text:
New York Times Co. v. United States
- Syllabus
- Opinion,
- Concurrence, Black
- Concurrence, Douglas
- Concurrence, Brennan
- Concurrence, Stewart
- Concurrence, White
- Concurrence, Marshall
- Dissent, Burger
- Dissent, Harlan
- Dissent, Blackmun
The United States, which brought these actions to enjoin publication in the New York Times and in the Washington Post of certain classified material, has not met the "heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such a [prior] restraint."
Per Curiam Opinion
[p*714] PER CURIAM
We granted certiorari in these cases in which the United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled "History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy." Post, pp. 942, 943.
"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931). The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint." Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971). The District Court for the Southern District of New York, in the New York Times case, and the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the Washington Post case, held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is therefore affirmed. The order of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions to enter a judgment affirming the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The stays entered June 25, 1971, by the Court are vacated. The judgments shall issue forthwith.
So ordered.
* Together with No. 1885, United States v. Washington Post Co. et al., on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
BLACK, J., Concurring Opinion
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins, concurring.
I adhere to the view that the Government's case against the Washington Post should have been dismissed, and that the injunction against the New York Times should have been vacated without oral argument when the cases were first presented to this Court. I believe [p715] that every moment's continuance of the injunctions against these newspapers amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment. Furthermore, after oral argument, I agree completely that we must affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the reasons stated by my Brothers DOUGLAS and BRENNAN. In my view, it is unfortunate that some of my Brethren are apparently willing to hold that the publication of news may sometimes be enjoined. Such a holding would make a shambles of the First Amendment.
Our Government was launched in 1789 with the adoption of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, followed in 1791. Now, for the first time in the 182 years since the founding of the Republic, the federal courts are asked to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the Government can halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country.
In seeking injunctions against these newspapers, and in its presentation to the Court, the Executive Branch seems to have forgotten the essential purpose and history of the First Amendment. When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms. [n1] They especially feared that the [p716] new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech. In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe and beyond the power of government to abridge. Madison proposed what later became the First Amendment in three parts, two of which are set out below, and one of which proclaimed:
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments, and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. [n2]
(Emphasis added.) The amendments were offered to curtail and restrict the general powers granted to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches two years before in the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the people's freedoms of press, speech, religion, and assembly. Yet the Solicitor General argues and some members of the Court appear to agree that the general powers of the Government adopted in the original Constitution should be interpreted to limit and restrict the specific and emphatic guarantees of the Bill of Rights adopted later. I can imagine no greater perversion of history. Madison and the other Framers of the First Amendment, able men [p717] that they were, wrote in language they earnestly believed could never be misunderstood: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press. . . ." Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints.
In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.
The Government's case here is based on premises entirely different from those that guided the Framers of the First Amendment. The Solicitor General has carefully and emphatically stated:
Now, Mr. Justice [BLACK], your construction of . . . [the First Amendment] is well known, and I certainly respect it. You say that no law means no law, and that should be obvious. I can only [p718] say, Mr. Justice, that to me it is equally obvious that "no law" does not mean "no law," and I would seek to persuade the Court that that is true. . . . [T]here are other parts of the Constitution that grant powers and responsibilities to the Executive, and . . . the First Amendment was not intended to make it impossible for the Executive to function or to protect the security of the United States. [n3]
And the Government argues in its brief that, in spite of the First Amendment,
[t]he authority of the Executive Department to protect the nation against publication of information whose disclosure would endanger the national security stems from two interrelated sources: the constitutional power of the President over the conduct of foreign affairs and his authority as Commander-in-Chief. [n4]
In other words, we are asked to hold that, despite the First Amendment's emphatic command, the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws enjoining publication of current news and abridging freedom of the press in the name of "national security." The Government does not even attempt to rely on any act of Congress. Instead, it makes the bold and dangerously far-reaching contention that the courts should take it upon themselves to "make" a law abridging freedom of the press in the name of equity, presidential power and national security, even when the representatives of the people in Congress have adhered to the command of the First Amendment and refused to make such a law. [n5]See concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, [p719]post at 721-722. To find that the President has "inherent power" to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make "secure." No one can read the history of the adoption of the First Amendment without being convinced beyond any doubt that it was injunctions like those sought here that Madison and his collaborators intended to outlaw in this Nation for all time.
The word "security" is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged. This thought was eloquently expressed in 1937 by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes -- great man and great Chief Justice that he was -- when the Court held a man could not be punished for attending a meeting run by Communists.
The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free [p720] assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government. [n6]
1. In introducing the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, Madison said:
[B]ut I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed [the Constitution] disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against the encroachments on particular rights. . . .
1 Annals of Cong. 433. Congressman Goodhue added:
[I]t is the wish of many of our constituents that something should be added to the Constitution to secure in a stronger manner their liberties from the inroads of power.
Id. at 426.
2. The other parts were:
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good, nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.
1 Annals of Cong. 434.
3. Tr. of Oral Arg. 76.
4. Brief for the United States 13-14.
5.Compare the views of the Solicitor General with those of James Madison, the author of the First Amendment. When speaking of the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, Madison said:
If they [the first ten amendments] are incorporated into the Constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the Legislative or Executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights.
1 Annals of Cong. 439.
6.De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365.
DOUGLAS, J., Concurring Opinion
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK joins, concurring.
While I join the opinion of the Court, I believe it necessary to express my views more fully.
It should be noted at the outset that the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall male no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." That leaves, in my view, no room for governmental restraint on the press. [n1]
There is, moreover, no statute barring the publication by the press of the material which the Times and the Post seek to use. Title 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) provides that
[w]hoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing . . . or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates . . . the same to any person not entitled to receive it . . . [s]hall be fined [p721] not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The Government suggests that the word "communicates" is broad enough to encompass publication.
There are eight sections in the chapter on espionage and censorship, §§ 792-799. In three of those eight, "publish" is specifically mentioned: § 794(b) applies to
Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates . . . [the disposition of armed forces].
Section 797 applies to whoever "reproduces, publishes, sells, or gives away" photographs of defense installations.
Section 798, relating to cryptography, applies to whoever: "communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available . . . or publishes" the described material. [n2] (Emphasis added.)
