in color, SUV, bearing New Jersey registration PPB-16C, is in fact purchased by and belongs to a Mr. Peter W. Risko, Jr., showing an address of 594 Hyatt Street, Avenel, New Jersey 07001. The confidential informant also corroborated that there are several persons employed by Mr. Risko to distribute Cocaine for him. And the confidential informant also stated that he had personally seen and examined the weapons that he described to this Detective at the Avenel address.
During this investigation, contact with Mr. Risko was initiated by this Detective, and Detective John Roesler of the Woodbridge Police Narcotics Unit, briefly in front of Woodbine on Woodbine Avenue while Mr. Risko was unlawfully parked outside of the Woodbine complex on Woodbine Avenue. This contact was brief, however it was observed that Mr. Risko had a large quantity of cash in excess of $3,000.00 in his pocket. We also observed that Mr. Risko was utilizing counter-surveillance insomuch as he had two (2) unidentified black males utilizing walkie talkies, strategically positioned on Woodbine Avenue and on the Woodbine complex who alerted Mr. Risko of the presence of police officers as we approached. An attempt to identify these additional suspects proved negative, as we approached them, they fled on foot.
Arrangements are currently being made for the purchase of five (5) ounces of Cocaine from Mr. Risko utilizing a confidential informant. This affidavit for approval of search warrant is anticipatory on the delivery of this Cocaine by Mr. Risko utilizing post listed vehicles at a to be determined location inside the Township of Woodbridge.
On January 6, 2004, at approximately 9:45 p.m., defendant was arrested in a parking lot in Woodbridge by Detective Roesler, who had observed defendant alone in his car. Roesler pulled his unmarked police car in front of defendant's SUV, got out of his vehicle with his service revolver drawn, and demanded to see defendant's hands. Defendant's car door was open and defendant got out of the vehicle. As he did so, a package dropped to the ground. Defendant immediately turned and kicked the package underneath the SUV. Defendant was then placed under arrest. The package he had attempted to conceal was recovered by police and found to contain five ounces of cocaine.
Following his arrest, the police searched defendant's home pursuant to the search warrant that had been issued that same day based on the Bodnar affidavit. Under defendant's bed, the police found an AK-47 rifle. Also seized were two 30-round magazines containing bullets, a cash box filled with $15,521, and wax packets commonly used to package heroin. No drugs were found in the house.
Later that evening, defendant gave a statement to the police after being advised of and waiving his Miranda rights. Defendant admitted owning the AK-47, stating that he had "bought it off the street." He further admitted that he had purchased it with clips and ammunition and that he had owned the weapon for approximately seven to eight months. Defendant also admitted that in the past he had owned a 9mm handgun and a .357 Magnum.
Defendant challenges the validity of the search warrant which resulted in the seizure of drug paraphernalia, money, and weapons. Although we consider the issue to be close, we conclude that the warrant passes constitutional muster insofar as it authorized a search for weapons.
The underlying principles are well established. "Consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, police officers must obtain a warrant from a neutral judicial officer prior to searching a person's home, unless the search 'falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.'" State v. Sullivan, 169 N.J. 204, 210 (2001) (quoting State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657, 664 (2000)). "Before issuing a warrant, the judge must be satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, or is being committed, at a specific location or that evidence of a crime is to be found at the place sought to be searched." Sullivan, supra, 169 N.J. at 211.
Probable cause "eludes precise definition." Wildoner v. Borough of Ramsey, 162 N.J. 375, 389 (2000). However, it generally "'means less than legal evidence necessary to convict though more than mere naked suspicion.'" Sullivan, supra, 169 N.J. at 210-11 (quoting State v. Mark, 46 N.J. 262, 271 (1966)). "Probable cause exists if at the time of the police action there is 'a well grounded suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed.'" Sullivan, supra, 169 N.J. at 211 (quoting State v. Waltz, 61 N.J. 83, 87 (1972)).
The Court has characterized probable cause "as a common-sense, practical standard for determining the validity of a search warrant." Sullivan, supra, 169 N.J. at 211; State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 120 (1987). The United States Supreme Court has observed:
Perhaps the central teaching of our decisions bearing on the probable-cause standard is that it is a "practical, non-technical conception." In dealing with probable cause, . . . as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.
[Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2328, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 544 (1983) (citations omitted).]
Our law mirrors that observation:
Probable cause is a flexible, non-technical concept. It includes a conscious balancing of the governmental need for enforcement of the criminal law against the citizens' constitutionally protected right of privacy. It must be regarded as representing an effort to accommodate those often competing interests so as to serve them both in a practical fashion without unduly hampering the one or unreasonably impairing the significant content of the other.
[Sullivan, supra, 169 N.J. at 211 (quoting State v. Kasabucki, 52 N.J. 110, 116 (1968).]
A search based on a properly obtained warrant is presumed valid. Sullivan, supra, 169 N.J. at 211. "When a search is conducted pursuant to a warrant, the defendant has the burden of proving the invalidity of that search, namely, 'that there was no probable cause supporting the issuance of the warrant or that the search was otherwise unreasonable.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Valencia, 93 N.J. 126, 133 (1983)). "In considering such a challenge, '[w]e accord substantial deference to the discretionary determination resulting in the issuance of the [search] warrant.'" Sullivan, supra, 169 N.J. at 211 (quoting State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 72 (1991), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 929, 113 S. Ct. 1306, 122 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1993)).
Defendant argues that the warrant to search his home was defective because it was based upon information provided by informants whose reliability was unsubstantiated.
Specific guidelines for cases involving police informants were articulated by the Court in Sullivan, supra, 169 N.J. at 212. "Information provided by an informant may constitute a basis for a finding of probable cause, so long as there is a substantial basis for crediting the information." Ibid. "Whether information conveyed by an informant provides a basis for probable cause 'is determined by a standard that calls for consideration and analysis of all relevant circumstances.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Smith, 155 N.J. 83, 92, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1033, 119 S. Ct. 576, 142 L. Ed. 2d 480 (1998).
In Sullivan, supra, 169 N.J. at 212, the Court explained the relevant law concerning informant tips as follows:
The Supreme Court established the totality-of-circumstances test for analyzing informants' tips under the Fourth Amendment in Illinois v. Gates, supra, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527. The Court explained that the issuing judge must "make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the 'veracity' and 'basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Id. at 238, 103 S. Ct. at 2332, 76 L. Ed. 2d at 548. The Court also observed that the duty of a reviewing court is "to ensure that the magistrate had a 'substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]' that probable cause existed." Id. at 238-39, 103 S. Ct. at 2332, 76 L. Ed. 2d at 548 (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S. Ct. 725, 736, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697, 708 (1960)).