Thus, it is apparent that Congress was capable of, and did, distinguish between publishing and communication in the various sections of the Espionage Act.
The other evidence that § 793 does not apply to the press is a rejected version of § 793. That version read:
During any national emergency resulting from a war to which the United States is a party, or from threat of such a war, the President may, by proclamation, declare the existence of such emergency and, by proclamation, prohibit the publishing or communicating of, or the attempting to publish or communicate any information relating to the national defense which, in his judgment, is of such character that it is or might be useful to the [p722] enemy.
55 Cong.Rec. 1763. During the debates in the Senate, the First Amendment was specifically cited, and that provision was defeated. 55 Cong.Rec. 2167.
Judge Gurfein's holding in the Times case that this Act does not apply to this case was therefore preeminently sound. Moreover, the Act of September 23, 1950, in amending 18 U.S.C. § 793 states in § 1(b) that:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize, require, or establish military or civilian censorship or in any way to limit or infringe upon freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and no regulation shall be promulgated hereunder having that effect.
64 Stat. 987. Thus, Congress has been faithful to the command of the First Amendment in this area.
So any power that the Government possesses must come from its "inherent power."
The power to wage war is "the power to wage war successfully." See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 93. But the war power stems from a declaration of war. The Constitution by Art. I, § 8, gives Congress, not the President, power "[t]o declare War." Nowhere are presidential wars authorized. We need not decide, therefore, what leveling effect the war power of Congress might have.
These disclosures [n3] may have a serious impact. But that is no basis for sanctioning a previous restraint on [p723] the press. As stated by Chief Justice Hughes in Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 719-720:
While reckless assaults upon public men, and efforts to bring obloquy upon those who are endeavoring faithfully to discharge official duties, exert a baleful influence and deserve the severest condemnation in public opinion, it cannot be said that this abuse is greater, and it is believed to be less, than that which characterized the period in which our institutions took shape. Meanwhile, the administration of government has become more complex, the opportunities for malfeasance and corruption have multiplied, crime has grown to most serious proportions, and the danger of its protection by unfaithful officials and of the impairment of the fundamental security of life and property by criminal alliances and official neglect, emphasizes the primary need of a vigilant and courageous press, especially in great cities. The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any the less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint in dealing with official misconduct.
As we stated only the other day in Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419, "[a]ny prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a "heavy presumption" against its constitutional validity."
The Government says that it has inherent powers to go into court and obtain an injunction to protect the national interest, which, in this case, is alleged to be national security.
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, repudiated that expansive doctrine in no uncertain terms.
The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression [p724] of embarrassing information. It is common knowledge that the First Amendment was adopted against the widespread use of the common law of seditious libel to punish the dissemination of material that is embarrassing to the powers-that-be. See T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression, c. V (1970); Z. Chafee, Free Speech in the United States, c. XIII (1941). The present cases will, I think, go down in history as the most dramatic illustration of that principle. A debate of large proportions goes on in the Nation over our posture in Vietnam. That debate antedated the disclosure of the contents of the present documents. The latter are highly relevant to the debate in progress.
Secrecy in government is fundamentally anti-democratic, perpetuating bureaucratic errors. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health. On public questions, there should be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269-270.
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in the Post case, vacate the stay of the Court of Appeals in the Times case, and direct that it affirm the District Court.
The stays in these cases that have been in effect for more than a week constitute a flouting of the principles of the First Amendment as interpreted in Near v. Minnesota.
1.See Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 267 (dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE BLACK), 284 (my dissenting opinion); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 508 (my dissenting opinion which MR. JUSTICE BLACK joined); Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 339 (separate opinion of MR. JUSTICE BLACK which I joined); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 293 (concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE BLACK which I joined); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 80 (my concurring opinion which MR. JUSTICE BLACK joined).
2. These documents contain data concerning the communications system of the United States, the publication of which is made a crime. But the criminal sanction is not urged by the United States as the basis of equity power.
3. There are numerous sets of this material in existence, and they apparently are not under any controlled custody. Moreover, the President has sent a set to the Congress. We start, then, with a case where there already is rather wide distribution of the material that is destined for publicity, not secrecy. I have gone over the material listed in the in camera brief of the United States. It is all history, not future events. None of it is more recent than 1968.
BRENNAN, J., Concurring Opinion
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring.
I write separately in these cases only to emphasize what should be apparent: that our judgments in the present cases may not be taken to indicate the propriety, in the future, of issuing temporary stays and restraining [p725] orders to block the publication of material sought to be suppressed by the Government. So far as I can determine, never before has the United States sought to enjoin a newspaper from publishing information in its possession. The relative novelty of the questions presented, the necessary haste with which decisions were reached, the magnitude of the interests asserted, and the fact that all the parties have concentrated their arguments upon the question whether permanent restraints were proper may have justified at least some of the restraints heretofore imposed in these cases. Certainly it is difficult to fault the several courts below for seeking to assure that the issues here involved were preserved for ultimate review by this Court. But even if it be assumed that some of the interim restraints were proper in the two cases before us, that assumption has no bearing upon the propriety of similar judicial action in the future. To begin with, there has now been ample time for reflection and judgment; whatever values there may be in the preservation of novel questions for appellate review may not support any restraints in the future. More important, the First Amendment stands as an absolute bar to the imposition of judicial restraints in circumstances of the kind presented by these cases.
The error that has pervaded these cases from the outset was the granting of any injunctive relief whatsoever, interim or otherwise. The entire thrust of the Government's claim throughout these cases has been that publication of the material sought to be enjoined "could," or "might," or "may" prejudice the national interest in various ways. But the First Amendment tolerates absolutely no prior judicial restraints of the press predicated upon surmise or conjecture that untoward consequences [p726] may result. [*] Our cases, it is true, have indicated that there is a single, extremely narrow class of cases in which the First Amendment's ban on prior judicial restraint may be overridden. Our cases have thus far indicated that such cases may arise only when the Nation "is at war," Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919), during which times
[n]o one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 716 (1931). Even if the present world situation were assumed to be tantamount to a time of war, or if the power of presently available armaments would justify even in peacetime the suppression of information that would set in motion a nuclear holocaust, in neither of these actions has the Government presented or even alleged that publication of items from or based upon the material at issue would cause the happening of an event of that nature. "[T]he chief purpose of [the First Amendment's] guaranty [is] to prevent previous restraints upon publication." Near v. Minnesota, supra, at 713. Thus, only governmental allegation and proof that publication must inevitably, directly, [p727] and immediately cause the occurrence of an event kindred to imperiling the safety of a transport already at sea can support even the issuance of an interim restraining order. In no event may mere conclusions be sufficient, for if the Executive Branch seeks judicial aid in preventing publication, it must inevitably submit the basis upon which that aid is sought to scrutiny by the judiciary. And, therefore, every restraint issued in this case, whatever its form, has violated the First Amendment -- and not less so because that restraint was justified as necessary to afford the courts an opportunity to examine the claim more thoroughly. Unless and until the Government has clearly made out its case, the First Amendment commands that no injunction may issue.
*Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965), and similar cases regarding temporary restraints of allegedly obscene materials are not in point. For those cases rest upon the proposition that "obscenity is not protected by the freedoms of speech and press." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 481 (1957). Here there is no question but that the material sought to be suppressed is within the protection of the First Amendment; the only question is whether, notwithstanding that fact, its publication may be enjoined for a time because of the presence of an overwhelming national interest. Similarly, copyright cases have no pertinence here: the Government is not asserting an interest in the particular form of words chosen in the documents, but is seeking to suppress the ideas expressed therein. And the copyright laws, of course, protect only the form of expression, and not the ideas expressed.
STEWART, J., Concurring Opinion
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom MR. JUSTICE WHITE joins, concurring.
In the governmental structure created by our Constitution, the Executive is endowed with enormous power in the two related areas of national defense and international relations. This power, largely unchecked by the Legislative [n1] and Judicial [n2] branches, has been pressed to the very hilt since the advent of the nuclear missile age. For better or for worse, the simple fact is that a [p728] President of the United States possesses vastly greater constitutional independence in these two vital areas of power than does, say, a prime minister of a country with a parliamentary form of government.
In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry -- in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government. For this reason, it is perhaps here that a press that is alert, aware, and free most vitally serves the basic purpose of the First Amendment. For, without an informed and free press, there cannot be an enlightened people.
Yet it is elementary that the successful conduct of international diplomacy and the maintenance of an effective national defense require both confidentiality and secrecy. Other nations can hardly deal with this Nation in an atmosphere of mutual trust unless they can be assured that their confidences will be kept. And, within our own executive departments, the development of considered and intelligent international policies would be impossible if those charged with their formulation could not communicate with each other freely, frankly, and in confidence. In the area of basic national defense, the frequent need for absolute secrecy is, of course, self-evident.
I think there can be but one answer to this dilemma, if dilemma it be. The responsibility must be where the power is. [n3] If the Constitution gives the Executive [p729] a large degree of unshared power in the conduct of foreign affairs and the maintenance of our national defense, then, under the Constitution, the Executive must have the largely unshared duty to determine and preserve the degree of internal security necessary to exercise that power successfully. It is an awesome responsibility, requiring judgment and wisdom of a high order. I should suppose that moral, political, and practical considerations would dictate that a very first principle of that wisdom would be an insistence upon avoiding secrecy for its own sake. For when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless, and to be manipulated by those intent on self-protection or self-promotion. I should suppose, in short, that the hallmark of a truly effective internal security system would be the maximum possible disclosure, recognizing that secrecy can best be preserved only when credibility is truly maintained. But, be that as it may, it is clear to me that it is the constitutional duty of the Executive -- as a matter of sovereign prerogative, and not as a matter of law as the courts know law -- through the promulgation and enforcement of executive regulations, to protect [p730] the confidentiality necessary to carry out its responsibilities in the fields of international relations and national defense.
This is not to say that Congress and the courts have no role to play. Undoubtedly, Congress has the power to enact specific and appropriate criminal laws to protect government property and preserve government secrets. Congress has passed such laws, and several of them are of very colorable relevance to the apparent circumstances of these cases. And if a criminal prosecution is instituted, it will be the responsibility of the courts to decide the applicability of the criminal law under which the charge is brought. Moreover, if Congress should pass a specific law authorizing civil proceedings in this field, the courts would likewise have the duty to decide the constitutionality of such a law, as well as its applicability to the facts proved.
But in the cases before us, we are asked neither to construe specific regulations nor to apply specific laws. We are asked, instead, to perform a function that the Constitution gave to the Executive, not the Judiciary. We are asked, quite simply, to prevent the publication by two newspapers of material that the Executive Branch insists should not, in the national interest, be published. I am convinced that the Executive is correct with respect to some of the documents involved. But I cannot say that disclosure of any of them will surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people. That being so, there can under the First Amendment be but one judicial resolution of the issues before us. I join the judgments of the Court.
1. The President's power to make treaties and to appoint ambassadors is, of course, limited by the requirement of Art. II, § 2, of the Constitution that he obtain the advice and consent of the Senate. Article I, § 8, empowers Congress to "raise and support Armies," and "provide and maintain a Navy." And, of course, Congress alone can declare war. This power was last exercised almost 30 years ago at the inception of World War II. Since the end of that war in 1945, the Armed Forces of the United States have suffered approximately half a million casualties in various parts of the world.
2.See Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103; Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81; United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 U.S. 304; cf. Mora v. McNamara, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 387 F.2d 862, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 934.
It is quite apparent that, if, in the maintenance of our international relations, embarrassment -- perhaps serious embarrassment -- is to be avoided and success for our aims achieved, congressional legislation which is to be made effective through negotiation and inquiry within the international field must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. Moreover, he, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign countries, and especially is this true in time of war. He has his confidential sources of information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other officials. Secrecy in respect of information gathered by them may be highly necessary, and the premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results. Indeed, so clearly is this true that the first President refused to accede to a request to lay before the House of Representatives the instructions, correspondence and documents relating to the negotiation of the Jay Treaty -- a refusal the wisdom of which was recognized by the House itself, and has never since been doubted. . . .United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320.
BURGER, C.J., Dissenting Opinion
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, dissenting.
So clear are the constitutional limitations on prior restraint against expression that, from the time of Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), until recently in Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971), we have had little occasion to be concerned with cases involving prior restraints against news reporting on matters of public interest. There is, therefore, little variation among the members of the Court in terms of resistance to prior restraints against publication. Adherence to this basic constitutional principle, however, does not make these cases simple. In these cases, the imperative of a free and unfettered press comes into collision with another imperative, the effective functioning of a complex modern government, and, specifically, the effective exercise of certain constitutional powers of the Executive. Only those who view the First Amendment as an absolute in all circumstances -- a view I respect, but reject -- can find such cases as these to be simple or easy.
These cases are not simple for another and more immediate reason. We do not know the facts of the cases. No District Judge knew all the facts. No Court of Appeals judge knew all the facts. No member of this Court knows all the facts.
Why are we in this posture, in which only those judges to whom the First Amendment is absolute and permits of no restraint in any circumstances or for any reason, are really in a position to act?
I suggest we are in this posture because these cases have been conducted in unseemly haste. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN covers the chronology of events demonstrating the hectic pressures under which these cases have been processed, and I need not restate them. The prompt [p749] setting of these cases reflects our universal abhorrence of prior restraint. But prompt judicial action does not mean unjudicial haste.
Here, moreover, the frenetic haste is due in large part to the manner in which the Times proceeded from the date it obtained the purloined documents. It seems reasonably clear now that the haste precluded reasonable and deliberate judicial treatment of these cases, and was not warranted. The precipitate action of this Court aborting trials not yet completed is not the kind of judicial conduct that ought to attend the disposition of a great issue.
The newspapers make a derivative claim under the First Amendment; they denominate this right as the public "right to know"; by implication, the Times asserts a sole trusteeship of that right by virtue of its journalistic "scoop." The right is asserted as an absolute. Of course, the First Amendment right itself is not an absolute, as Justice Holmes so long ago pointed out in his aphorism concerning the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater if there was no fire. There are other exceptions, some of which Chief Justice Hughes mentioned by way of example in Near v. Minnesota. There are no doubt other exceptions no one has had occasion to describe or discuss. Conceivably, such exceptions may be lurking in these cases and, would have been flushed had they been properly considered in the trial courts, free from unwarranted deadlines and frenetic pressures. An issue of this importance should be tried and heard in a judicial atmosphere conducive to thoughtful, reflective deliberation, especially when haste, in terms of hours, is unwarranted in light of the long period the Times, by its own choice, deferred publication. [n1][p750]
It is not disputed that the Times has had unauthorized possession of the documents for three to four months, during which it has had its expert analysts studying them, presumably digesting them and preparing the material for publication. During all of this time, the Times, presumably in its capacity as trustee of the public's "right to know," has held up publication for purposes it considered proper, and thus public knowledge was delayed. No doubt this was for a good reason; the analysis of 7,000 pages of complex material drawn from a vastly greater volume of material would inevitably take time, and the writing of good news stories takes time. But why should the United States Government, from whom this information was illegally acquired by someone, along with all the counsel, trial judges, and appellate judges be placed under needless pressure? After these months of deferral, the alleged "right to know" has somehow and suddenly become a right that must be vindicated instanter.
Would it have been unreasonable, since the newspaper could anticipate the Government's objections to release of secret material, to give the Government an opportunity to review the entire collection and determine whether agreement could be reached on publication? Stolen or not, if security was not, in fact, jeopardized, much of the material could no doubt have been declassified, since it spans a period ending in 1968. With such an approach -- one that great newspapers have in the past practiced and stated editorially to be the duty of an honorable press -- the newspapers and Government might well have narrowed [p751] the area of disagreement as to what was and was not publishable, leaving the remainder to be resolved in orderly litigation, if necessary. To me, it is hardly believable that a newspaper long regarded as a great institution in American life would fail to perform one of the basic and simple duties of every citizen with respect to the discovery or possession of stolen property or secret government documents. That duty, I had thought -- perhaps naively -- was to report forthwith, to responsible public officers. This duty rests on taxi drivers, Justices, and the New York Times. The course followed by the Times, whether so calculated or not, removed any possibility of orderly litigation of the issue. If the action of the judges up to now has been correct, that result is sheer happenstance. [n2]
Our grant of the writ of certiorari before final judgment in the Times case aborted the trial in the District Court before it had made a complete record pursuant to the mandate of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The consequence of all this melancholy series of events is that we literally do not know what we are acting on. As I see it, we have been forced to deal with litigation concerning rights of great magnitude without an adequate record, and surely without time for adequate treatment either in the prior proceedings or in this Court. It is interesting to note that counsel on both sides, in oral argument before this Court, were frequently unable to respond to questions on factual points. Not surprisingly, they pointed out that they had been working literally "around the clock," and simply were unable to review the documents that give rise to these cases and [p752] were not familiar with them. This Court is in no better posture. I agree generally with MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, but I am not prepared to reach the merits. [n3]
I would affirm the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and allow the District Court to complete the trial aborted by our grant of certiorari, meanwhile preserving the status quo in the Post case. I would direct that the District Court, on remand, give priority to the Times case to the exclusion of all other business of that court, but I would not set arbitrary deadlines.
I should add that I am in general agreement with much of what MR. JUSTICE WHITE has expressed with respect to penal sanctions concerning communication or retention of documents or information relating to the national defense.
We all crave speedier judicial processes, but, when judges are pressured, as in these cases, the result is a parody of the judicial function.
1. As noted elsewhere, the Times conducted its analysis of the 47 volumes of Government documents over a period of several months, and did so with a degree of security that a government might envy. Such security was essential, of course, to protect the enterprise from others. Meanwhile, the Times has copyrighted its material, and there were strong intimations in the oral argument that the Times contemplated enjoining its use by any other publisher in violation of its copyright. Paradoxically, this would afford it a protection, analogous to prior restraint, against all others -- a protection the Times denies the Government of the United States.
2. Interestingly, the Times explained its refusal to allow the Government to examine its own purloined documents by saying in substance this might compromise its sources and informants! The Times thus asserts a right to guard the secrecy of its sources while denying that the Government of the United States has that power.
3. With respect to the question of inherent power of the Executive to classify papers, records, and documents as secret, or otherwise unavailable for public exposure, and to secure aid of the courts for enforcement, there may be an analogy with respect to this Court. No statute gives this Court express power to establish and enforce the utmost security measures for the secrecy of our deliberations and records. Yet I have little doubt as to the inherent power of the Court to protect the confidentiality of its internal operations by whatever judicial measures may be required.