The Court reiterated its adoption of the Gates totality-of-circumstances test to evaluate the validity of warrants under Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. Ibid. "As noted, under that test, courts consider an informant's veracity and his or her basis of knowledge to be the two most important factors in evaluating the informant's tip." Ibid. "A deficiency in one of those factors 'may be compensated for, in determining the overall reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other, or by some other indicia of reliability.'" Id. at 212-13 (quoting State v. Zutic, 155 N.J. 103, 110-11 (1998) (quoting Gates, supra, 462 U.S. at 233, 103 S. Ct. at 2329, 76 L. Ed. 2d at 545)). Furthermore, the Court held that a factor, "'though insufficient if considered in isolation, may in combination reinforce or augment one another and become sufficient to demonstrate probable cause.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Zutic, 155 N.J. 103, 110-11 (1998)).
Concerning the first factor, an informant's veracity, the Court has stated that past instances of the informant's reliability are "'probative of veracity, although [their] weight in the ultimate determination of probable cause may vary with the circumstances of each case.'" Id. at 213 (quoting Smith, supra, 155 N.J. at 94). "An informant's veracity may be shown by demonstrating that the informant proved to be reliable in previous police investigations." Ibid. "However, under the totality of the circumstances, 'past instances of reliability do not conclusively establish an informant's reliability.'" Ibid. (quoting Smith, supra, 155 N.J. at 94).
With respect to anonymous citizen tips, a different rule applies. "[W]hen information is provided by a citizen-informer, his prior reliability need not be established as a prerequisite for issuance of a search warrant." State v. Kurland, 130 N.J. Super. 110, 115 (App. Div. 1974). This is because a cooperative citizen generally "acts with an intent to aid the police in law enforcement because of his concern for society. He does not expect any gain or concession in exchange for his information." Ibid.
"The second factor, whether the informant had a basis of knowledge for the information provided to the police, 'is relevant to a determination that the information was obtained in a reliable way.'" Sullivan, supra, 169 N.J. at 213 (quoting Smith, supra, 155 N.J. at 94). "An informant's basis of knowledge can be 'disclosed by the informant if the tip itself relates expressly or clearly how the informant knows of the criminal activity.'" Ibid. "In the absence of such explicit disclosure, 'the nature and details revealed in the tip may imply that the informant's knowledge of the alleged criminal activity is derived from a trustworthy source.'" Ibid.
"The Court has reasoned that '[b]y providing sufficient detail in the tip or recounting information that could not otherwise be attributed to circulating rumors or be easily gleaned by a casual observer, an informant can implicitly disclose a reliable basis of knowledge as the foundation of the information related to the police.'" Id. at 213 (quoting Smith, supra, 155 N.J. at 95).
"Because the information contained in a tip is hearsay, police corroboration of that information 'is an essential part of the determination of probable cause.'" Ibid. Thus, "'the informant's veracity, if inadequately documented in the officer's affidavit, could be bolstered by a corroborative investigation.'" Id. at 213-14 (quoting Novembrino, supra, 105 N.J. at 113.) See also Smith, supra, 155 N.J. at 98 (noting that when "the tip lacks sufficient detail to establish a basis of knowledge, independent police investigation and corroboration of the detail in the tip must be considered because it may in some circumstances add to the evidentiary weight of factors as well as the overall circumstances"). Similarly, "if police corroborate information from which it can be inferred that the informant's tip was grounded on inside information, this corroboration is sufficient to satisfy the basis of knowledge prong as well as the veracity prong." Sullivan, supra, 169 N.J. at 214 (quoting Smith, supra, 155 N.J. at 95-96).
In the present case, the conclusory statements concerning the reliability of the police informants were supplemented by the informants' basis of knowledge, as well as by independent police investigation. Thus, the first confidential informant averred that his information was based upon "close personal contact" with the defendant and stated that he had "purchased cocaine" from the defendant in the past. This informant also gave a specific address (594 Hyatt Street, Avenel) where the drug activity had been conducted. The anonymous citizen tip was also based on eyewitness observations of the defendant dealing drugs in public, and provided a specific description of the vehicle used in the drug transactions, including a license plate number. Finally, the second confidential informant gave specific information concerning the quantities of drugs that the defendant sold as well as the vehicles that he used to distribute drugs. This informant also provided specific information as to the types of guns that were being kept at the defendant's Hyatt Street residence in Avenel. The similarity of the information provided by these informants itself provides an additional basis of corroboration.
The affidavit also makes clear that the police were able to independently verify the accuracy of much of the information contained in the statements by the informants. For example, the police checked with the Department of Motor Vehicles and found that the vehicles described by the informants were in fact registered to defendant at his address in Avenel. Detective Bodnar also personally observed defendant utilizing drug-dealing counter-surveillance techniques at the specific locations described by the informants.
In sum, it appears that the municipal court judge had a "substantial basis" for concluding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the informants were reliable. See Novembrino, supra, 105 N.J. at 118. This conclusion is based upon a "common-sense review" of the information contained in the affidavit which combined elements of veracity and police corroboration. Ibid.
Nevertheless, defendant contends that the failure of the warrant application to provide specific information concerning the dates that certain events occurred or observations were made renders the affidavit "fatally defective." The lack of references as to when certain crimes occurred, defendant submits, made it impossible to provide the neutral judicial officer with a reasonable basis to conclude that a present search of defendant's premises or person would yield evidence of criminal activity.
For example, defendant notes that the second confidential informant stated that he had bought cocaine from defendant's house "in the past." Defendant submits that this statement provided no relevant information to the judicial officer because it was vague and provided no basis to believe that on the date the warrant was applied for there would be any drugs present in defendant's house.
Defendant's argument is essentially one of staleness, centering on the lack of information as to whether defendant was presently involved in the possession or distribution of drugs at the location specified in the warrant or unlawfully possessed weapons at that place. Indeed, much of the information provided by the informants, although arguably reliable, pertained to activities that occurred at an unspecified time in the past, and the first confidential informant even conceded that the defendant had moved his drug operation to an unspecified apartment in Perth Amboy and was no longer dealing drugs from his home in Avenel. Defendant thus submits that the warrant to search his Avenel house was defective and could not have been based upon probable cause.