HARLAN, J., Dissenting Opinion
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, dissenting.
These cases forcefully call to mind the wise admonition of Mr. Justice Holmes, dissenting in Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 400-401 (1904):
Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law. For great cases are called great not by reason of their [p753] real importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment. These immediate interests exercise a kind of hydraulic pressure which makes what previously was clear seem doubtful, and before which even well settled principles of law will bend.
With all respect, I consider that the Court has been almost irresponsibly feverish in dealing with these cases.
Both the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rendered judgment on June 23. [*] The New York Times' petition for certiorari, its motion for accelerated consideration thereof, and its application for interim relief were filed in this Court on June 24 at about 11 a.m. The application of the United States for interim relief in the Post case was also filed here on June 24 at about 7:15 p.m. This Court's order setting a hearing before us on June 26 at 11 a.m., a course which I joined only to avoid the possibility of even more peremptory action by the Court, was issued less than 24 hours before. The record in the Post case was filed with the Clerk shortly before 1 p.m. on June 25; the record in the Times case did not arrive until 7 or 8 o'clock that same night. The briefs of the parties were received less than two hours before argument on June 26.
This frenzied train of events took place in the name of the presumption against prior restraints created by the First Amendment. Due regard for the extraordinarily important and difficult questions involved in these litigations should have led the Court to shun such a precipitate timetable. In order to decide the merits of these cases properly, some or all of the following questions should have been faced:
1. Whether the Attorney General is authorized to bring these suits in the name of the United States. Compare[p754]In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (1895), with Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). This question involves as well the construction and validity of a singularly opaque statute -- the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. § 793(e).
2. Whether the First Amendment permits the federal courts to enjoin publication of stories which would present a serious threat to national security. See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 716 (1931) (dictum).
3. Whether the threat to publish highly secret documents is of itself a sufficient implication of national security to justify an injunction on the theory that, regardless of the contents of the documents, harm enough results simply from the demonstration of such a breach of secrecy.
4. Whether the unauthorized disclosure of any of these particular documents would seriously impair the national security.
5. What weight should be given to the opinion of high officers in the Executive Branch of the Government with respect to questions 3 and 4.
6. Whether the newspapers are entitled to retain and use the documents notwithstanding the seemingly uncontested facts that the documents, or the originals of which they are duplicates, were purloined from the Government's possession, and that the newspapers received them with knowledge that they had been feloniously acquired. Cf. Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Pearson, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 74, 390 F.2d 489 (1967, amended 1968).
7. Whether the threatened harm to the national security or the Government's possessory interest in the documents justifies the issuance of an injunction against publication in light of --
a. The strong First Amendment policy against prior restraints on publication; [p755]
b. The doctrine against enjoining conduct in violation of criminal statutes; and
c. The extent to which the materials at issue have apparently already been otherwise disseminated.
These are difficult questions of fact, of law, and of judgment; the potential consequences of erroneous decision are enormous. The time which has been available to us, to the lower courts, and to the parties has been wholly inadequate for giving these cases the kind of consideration they deserve. It is a reflection on the stability of the judicial process that these great issues -- as important as any that have arisen during my time on the Court -- should have been decided under the pressures engendered by the torrent of publicity that has attended these litigations from their inception.
Forced as I am to reach the merits of these cases, I dissent from the opinion and judgments of the Court. Within the severe limitations imposed by the time constraints under which I have been required to operate, I can only state my reasons in telescoped form, even though, in different circumstances, I would have felt constrained to deal with the cases in the fuller sweep indicated above.
It is a sufficient basis for affirming the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the Times litigation to observe that its order must rest on the conclusion that, because of the time elements the Government had not been given an adequate opportunity to present its case [p756] to the District Court. At the least this conclusion was not an abuse of discretion.
In the Post litigation, the Government had more time to prepare; this was apparently the basis for the refusal of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on rehearing to conform its judgment to that of the Second Circuit. But I think there is another and more fundamental reason why this judgment cannot stand -- a reason which also furnishes an additional ground for not reinstating the judgment of the District Court in the Times litigation, set aside by the Court of Appeals. It is plain to me that the scope of the judicial function in passing upon the activities of the Executive Branch of the Government in the field of foreign affairs is very narrowly restricted. This view is, I think, dictated by the concept of separation of powers upon which our constitutional system rests.
In a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, Chief Justice John Marshall, then a member of that body, stated:
The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.
10 Annals of Cong. 613 (1800). From that time, shortly after the founding of the Nation, to this, there has been no substantial challenge to this description of the scope of executive power. See United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319-321 (1936), collecting authorities.
From this constitutional primacy in the field of foreign affairs, it seems to me that certain conclusions necessarily follow. Some of these were stated concisely by President Washington, declining the request of the House of Representatives for the papers leading up to the negotiation of the Jay Treaty:
The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their success must often depend on secrecy; [p757] and even when brought to a conclusion, a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions which may have been proposed or contemplated would be extremely impolitic; for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotiations, or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and mischief, in relation to other powers.
1 J. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents 194-195 (1896).
The power to evaluate the "pernicious influence" of premature disclosure is not, however, lodged in the Executive alone. I agree that, in performance of its duty to protect the values of the First Amendment against political pressures, the judiciary must review the initial Executive determination to the point of satisfying itself that the subject matter of the dispute does lie within the proper compass of the President's foreign relations power. Constitutional considerations forbid "a complete abandonment of judicial control." Cf. United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 8 (1953). Moreover, the judiciary may properly insist that the determination that disclosure of the subject matter would irreparably impair the national security be made by the head of the Executive Department concerned -- here, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense -- after actual personal consideration by that officer. This safeguard is required in the analogous area of executive claims of privilege for secrets of state. See id. at 8 and n. 20; Duncan v. Cammell, Laird Co., [1942] A.C. 624, 638 (House of Lords).
But, in my judgment, the judiciary may not properly go beyond these two inquiries and redetermine for itself the probable impact of disclosure on the national security.
[T]he very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions [p758] are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility, and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.
Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111 (1948) (Jackson, J.).