We have held that an affidavit in support of a warrant may be defective when "it does not contain a single reference as to the time of occurrence of any criminal activity." State v. Altenburg, 223 N.J. Super. 289, 294 (App. Div.), aff'd, 113 N.J. 508 (1988). Similarly, in Novembrino, supra, 105 N.J. at 124, the Court quoted the following excerpt from Rosencranz v. United States, 356 F.2d 310, 316-17 (1st Cir. 1966):
The present tense is suspended in the air; it has no point of reference. It speaks, after all, of the time when an anonymous informant conveyed information to the officer, which could have been a day, a week, or months before the date of the affidavit. To make a double inference, that the undated information speaks as of a date close to that of the affidavit and that therefore the undated observation made on the strength of such information must speak as of an even more recent date would be to open the door to the unsupervised issuance of search warrants on the basis of aging information. Officers with information of questionable recency could escape embarrassment by simply omitting averments as to time, so long as they reported that whatever information they received was stated to be current at that time. Magistrates would have less opportunity to perform their "neutral and detached" function. Indeed, if the affidavit in this case be adjudged valid, it is difficult to see how any function but that of a rubber stamp remains for them.
Despite these cautionary admonitions, we have recognized that where an affidavit properly recites facts indicating a continuous course of criminal conduct, the passage of time becomes less significant. Altenburg, supra, 223 N.J. Super. at 295 (citing United States v. Johnson, 461 F.2d 285, 287 (10th Cir. 1972)). In State v. Blaurock, 143 N.J. Super. 476, 479 (App. Div. 1976) (quoting Johnson, supra, 461 F. 2d at 287), we explained the relationship between time lapse and probable cause as follows:
[I]t should be noted that the vitality of probable cause cannot be quantified by simply counting the number of days between the occurrence of the facts relied upon and the issuance of the affidavit. Together with the element of time we must consider the nature of the unlawful activity. Where the affidavit recites a mere isolated violation it would not be unreasonable to imply that probable cause dwindles rather quickly with the passage of time. However, where the affidavit properly recites facts indicating activity of a protracted and continuous nature, a course of conduct, the passage of time becomes less significant.
Accordingly, the State counters defendant's staleness argument by noting that Detective Bodnar's affidavit, which contained information from a six-month investigation, described an ongoing course of illegal cocaine distribution by defendant. As a result, the State submits, the lack of exact time frames provided by the informants is less significant considering the continuing nature of the illegal activity documented. The State also emphasizes that the second confidential informant provided detailed and specific information in December 2003, (days before the search warrant) that the defendant "has in his possession two weapons, an AK-47 and a .45 caliber handgun which he keeps at the residence of 594 Hyatt Street, Avenel, New Jersey."
Applying these principles to the facts set out in the Bodnar affidavit, and even according the State the benefit of the reasonable, common-sense inferences flowing from those facts, we agree with defendant that the affidavit did not establish probable cause to believe that drugs would be found at 594 Hyatt Street. The first informant stated clearly that as of June-July 2003, defendant had moved his drug dealing from Hyatt Street "to an apartment in Perth Amboy." The third informant could only say that he had purchased cocaine from defendant at the Hyatt Street house "in the past," and did not say where the purchase had taken place. Nor did the citizen informant say anything about Hyatt Street.
However, the warrant also authorized a search for unlawfully possessed weapons, specifically an AK-47 assault rifle and a .45 caliber handgun. Concerning the weapons, the third informant stated that defendant "keeps [those weapons] at the residence of 594 Hyatt Street, Avenel." The informant "had personally seen and examined the weapons that he described to this Detective at the Avenel address." While the affidavit fails to explicitly state when the weapons had been observed, it can be inferred that the informant was speaking of a time frame reasonably close to the date of the affidavit. It is not unreasonable to infer that if defendant had weapons at his home in the recent past, he continued to keep them there to the time of the warrant application. Unlike the situation with the drugs, there was no indication that defendant had moved the weapons elsewhere and common sense does not compel a conclusion that the guns moved with the drugs. As a result, we conclude that the affidavit established probable cause to search for the weapons inasmuch as defendant, as a convicted felon (a fact stated in the affidavit), was barred from possessing these weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7b. Thus, the search warrant was valid with respect to the weapons.
During the execution of the search warrant on June 6, 2004, the AK-47 weapon was found under defendant's bed. A cash box containing $15,521 and wax packets used in packaging heroin was found "next to the nightstand" in defendant's bedroom. Clearly, the search under the bed was within the scope of the warrant as a place where weapons might be located. On the present record, we cannot say the same about the box. Prior to any retrial, if the State intends to use the contents of the box as evidence, the trial court will be required to conduct a hearing to determine if the box was in a location in which the officers might have reasonably expected a weapon to be found and was itself a container that might hold the described weapons. If not, the contents of the box will be suppressed and inadmissible.
Defendant argues that it was reversible error to try the convicted-felon-in-possession charge before the same jury that had heard, and had been unable to reach a verdict on the drug charges, "incorporating" the testimony from the first proceeding into the second. We agree.
During defendant's trial on the CDS indictment, the jury heard from Detective Bodnar that he searched defendant's house and found an AK-47 rifle under his bed. The jury also heard defendant's audio-taped statement to police admitting that he had owned this rifle for approximately seven to eight months.
As noted, the jury eventually deadlocked on the CDS charges and the court declared a mistrial. Defendant then objected to proceeding on the firearm indictment using the same jury, arguing that he had "tried to avoid dealing with the weapons at all" during the CDS trial because the crime was not in issue. The court overruled defendant's objection, and ruled that the firearm indictment would be presented to the same jury that had heard the CDS indictment.
The court further ruled, again over defendant's objection, that the jury would be told that the evidence from the CDS trial would be incorporated by reference into the trial on the firearms offense. The court instructed the jury that:
You must disregard completely your prior deliberations and verdicts and consider anew, begin ultimately right from the very beginning of your deliberations, all the evidence that has been previously submitted to you in the charge of possession of the firearm by a previously convicted person.
The defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Each and every material fact that makes up the crime, including obviously the element of possession, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
After opening statements, the jurors were instructed that the evidence from the CDS indictment trial was incorporated by reference. Jurors were also instructed that the parties had stipulated that defendant had been convicted of two prior felonies. The State then rested and the defense put on no further evidence. Summations and the charge followed.
Defendant first argues that his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him was violated by allowing the testimony of the CDS trial to be wholly incorporated into the unlawful weapons trial. This incorporation, he contends, effectively deprived him of the opportunity to contest the issue in the second trial. Defendant claims that the issue of possession of a weapon was not central in the CDS case and, therefore, he did not have a similar motive to contest evidence concerning the weapons at the CDS trial. Thus, defendant submits that the court erred by incorporating cross-examination from one proceeding into another proceeding, in violation of the Confrontation Clause. See State v. Allan, 283 N.J. Super. 622 (Law. Div. 1995) (holding that cross-examination in a suppression hearing insufficiently equates with meaningful cross-examination at trial). In sum, defendant argues that the fact that he did not strenuously contest the possession of a weapon in the CDS case should not be used as the equivalent of issue preclusion in the subsequent unlawful possession of a weapon case. Instead, he should have had the right to re-litigate ab initio and in front of a new, unbiased jury, the issue of whether he actually possessed the weapon in question.
The State argues that defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause were sufficiently protected during trial, pointing out that defendant was given the opportunity to cross-examine both Investigator Morton and Detective Bodnar at his first trial, and was given the right to recall Bodnar to the stand during the weapons trial. Thus, the State submits that defendant's failure to fully cross-examine, despite being advised before the CDS trial that the two indictments would be tried by the same jury, should not be grounds for reversal. The State cites United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 559, 108 S. Ct. 838, 842, 98 L. Ed. 2d 951, 957 (1988), for the proposition that the Confrontation Clause "guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish." The State submits that such a general opportunity to cross-examine all the relevant witnesses was provided in the instant case.
The discrepancy in the motivation to cross-examine between the two trials is indeed troublesome. Possession of the weapon was not central in the CDS trial, and the defendant is correct to note that the incorporation of the evidence from his CDS trial effectively foreclosed him from contesting the issue of possession at his weapons trial. However, the State is correct in its assertion that, at a minimum, the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine any relevant witnesses. For reasons which follow, we have no need to resolve this aspect of defendant's argument.
Defendant readily admits that bifurcated trials are not uncommon in New Jersey, and are appropriate if utilized correctly. In the seminal case of State v. Ragland, 105 N.J. 189, 193 (1986), the Court held that when a defendant is charged at the same time with unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, the two charges must be tried separately. The Court explained that "proof that the defendant [is] a convicted felon (required in the trial of the latter charge) clearly tends to prejudice the jury in considering the former." Ibid. The State relies on Ragland for approval of the use of the same jury to try all of the indicted offense in two separate, consecutive trials. However, defendant counters that Ragland dealt with the "unique problem" of a defendant being charged with both unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Ragland, supra, 105 N.J. at 193. Here, there was no conviction in the first proceeding on the unlawful possession count and defendant was only tried on the "convicted felon offense," making the present case factually distinguishable from Ragland.
Defendant argues that the court, over his objection, improperly allowed the same jury to hear both cases. First, defendant points out that he did not receive a separate trial concerning possession of the weapon before it was determined whether or not he was a convicted felon, as mandated by Ragland. He also notes that the jury determining whether or not he possessed the weapon did so in the same proceeding as where evidence was presented concerning his prior criminal convictions. Defendant asserts that "no case has ever permitted both of these issues to be decided at the same trial." However, defendant is wrong. In State v. Brown, 180 N.J. 572 (2004), the Court held that a sole count of possession of a weapon by a convicted felon may be tried without bifurcation of the elements of that offense.
Of greater concern is not whether Ragland was followed in this case, but rather whether Ragland was applicable at all under these facts. The State's reliance on Ragland for the proposition that the same jury should have been allowed to hear both cases is flawed since Ragland dealt with a specific scenario involving a defendant charged with both a "regular" weapons offense and "certain person's offense." Ragland, supra, 105 N.J. at 193.
Furthermore, the central concern of Ragland was to avoid the admission of prejudicial evidence against a defendant. Ragland, supra, 105 N.J. at 193. Defendant here claims that the jury in his CDS case was exposed to evidence concerning his alleged possession of drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of $15,000 in illegal proceeds, and alleged drug dealing. Indeed, the jury at defendant's second trial was directed to incorporate all of this seemingly irrelevant evidence into their consideration on the "new" weapons charge.
As defendant correctly notes, N.J.R.E. 403 and 404 generally prohibit the introduction of evidence of "other crimes" and prior criminal behavior by a defendant. It is widely recognized that the introduction of such irrelevant evidence "'can easily tip the balance against the defendant.'" State v. Hernandez, 170 N.J. 106, 123 (2001) (quoting Edward J. Imwinkelried, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence, 1 SUM Crim. Just. 6, 8 (1986)). This potential for undue prejudice is the reason why bad acts evidence is only admissible to show relevant facts at issue. See e.g., State v. Oliver, 133 N.J. 141, 151 (1993).
In the present case, the prior acts of the defendant in dealing drugs were in no way relevant to whether defendant possessed a weapon or had been convicted of a felony in the past. That evidence could only have been used to demonstrate defendant's propensity to commit crime, an impermissible purpose. See State v. Fortin, 178 N.J. 540, 616 (2004). These proofs had no probative value on the weapons charge. See State v. Younger, 305 N.J. Super. 250, 259 (App. Div. 1997).
"New Jersey adheres to the widespread view that other-crime evidence is highly inflammatory, having the 'unique tendency to turn a jury against the defendant. . . .'" State v. Hernandez, supra, 170 N.J. at 119 (quoting State v. Stevens, 115 N.J. 289, 302 (1989)). Here, defendant's attorney immediately recognized the prejudicial aspects of the incorporation of all the evidence from the CDS case and repeatedly objected:
Counsel: Judge, I think it would be totally inappropriate to use the same jury -
Court: Why?
Counsel: -to try these issues because this charge is obviously not a charge that was submitted to them in connection with this case, and only certain evidence can be admitted. The evidence concerning the drugs, the envelopes in my client's home, if there were separate trials, would have absolutely no relevance to the trial and would not be admitted.
Court: What does it have to do with this jury's ability to listen to the - to incorporate by reference the testimony about the weapon under the -?
Counsel: Because they already heard all of these other things.
Court: You think they would be unfairly prejudiced?
Counsel: Absolutely.
Compounding the prejudice in this matter is the fact that the defendant was not acquitted of the CDS charges by the first jury. Since a mistrial was declared, it is apparent that at least one juror was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the drug charges. This fact highlights the danger of using the same jury and the same evidence to try two unrelated cases.
The State seeks to counter defendant's compelling arguments by relying primarily on Ragland and other factually inapposite cases that deal with multiple weapons charges. The State asserts that the specific dictates of Ragland concerning jury instructions were followed precisely by the trial court. Ragland, supra, 105 N.J. at 193. The State notes that the jury was specifically instructed to disregard their prior deliberations and consider the evidence anew. The court further instructed the jurors that evidence of defendant's prior crimes could only be considered by them "for the specific, narrow purpose" of determining whether the defendant was guilty of the certain persons offense. Finally, the State notes that the court instructed the jury that, "You may not use this evidence to decide the defendant has a tendency to commit crimes or that he is a bad person." But the reference in these instructions to defendant's prior crimes was clearly directed to his prior convictions, as reflected in his record, which was an element of the offense on trial. It did not deal with his alleged CDS related activity.