Even if there is some room for the judiciary to override the executive determination, it is plain that the scope of review must be exceedingly narrow. I can see no indication in the opinions of either the District Court or the Court of Appeals in the Post litigation that the conclusions of the Executive were given even the deference owing to an administrative agency, much less that owing to a co-equal branch of the Government operating within the field of its constitutional prerogative.
Accordingly, I would vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on this ground, and remand the case for further proceedings in the District Court. Before the commencement of such further proceedings, due opportunity should be afforded the Government for procuring from the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense or both an expression of their views on the issue of national security. The ensuing review by the District Court should be in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion. And, for the reasons stated above, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Pending further hearings in each case conducted under the appropriate ground rules, I would continue the [p759] restraints on publication. I cannot believe that the doctrine prohibiting prior restraints reaches to the point of preventing courts from maintaining the status quo long enough to act responsibly in matters of such national importance as those involved here.
* The hearing in the Post case before Judge Gesell began at 8 a.m. on June 21, and his decision was rendered, under the hammer of a deadline imposed by the Court of Appeals, shortly before 5 p.m. on the same day. The hearing in the Times case before Judge Gurfein was held on June 18, and his decision was rendered on June 19. The Government's appeals in the two cases were heard by the Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Second Circuits, each court sitting en banc, on June 22. Each court rendered its decision on the following afternoon.
BLACKMUN, J., Dissenting Opinion
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, dissenting.
I join MR. JUSTICE HARLAN in his dissent. I also am in substantial accord with much that MR. JUSTICE WHITE says, by way of admonition, in the latter part of his opinion.
At this point, the focus is on only the comparatively few documents specified by the Government as critical. So far as the other material -- vast in amount -- is concerned, let it be published and published forthwith if the newspapers, once the strain is gone and the sensationalism is eased, still feel the urge so to do.
But we are concerned here with the few documents specified from the 47 volumes. Almost 70 years ago, Mr. Justice Holmes, dissenting in a celebrated case, observed:
Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law. For great cases are called great not by reason of their real importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment. These immediate interests exercise a kind of hydraulic pressure. . . .
Northen Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 400-401 (1904). The present cases, if not great, are at least unusual in their posture and implications, and the Holmes observation certainly has pertinent application.
The New York Times clandestinely devoted a period of three months to examining the 47 volumes that came into its unauthorized possession. Once it had begun publication [p760] of material from those volumes, the New York case now before us emerged. It immediately assumed, and ever since has maintained, a frenetic pace and character. Seemingly, once publication started, the material could not be made public fast enough. Seemingly, from then on, every deferral or delay, by restraint or otherwise, was abhorrent, and was to be deemed violative of the First Amendment and of the public's "right immediately to know." Yet that newspaper stood before us at oral argument and professed criticism of the Government for not lodging its protest earlier than by a Monday telegram following the initial Sunday publication.
The District of Columbia case is much the same.
Two federal district courts, two United States courts of appeals, and this Court -- within a period of less than three weeks from inception until today -- have been pressed into hurried decision of profound constitutional issues on inadequately developed and largely assumed facts without the careful deliberation that, one would hope, should characterize the American judicial process. There has been much writing about the law and little knowledge and less digestion of the facts. In the New York case, the judges, both trial and appellate, had not yet examined the basic material when the case was brought here. In the District of Columbia case, little more was done, and what was accomplished in this respect was only on required remand, with the Washington Post, on the excuse that it was trying to protect its source of information, initially refusing to reveal what material it actually possessed, and with the District Court forced to make assumptions as to that possession.
With such respect as may be due to the contrary view, this, in my opinion, is not the way to try a lawsuit of this magnitude and asserted importance. It is not the way for federal courts to adjudicate, and to be required to adjudicate, issues that allegedly concern the Nation's [p761] vital welfare. The country would be none the worse off were the cases tried quickly, to be sure, but in the customary and properly deliberative manner. The most recent of the material, it is said, dates no later than 1968, already about three years ago, and the Times itself took three months to formulate its plan of procedure and, thus, deprived its public for that period.
The First Amendment, after all, is only one part of an entire Constitution. Article II of the great document vests in the Executive Branch primary power over the conduct of foreign affairs, and places in that branch the responsibility for the Nation's safety. Each provision of the Constitution is important, and I cannot subscribe to a doctrine of unlimited absolutism for the First Amendment at the cost of downgrading other provisions. First Amendment absolutism has never commanded a majority of this Court. See, for example, Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 708 (1931), and Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919). What is needed here is a weighing, upon properly developed standards, of the broad right of the press to print and of the very narrow right of the Government to prevent. Such standards are not yet developed. The parties here are in disagreement as to what those standards should be. But even the newspapers concede that there are situations where restraint is in order and is constitutional. Mr. Justice Holmes gave us a suggestion when he said in Schenck,
It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.
249 U.S. at 52.
I therefore would remand these cases to be developed expeditiously, of course, but on a schedule permitting the [p762] orderly presentation of evidence from both sides, with the use of discovery, if necessary, as authorized by the rules, and with the preparation of briefs, oral argument, and court opinions of a quality better than has been seen to this point. In making this last statement, I criticize no lawyer or judge. I know from past personal experience the agony of time pressure in the preparation of litigation. But these cases and the issues involved and the courts, including this one, deserve better than has been produced thus far.
It may well be that, if these cases were allowed to develop as they should be developed, and to be tried as lawyers should try them and as courts should hear them, free of pressure and panic and sensationalism, other light would be shed on the situation, and contrary considerations, for me, might prevail. But that is not the present posture of the litigation.
The Court, however, decides the cases today the other way. I therefore add one final comment.
I strongly urge, and sincerely hope, that these two newspapers will be fully aware of their ultimate responsibilities to the United States of America. Judge Wilkey, dissenting in the District of Columbia case, after a review of only the affidavits before his court (the basic papers had not then been made available by either party), concluded that there were a number of examples of documents that, if in the possession of the Post and if published, "could clearly result in great harm to the nation," and he defined "harm" to mean
the death of soldiers, the destruction of alliances, the greatly increased difficulty of negotiation with our enemies, the inability of our diplomats to negotiate. . . .