Ragland differs from the present case, and the use of the same jury here, along with the incorporation of all the evidence from the CDS trial, unfairly prejudiced the defendant. The trial judge did not give a limiting instruction regarding the jury's consideration of the evidence previously presented at trial on the CDS indictment. While defense counsel never requested such a charge, we believe that defendant's objection to the procedure employed sufficiently placed the court on notice of the need for a limiting instruction, thereby obviating a plain error analysis. In any event, the lack of the required "clear limiting instruction" regarding the prior bad acts of defendant was fatal to defendant's ability to have a fair trial. Thus, the failure of the trial judge to give such an instruction can be deemed to have been plain error since it was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
It appears that the State voluntarily dismissed the weapon possession count of the CDS indictment (count four) because the weapon did not qualify as an assault weapon under the statute. The count charging unlawful possession of hollow point bullets, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3f (count five) was also dismissed.
See State v. Robinson, 165 N.J. 32, 36-37 (2000) (in addition to evidence regarding firearm possession, jury heard evidence relating to four robbery charges); State v. Hooks, 350 N.J. Super. 59, 63 (App. Div. 2002) (in addition to evidence regarding firearm possession, jury heard evidence relating to defendant's kidnapping, sexual assault and robbery of eight victims).
March 13, 2007


text: Good news! D10 is no longer used! Firmware version 2.10 and later for the arLCD remaps to use D0 & D1 for programming AND GPU communications. I have ran the standard ethernet example in the arduino library with no issues!RandyEarthMake FirestarterMaker of the Arduino Certified (Arduino at Heart) arLCD Smart Touchscreen LCD


text:
The biotechnology sector in Spain has experienced an immense development in the past decade, already being the world ninth and European fifth ranked country in scientific production. In 2012 it had an impact on the Spanish GDP of 7,8 % (last known data according to the Spanish National Institute of Statistics – INE- ). Keeping in mind that this indicator did not surpass a 3% of the Spanish GDP in 2008, we can then establish the fast development of this sector, and how Spanish companies are increasingly relying on biotechnology use as a means to innovate and grow in their respective markets.
Other statistics also prove this development, according to the Annual Report of ASEBIO (Spanish Association of Biotechnology Companies)[1]: the employment rate has grown, creating almost 800 new jobs in 2012, the number of companies that declare to perform biotechnology activities has risen to more than 3.000 and the turnover has reached an annual 80.000 million euro. Finally, another note that shows the importance of the sector in Spain is that 2014 has been declared as the "Biotechnology Year in Spain".
Catalonia is the region where most biotechnology companies are, concentrating almost 20% of all Spanish biotechnology companies, followed by Andalusia (with almost 15%) and the Madrid Community (with 13%). The Autonomous Community has traditionally been the headquarters of numerous biotechnology companies: for example, 50% of all Spanish pharmaceutical companies are located here, including the five biggest companies, including Almirall, Esteve and Ferrer Internacional. Catalonia also leads the statistics on number of newly created companies, followed by Andalusia and Galicia, fast becoming one of the most strategically important regions in the biotechnology sector in Europe.
There are several reasons why Catalonia has become the biotechnology leader region in Spain and one of the most important in Europe, alongside BioTOP in Berlin, One Nucleus in Cambridge (London) or Medicen Paris Region, among others. It has 56 investigation centers with a biotechnology activity, 17 university hospitals, two big infrastructure centers (Barcelona Supercomputing Center[2] and Sincotrón ALBA-CELLS[3]), as well as 12 technology centres and 16 scientific and technology parks, which have greatly favored the setup of new companies and the attraction of investment.
The scientific and technology parks located in Catalonia have been a key factor in the development of the sector and the creation of new companies, as their mission has been to facilitate the step from R+D groups and departments to startups. They also offer common use facilities, which mean an important saving on the initial investment necessary to create a new biotechnology company. The possibility of interaction and synergies between startups, technology centers, big companies and R+D facilities have created a perfect space where to establish new companies and develop as a competitive business.
As a consequence, and if we take a look at the number of funds granted by the European Research Council[4], Catalonia is the destination of more than half of those collected by Spain and it is where more than 29% of the funds bestowed to Spain by the European Seventh Framework Programme[5] are located. Catalonia has also attracted specialized investors, including corporate funds (which right now amount to more than 136 million euro in resources) and investment banking, as well as venture capital funds. Between 2009 and 2013 the venture capital investment has multiplied by five, being one of the most recent examples the venture capital company "Caixa Innvierte BioMed II", created by the Spanish financial entity "La Caixa" in partnership with the Spanish Economy and Competiveness Ministry and the Catalonian Financial Institute, and which will invest 35 million euro in developing biomedical companies.
However, the access to investment funding continues to be the biggest challenge that the Spanish biotechnology sector has to face in order to continue growing and being competitive within the European market. Much of the startups and small and medium companies that focus their activities in biotechnological R+D depend on public funding to subsist and this has dramatically decreased in the last few years due to the economic crisis: the resources and funding of the Spanish Industrial Technological Development Center (CDTI)[6] and of the Agency of Competitiveness for Companies in Catalonia (ACCIÓ)[7] have decreased more than 50% since 2012.
Another challenge of biotechnology companies is not only the adequate protection of their research results through patents (in 2012 more than 700 patent applications were published and only 294 were authorized), but also the necessity of continuing research and a reformulation of the business models once the patents have expired.
The biotechnology regulatory framework is also a barrier for companies that want to start manufacturing and commercialising the products resulting from their research. The Spanish Medicines Agency and Sanitary Products (AEMPS) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) are the competent entities in charge of the approval of clinical research, manufacture and commercialisation of cosmetics, medical and sanitary products, while the Spanish Agency for Food Security and Nutrition (AESAN) and the European Food Security Authority (EFSA) are the competent authorities for the authorization of manufacture and commercialisation of functional foods and products which contain genetically modified organisms. All of these institutions require expensive clinical essays as well as bureaucratic procedures that are a hindrance for many small and medium companies due to their costs.
The last two challenges mentioned revert back to the first one mentioned: the difficulty of accessing public and private funds to develop the business is seriously affecting the sector. Therefore, and now that it seems that the worst of the economic crisis is over, it is time for the Administration to address the problem and again gradually increase the public funds destined to R+D and scientific innovation: with only a few exceptions of companies with a turnover of more than 100 million euro, such as Grifols or Almirall, the vast majority of the Spanish biotechnology businesses are small and medium companies that greatly depend on private or public funding for their subsistence and growth.
Last but not least, it is highly necessary to value and commercialise R+D and innovative investigation in order to encourage private investment, promoting a closer collaboration between the public and private sector. The number and funding of universities and public research centres with biotechnological projects has to increase and a sustained commitment by the Government of R+D is imperative if we want to remain competitive, now that the emerging countries such as China or Brazil are slowly becoming firm competitors in the worldwide market. The creation of more public and private entities would without doubt attract private investment, being able in this way to compete with our worldwide equals.
[1] Annual Report of ASEBIO (Spanish Association of Biotechnology Companies) 2013 (www.asebio.com)
[2] Barcelona Supercomputing Center: www.bsc.es
[3] Sincotrón ALBA-CELLS: www.cells.es
[4] European Research Council (http://erc.europa.eu/)
[5] Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, technological development and demonstration activities: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/energy/european_energy_policy/i23022_en.htm
[6] The Industrial Technological Development Center (CDTI) is a public company dependent on the Spanish Economic and Competiveness Ministry, which promotes the innovation and technological development of Spanish companies (www.cdti.es).
[7] Agency of Competitiveness for Companies in Catalonia (ACCIÓ): http://accio.gencat.cat/


text:
Pursued by Oconee County deputies into Clarke County, an accused drunk driver sparked a chain-reaction accident resulting in severe injuries to two Franklin County residents, according Oconee County Deputy Chief Gene Langston.
The driver, 26-year-old Corey Sherod Dillard, ran into a station wagon approximately a quarter of a mile past the intersection of Loop 10 and U.S. Highway 441. The station wagon then swerved into oncoming traffic and collided with a motorcycle carrying two passengers. Both motorcycle passengers sustained serious injuries, Langston said.
David Morris, 34, and Sherry Lynn Morris, 35, both of Carnesville, were taken to St. Mary's Hospital in Athens. As of Saturday night, David Morris was in critical, but stable condition at the hospital's ICU unit. Sherry Lynn Morris was in fair condition, according to hospital staff.
The driver of the station wagon and Dillard were mildly injured.
Deputies were stopped at the intersection when the accident occurred, Langston said. Immediately after the accident, Dillard attempted to escape on foot but was caught and taken into custody.
The chase began after deputies responded to a call regarding Dillard who was reportedly drunk and disorderly at the Arbor Glen Mobile Home Community in Oconee County. When deputies arrived, Langston said Dillard jumped into his car and drove north on old 441.
Langston said the car Dillard was driving was reported stolen.
Dillard was charged with possession of a stolen vehicle, attempting to elude and obstruction. Langston said additional charges could be pressed by the Georgia Highway Patrol who investigated the accident.
Friday's chase is the second within the last eight days involving Oconee County sheriff's deputies resulting in an accident on U.S. 441.
Deputies chased Jackie Bernard Shavers, 25, of Madison from Bishop to Watkinsville on March 30 after spotting him in a stolen vehicle. After attempting to hit a patrol car with his own, Shavers lost control of his vehicle, crossed southbound traffic and ran into a ditch.
Langston said it is up to the deputies to decide when a chase is too dangerous to continue.
''They call it off when it becomes obvious that continuing the chase could be detrimental, and if the deputy feels his situation would endanger more people than he would otherwise,'' Langston said.
This article published in the Athens Daily News on Sunday, April 8, 2001.
© 2017. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us


text:
EA allegedly considering two ways of re-introducing microtransactions into Star Wars Battlefront 2; Details
Nov 17, 2017 | 25 Comments
Nintendo confirmed today that Animal Crossing: New Leaf will be released on June 9 in North America for the Nintendo 3DS.
Nintendo's Bill Trinen emphasized that you won't simply be doing chores for Tom Nook in the game. He also explained that new customization options and online features will be present in New Leaf.
New Leaf, the latest game in the Animal Crossing simulation series, is the franchise's first entry on the 3DS. It was released in Japan last November where it sold 2 million copies in less than two months.


text:
Business Week reports on the perfect comments' disclaimer to place above the comments section on your blog. Dave Taylor, via his lawyer arrived at the below.
Because I value your thoughtful opinions, I encourage you to add a comment to this discussion. Don't be offended if I edit your comments for clarity or to keep out questionable matters, however, and I may even delete off-topic comments.
Without a lawyer Business Week said it would look like this.
Comments are welcome. Please keep it civil. I'll edit for clarity, and will delete hate, porn and spam.
I kind of like Greg Storey's at Airbag Industries.
Use your head when responding, don't be an asshat. Knee jerk comments, crass language, and anonymity will surely get your response deleted and your IP possibly banned. Above all else, be mature.
On a serious note, some of LexBlog's clients are placing disclaimers above their comments covering issues like conflicts, attorney-client relationship and the like.


text:
ACParadise Network: American Cosplay Paradise American Cosplay Experience American Cosplay Snapshots
Cosplayer mr.ANyboDy > Costume of Nathan Drake (Uncharted 2: Among Thieves)
- Most Recent Photo
- 04-08-2012
- Series
- Uncharted 2: Among Thieves
- Character
- Nathan Drake
- Year Completed:
- 2012
- Construction Difficulty:
- Very Easy
- Awards
- none
- Costume worn at:
- Anime Detour 2012
About this Costume
- Construction Details:
My friends and I put together a quick Uncharted group for fun and I made a "special relic" for photos. Since we kinda rushed them they're not 100% accurate; like my holster isn't the right color and I should have a lace front wig but it was a lot of fun being these guys and I think my buddy Elliott makes the best Victor Sullivan I've seen.
- Personal Thoughts:
- Super fun casual cosplay. Really liked being the character. Overall just good times with a cosplay.