I, for one, have now been able to give at least some cursory study not only to the affidavits, but to the material itself. I regret to say that, from this examination, I fear that Judge Wilkey's statements have possible foundation. I therefore share [p763] his concern. I hope that damage has not already been done. If, however, damage has been done, and if, with the Court's action today, these newspapers proceed to publish the critical documents and there results therefrom
the death of soldiers, the destruction of alliances, the greatly increased difficulty of negotiation with our enemies, the inability of our diplomats to negotiate,
to which list I might add the factors of prolongation of the war and of further delay in the freeing of United States prisoners, then the Nation's people will know where the responsibility for these sad consequences rests.
- CAPITAL CITIES MEDIA, INC., et al. v. NotFound
- HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS, INC. and the Reader's Digest Association, Inc., Petitioners v. NATION ENTERPRISES and the Nation Associates, Inc.
- DUN & BRADSTREET, INC., Petitioner v. GREENMOSS BUILDERS, INC.
- Christopher L. LOWE, et al., Petitioners v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
- THE FLORIDA STAR, Appellant v. B.J.F.
- Clyde OSBORNE, Appellant v. OHIO.
- CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., et al., petitioners v. Manuel Antonio NORIEGA and United States.
- SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC., Petitioner v. MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK STATE CRIME VICTIMS BOARD, et al.
- Ferris J. ALEXANDER, Sr., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.
- Judy MADSEN, et al., Petitioners v. WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER, INC., et al.
- Leonard Rollon CRAWFORD-EL, Petitioner, v. Patricia BRITTON.
- UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Aloyzas BALSYS.
- COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., Petitioner, v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al., Petitioners, v. BUSINESS EXECUTIVES' MOVE FOR VIETNAM PEACE et al. POST-NEWSWEEK STATIONS, CAPITAL AREA, INC., Petitioner, v. BUSINESS EXECUTIVES' MOVE FOR VIETNAM PEACE. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., Petitioner, v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE.
- John DOE et al., Petitioners, v. John L. McMILLAN et al.
- PITTSBURGH PRESS COMPANY, Petitioner, v. The PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS et al.
- Saul HELLER, Petitioner, v. State of NEW YORK.
- Elizabeth HOLTZMAN et al. v. James R. SCHLESINGER. No. A150.
- Eve PELL et al., Appellants, v. Raymond K. PROCUNIER, Director, California Department of Corrections, et al. Raymond K. PROCUNIER, Director, California Department of Corrections, et al., Appellants, v. Booker T. HILLERY, Jr., et al.
- The MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY, a Division of Knight Newspapers, Inc., Appellant, v. Pat L. TORNILLO, Jr.
- NEBRASKA PRESS ASSOCIATION et al., Applicants, v. NotFound
- NEBRASKA PRESS ASSOCIATION et al., Applicants, v. NotFound
- Thomas U. GREER, Commander, Fort Dix Military Reservation, et al., Petitioners, v. Benjamin SPOCK et al.
- J. William MIDDENDORF, II, et al., Petitioners, v. Daniel Edward HENRY et al. Daniel Edward HENRY et al., Petitioners, v. J. William MIDDENDORF, II, Individually and in his Capacity as Secretary of the Navy, et al.
- VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY et al., Appellants, v. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC., et al.
- NEBRASKA PRESS ASSOCIATION et al., Petitioners, v. Hugh STUART, Judge, District Court of Lincoln County, Nebraska, et al.
- Richard J. ELROD, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. John BURNS et al.
- Howard L. MORLAND et al. v. Robert A. SPRECHER, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, et al.
- RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA et al.
- BILL JOHNSON'S RESTAURANTS, INC., Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
- Thomas L. HOUCHINS, Sheriff of the County of Alameda, California, Petitioner, v. KQED, INC., et al.
- LANDMARK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA.
- FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON et al., Appellants, v. Francis X. BELLOTTI, etc.
- Paul M. BRANZBURG, Petitioner, v. John P. HAYES, Judge, etc., et al. In the Matter of Paul PAPPAS, Petitioner. UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Earl CALDWELL.
- Mike GRAVEL, United States Senator, v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Mike GRAVEL, United States Senator.
- UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERNDIVISION, et al.; Lawrence Robert 'Pun' PLAMONDON et al., Real Parties inInterest.
- CALIFORNIA et al., Appellants, v. Robert LaRUE et al.
- Melvin R. LAIRD, Secretary of Defense, et al., Petitioners, v. Arlo TATUM et al.
- TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING CORP. v. Oliver P. SCHULINGKAMP. No. A1305.
- NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. BARTNICKI et al. v. VOPPER
- Harold R. BROWN, Secretary of Defense, et al., Petitioners, v. Albert Edward GLINES.
- Frank W. SNEPP, III v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. Frank W. SNEPP, III.
- Alexander M. HAIG, Jr., Secretary of State of the United States, Petitioner, v. Philip AGEE.
- SOUTHEASTERN PROMOTIONS, LTD., Petitioner, v. Steve CONRAD et al.
- The BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al., Petitioners, v. Jeff JACOBS et al.


text:
Farm Progress America brought to you by Farm Progress America - September 30 2016 Broadcast on radio stations throughout the country, Max Armstrong shares his perspectives and insight on hot issues in agriculture on this episode of Farm Progress America. Nov 09, 2016 0 comments Hide comments Comment * Switch to plain text editorMore information about text formats Text format CommentsPlain text CommentsAllowed HTML tags:

Plain textNo HTML tags allowed.Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.Lines and paragraphs break automatically. PublishLog in or register to comment Save Leave this field blank RelatedFarm Progress ShowHere's what's important to beef shoppers Mar 26, 2020Feeder cattle prices reboundMar 26, 2020Cattle auctions continue amid the COVID-19 falloutMar 26, 2020 Load More

subset: commoncrawl


text:
In Stocking Program
A morado veneered and mahogany games table, the square top with a chessboard inlay within a faux shagreen and morado crossbanded border, the reverse with a backgammon board inlay, above a quarter round chequer banded moulded edge above a gently undulating apron with four faux shagreen inlaid drinks slides, on tapering legs with scroll feet.
Crushed eggshell inlay, hand-tooling with gold leaf; hand-painting with fine art techniques, the ancient art of gilding and our Argento technique involving canvas wrapping, gilding and painting are just a few of the techniques used to create the authentic finishes on our furnishings. Using traditional tools and techniques handed down through the ages imbue each piece with an air of authenticity and individuality.