Add a Comment


text: News Release - Statement of Mayor Thomas S. Richards Regarding RCSD Student Transportation Issue and Downtown Incident City of Rochester News Release (Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2013) – Yesterday, Chief James Sheppard and I met with Rochester City School District (RCSD) Superintendent Bolgen Vargas and Rochester Genesee Regional Transit Authority (RGRTA) Chief Executive Officer Bill Carpenter and members of their staffs regarding the disruption that has resulted from the congregation of hundreds of RCSD students in Downtown Rochester. I believe that I made it clear—and all agreed—that the current transportation arrangement is unacceptable and cannot continue. It is not safe for the children and disruptive for everyone else who is Downtown. We cannot expect disturbances such as the one we saw on Monday to be corrected as long as hundreds of unsupervised RCSD students continue to be brought Downtown at the same time as part of the District's transportation program. This has been a recurring problem for which a solution devised by the RCSD and RGRTA was supposed to be in place this school year. Unfortunately, as all agreed, that solution has not workedIn our meeting, there was agreement that:1) The responsibility of transporting children safely to and from school lies with the RCSD;2) RCSD will be activity engaged in monitoring the transportation of students, including having the appropriate personnel on site; and3) A new plan must be devised and implemented promptly.To that end, I await the results of today's efforts by the RCSD and RGRTA to come up with a solution and will be actively monitoring its effectiveness.The Rochester Police Department will continue to deploy significant resources to deal with problems that may arise, but ultimately this is an issue that the RCSD must address in a permanent manner. We will continue to work with them to make sure this occurs.-30-News Media:For more information, contact Communications Director Gary Walker at 428-7405. SEE ALSO Crime Prevention


text:
The Effects of Sedentarism on Vascular Function, Inflammation, and Insulin Resistance (Bedrest)
This study has been terminated.
(Funding Depleted.)
University of California, San Francisco
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
First Posted: August 9, 2011
Last Update Posted: November 7, 2013
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
University of California, San Francisco
- Full Text View
- Tabular View
- No Study Results Posted
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
No Study Results Posted on ClinicalTrials.gov for this Study
|Study Status:
|This study has been terminated.
|Study Completion Date:
|November 2013
|Primary Completion Date:
|November 2013 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)


text:
Montserrat is a mountain chain with a unique structure lies to the west of the River Llobregat, with its highest peak being 1,234 metres at the summit of San Jerónimo. Other peaks in Montserrat are: el Cavall Bernat, las Agulles, el Serrat del Moro, el Montgros, Sant Joan, la Palomera, etc. Montserrat mountain was declared a national park in 1987.
Bvlgeri is then sleeping, the Aveda and. All my http://megaviagraonline.com/ fake is noticeable can brush little for might the.
To say it is a distinctive mountain chain is an understatement as its rock formations are spectacular. Another unique feature is the famous elevated Monastery of Montserrat, a
Benedictine monk's retreat devoted to the Mother of God of Montserrat. (Madre de Dios de Montserrat).
Climbing in Montserrat
Due to its unique features, Montserrat is an ideal place for climbing and trying out the great variety of "vias ferratas" which cater for all levels.
- Climbing: The region of "les Agulles" is a mythical place on a Montserrat
climb, hundred of jagged rock faces providing different degrees of difficulty. The area above the monastery (Gorros and Sant Benet), are some of the most popular routes. El Cavall Bernat is one of the most interesting and typical ascents of Montserrat, along with the walls of the north, particularly the well known route of the vía de "la Paret de l'Aeri".
- Vías ferratas: The steep rock faces and cliffs which make up Montserrat, lend themselves to the activity of "vías ferratas" in which rungs and cables are permanently rigged to the surfaces. La Vía ferrata Teresina and Joc de l'Oca are the two most popular
of these.


text:
Halsey vs Carvalho added to Bellator 144
Brandon "Bull" Halsey (9-0) will compete for the second time in 2015 when he meets Rafael Carvalho (11-1) for the Bellator MMA middleweight title in the co-main event of "Bellator 144: Galvao vs. Dantas 2" at Mohegan Sun Arena in Uncasville, Conn., on October 23.
The contest will serve as the co-main event of "Bellator 144: Galvao vs. Dantas 2," which airs live on Spike at 9 p.m. ET/8 p.m. CT, while preliminary bouts will stream on Spike.com at 7 p.m. ET.
The main event of "Bellator 144: Galvao vs. Dantas 2" features a bantamweight title fight between Marcos Galvao (17-6-1) and Eduardo Dantas, (17-4). In addition, "Irish" Brennan Ward (11-3) will be in action, as will Michael "Venom" Page (8-0). The pair of welterweight's opponents, as well as additional bouts will be announced shortly.
Tickets for "Bellator 144: Galvao vs. Dantas 2," which start at just $25, are on sale now at Ticketmaster.com and the Mohegan Sun Arena box office. Doors for the event open at 6:00 p.m. ET local time, and the first contest takes place shortly after.
Undefeated to open his professional mixed martial arts career, Halsey looks to take back the middleweight title that he never lost. "Bull" was stripped of the title after a training camp injury hindered his ability to make weight prior to "Bellator 137: Halsey vs. Grove," a fight that the 28-year-old went on to win in emphatic fashion. It's worth noting that Halsey recently re-signed with Bellator MMA to an exclusive, multi-fight contract.
Carvalho entered his Bellator debut with Joe "Stitch Em' Up" Schilling at "Bellator 136: Brooks vs. Jansen" as the underdog, but after a tightly contested bout, earned a split decision victory. The 29-year-old Rio de Janeiro resident has not tasted defeat since the opening contest of his 12-fight career and has only seen two of his wins go as far as the judges' scorecards.
Bellator 144: "Galvao vs. Dantas 2" Updated Card
Main Card: (Spike – 9 p.m. ET/8 p.m. CT)
Bellator Bantamweight Championship Fight: Marcos Galvao (17-6-1) vs. Eduardo Dantas (17-4)
Bellator Middleweight Championship Fight: Brandon Halsey (9-0) vs. Rafael Carvalho (11-1)
Bellator Welterweight Feature Fight: Michael Page (8-0) vs. TBA
Bellator Heavyweight Feature Fight: Brennan Ward (11-3) vs. TBA
*WATCH* DaveNoseMMA – Is Conor McGregor Pushing his Luck?
MMA Latest's Dave Noseworthy looks at why MMA superstar Conor McGregor just might be pushing his luck following his actions at Bellator 187.
Watch Dave talk about the Irishman below:
Do you agree, or disagree with Dave's opinion? Let us know below!
Exclusive: Jalin Turner vs Noah Tillis set for Bellator LA in January
Bellator LA: Douglas Lima vs Rory MacDonald, has just had another entertaining fight added as two talented prospects Jalin Turner and Noah Tillis are set to meet in a lightweight bout. Sources close to the fight confirmed the news to MMA Latest earlier this morning.
Jalin "The Tarantula" Turner makes his return to the Bellator cage for the first time since January 2017, where he defeated Gabriel Green by knockout, in an exciting fight that only lasted 36 seconds. Since the fight, Turner has gone 2-1 where he defeated Paradise Vaovasa by KO, at Tachi PF 31, before dropping his next fight to Richard LeRoy by TKO, at CFX 8. Turner bounced back from the loss by beating Vytautas Sadauskas by submission, at KOTC: Never Quit, back in September.
Noah Tillis is currently coming off of a 9-second submission victory against Jeff Carson, at Gladiator Challenge: American Pride, back in July. The "Submission Magician" has amassed a professional record of 3-2 with three victories coming by submission, DQ, and a TKO due to injury. His two losses coming by way of TKO and decision.
It is unclear where the fight will be featured, but it is assumed it will take place on the undercard. The potential brawl represents a stiff challenge for either man, as well as an opportunity to make some noise in an always deep lightweight division.
The only other fight currently announced on the card is the main event between current Bellator welterweight champion Douglas Lima and former UFC title challenger, Rory MacDonald. Bellator LA: Lima vs MacDonald is set to take place on Saturday, January 20th, in Los Angeles, Calfornia, at the Forum.
Anthony "PrettyBoy" Taylor wants to knockout Trey Branch then fight Brian Moore in Bellator on St. Patricks Day
Going from postlim fights in Bellator to a co-main event and then a main card fight after with such little professional experience isn't something you'd hear of very often in the slightest. In this case Anthony "PrettyBoy" Taylor is the exception, who in only his third professional fight went to Ireland as part of the co-main event for a fight with James Gallagher. Taylor became well known to many in the build-up to that fight for being so outspoken and quite an entertainer, something he carries with him to the cage.
Anthony Taylor now has himself a fight lined up in a regional show near his home in California at California Fighting Championships. This will be his first time fighting back in America since May 2016. His last two bouts were in Europe as part of Bellator's expansion into Europe. Following two losses he now hopes to get back in the win column in front of a home crowd. Taking this fight as a tune off fight Anthony is confident he won't be touched by his opponent Trey Branch.
"Well, I'm taking this fight because Bellator said I'll be fighting next year for overseas and it will be a good tune off fight for me. I think of trey like any other fighter. Just a guy who's not going to touch me nor beat me."
His opponent Trey Branch is jumping up from flyweight for this fight, Anthony believes he's going to dominate his opponent and knock him out with ease. Now having 3 career losses coming via submission, he is not worried about his ground game, guaranteeing it was improved from training with some of the top fighters in Bellator.
"I believe I'm going to overpower him and KO him. He's coming up from 125lb to fight me which I stated to the world on Bellator that I'm the strongest 45er in the world!! And as far as my ground game, it'd be covered and it's great. Thanks to AJ McKee, Baby Slice, Joey Davis and Aaron Pico. My ground game is great and up there to the level, as there's"
Looking ahead to next year when he competes in Bellator again, Taylor has his eyes set on a big fight in a return to Irish soil.
"Well Bellator loves me and I proved them that I belong there. I haven't been told when I was fighting but I hope it's back in Ireland, and maybe on St. Patricks day and hopefully I'll fight Brian Moore because me and him been wanting to fight the longest."
As a training partner for AJ McKee, Taylor was very pleased with how the fight went down, claiming it was a simple enough fight for his teammate that apparently didn't train much for the fight. Suffering a loss on the initial trip to the emerald isle, "PrettyBoy" wants to come back and take home a win next time around.
"Oh man it was an easy fight for AJ, he only trained 2 weeks for that Brian Moore fight" he laughs "but absolutely it would be a great show if I was also on the show me and James alone still holds the record of views internationally and I'm looking to come back and taking what's mines which is that W"
The win against Brian Moore could now potentially line up a fight between McKee and James Gallagher, fight fans have long sought after. Having fought against James and training with McKee on the regular Taylor isn't convinced that Gallagher is ready for the AJ just yet. He also had some words about SBG fighters who were calling out Baby Slice.
"James is not ready for AJ. And people calling out slice since he's new in the game. Why are sbg guys not calling out Joey Davis?? They are all talk and think that they're better than everyone."
With a win on Saturday, Anthony Taylor thinks it will kick him off to a series of consecutive wins that could ultimately land him in a fight with Emmanuel Sanchez.
"Yes it will start off (Saturday) and I believe it will set me up tremendously. I'm only getting better and I plan on winning fights in Bellator and then taking out Emanuel Sanchez. I do not like him, I hate him"
"I don't like his style and he's always hating on my teammates so I want his head" he added
Away from the fight scene, Anthony is pleased with the life that he's got set up for himself with his newfound love since joining Bellator as he now aims to break into the movie industry too.
"Man it's been great I now have a wonderful woman in my life so I'm happy. I'm acting too, trying to get into the movies industry and God has blessed me which so much love"
You can follow Anthony Taylor on all his social media accounts to keep an eye out for all his upcoming fight information and results.
- Opinion1 month ago
A list of fighters who fought Michael Bisping – while on steroids
- Interviews4 weeks ago
Sage Northcutt on Moving to Sacramento and Life at Team Alpha Male
- BAMMA2 weeks ago
BAMMA 32: Official Results and Live Stream
- Interviews4 weeks ago
Tim Means on Lawsuit Against Supplement Companies "I'm Going to Shut Them Down"
- Cage Warriors1 month ago
EXCLUSIVE: Matt Inman Talks Cage Warriors 87, His Love For Fighting And Craig White Possibly Tiring Himself Out.
- Bellator1 month ago
Michael Page Not Focusing on Opponent Ahead of Boxing Debut
- Bellator3 weeks ago
Exclusive: Ilima-Lei Macfarlane- from beating 'Soccer Mom' to potentially making history
- Interviews1 month ago
Exclusive: Derek Brunson: "Anderson was definitely a little lubed up"


text:
La Vie En Rose La Vie en Rose "Wow" Sale - Save Up to 70% Online and in Outlet Stores La Vie en Rose "Wow" Saleget this deal
La Vie en Rose are having a sale, a "Wow" sale! Save up to 70% on select bras, lingerie, sleepwear, swimwear and more. You'll find deals both online and in store at La Vie en Rose Outlets (some items only available in store). Here's a look at some of the savings we spotted:
- Micro Leopard and Roses Lace ESP Bra - $17.99, was $35.95
- Emilia Mesh Babydoll - $19.99, was $39.95
- Celia Mesh Kimono - $16.99, was $39.95
- James Bond Mix-and-match Tankini Top - $19.99, was $45.95
- Beauty Sleep Boxer Print Satin - $6.99, was $24.95
Prices available for a limited time, while quantities last. Orders of $75 or more will ship for free.