With over 50 types of veneer used on our product, we select each piece for figure and colour and exclusively hand cut each piece to create our beautiful surfaces, each a uniquely created work of art.
Our craftsmen select wood based on beauty, colour and suitability to each individual piece. We still use traditional furniture making, wood working techniques and materials to ensure enduring quality in every one of our products.
Frequently dust exposed surfaces with a clean, damp natural cloth. Dry the surface with another clean, dry cloth. Infrequently polish your furniture (a few times a year at most) with a non-silicon-base furniture polish made by a reputable manufacturer, taking care to follow the instructions.
Frequently dust exposed surfaces with a clean, damp natural cloth. Dry the surface with another clean, dry cloth. Infrequently polish your furniture (a few times a year at most) with a non-silicon-base furniture polish made by a reputable manufacturer, taking care to follow the instructions. Bear in mind that one manufacturer's furniture care products should never be used in combination with another. Product formulations are unique to each manufacturer and are made to blend with another, so using different polishes may cause build-up that can appear cloudy or dull over time, and/or feel sticky to the touch. Always polish or dust with a motion that follows the grain of the wood to avoid scratching the surface, and allow polish to dry completely before replacing any objects on the surface.
Theodore Alexander artists painstakingly create our hand-painted finishes using meticulous brushstrokes and age-old techniques. You can use a good quality furniture polish to maintain and preserve the unique artwork. Take care not to use abrasive cloths or polishes that may scratch a hand-painted finish.
Your Email has been sent.
Required fields are marked with an (*).
Make sure to register to save your Lookbook, otherwise it will disappear when you
leave the site. Once you register you can also email it, add notes and create more
than one.
Our Customer Services Team will forward your request to a Theodore Alexander gallery
dealer closest to your location. You can expect to hear from a dealer within 72
Terms of Use Disclaimer
Your request has been sent.


text:
|For the Fallout Tactics character, see Burke (Fallout Tactics).
Mister Burke is Allistair Tenpenny's right-hand man in 2277.
Burke was born in 2221, making him 56 years old during the events of Fallout 3 in 2277. Mister Burke is first found spending his days at Moriarty's Saloon, drinking and talking to Colin Moriarty or asking Gob, the ghoul bartender, questions such as: what is it like being a ghoul, the effects of radiation on his body, and what it's like to live among the non-irradiated populace. He also likes to eat at the Brass Lantern, where he can keep an eye on the atomic bomb.[1]
Daily scheduleEdit
He can be found sitting in a chair in Moriarty's Saloon before the start of the quest The Power of the Atom. If the Lone Wanderer accepts the fusion pulse charge, he will go back to Tenpenny Tower once the task of re-arming the bomb is finished, and will wait for the Lone Wanderer to rendezvous with him. Alternatively, if the Lone Wanderer disarms the nuke, he will leave Moriarty's Saloon and travel back to Tenpenny Tower (this might take him a few days, and he may be killed in the wasteland); he will then spend all of his time in or on the same floor as his suite.
Interactions with the player characterEdit
Interactions overviewEdit
|This character drops a finger when killed (Lawbringer).
|This character starts quests.
- The Power of the Atom: Burke attempts to hire the Lone Wanderer to detonate Megaton's bomb.
Effects of player's actionsEdit
- If a female Lone Wanderer has the Black Widow perk, she can seduce Burke. Once seduced, he will refer to her as his "lover" and will plan accordingly to go to Tenpenny Tower and convince Tenpenny to not blow up Megaton. Burke will actually disappear from the game altogether, but he will still send four love letters to Colin Moriarty to give to the Wanderer as if he were at Tenpenny Tower. In the last one he will finally break up with her.
- If the Lone Wanderer refuses Burke's offer or disarms the bomb without speaking to him, hitmen will show up at random encounters to attack them.
- If the Lone Wanderer accepts the offer but reports Burke to Lucas Simms, Lucas will attempt to arrest Burke, but will get shot and killed as a consequence. The Lone Wanderer can intervene and save Lucas, but this can only be accomplished by killing or disarming Burke before he opens fire, or by attempting to speak to Simms while he is confronting Burke.
- If the Lone Wanderer has helped Roy Phillips take over Tenpenny Tower before meeting Burke at Megaton, Phillips will make Burke his right-hand man.
- If the Lone Wanderer kills Burke, they gain positive Karma and can still detonate the bomb if having already accepted the offer.
- Fallout 3
|Other items
|Dirty pre-War businesswear and hat
Tortiseshell glasses
|Silenced N99 10mm pistol
- Fallout Shelter
|Lucky formal wear
|Wild Bill's Sidearm
Mister BreakEdit
Mister Break is a character found in the Sacred Bog area of Point Lookout. He is a part of the hallucination that occurs after the Lone Wanderer consumes punga seeds and is seen leaning against an atom bomb, similar to the Megaton bomb but much larger. After interacting with him, the bomb explodes, and the Lone Wanderer wakes up outside of the Sacred Bog. Mister Break is a delusional image of Mister Burke and his clothes are the same as Mister Burke's. When spoken to, he will respond in Tobar the Ferryman's voice (it is later revealed that it was indeed Tobar talking), and he gives a warning to not get up, saying "you might hurt yourself." Mister Break is an essential character.
- Mister Burke has a house in Megaton next to the bomb in the middle of town, but he never goes there and doesn't even possess its key.
- Mister Burke and Roy Phillips will have a special conversation on Tenpenny's balcony during which Mister Burke reveals his intentions to blow up Megaton, and Phillips expresses his shock if the player character decides to rig the bomb in Megaton and side with Roy Phillips during the Tenpenny Tower quest.
- Stealing items from Mister Burke's house in Megaton does not result in Karma loss.
- He is one of only nine named characters in the base game to have "Very Evil" Karma.
- Strangely, if one attempts to kill Burke on Tenpenny Tower balcony, he will panic but not fight back, not even try to escape.
- Mister Burke is absent from the Japanese release of Fallout 3 in order to remove the option of detonating the nuclear bomb in Megaton for sensitivity purposes.
- If during the quest Tenpenny Tower the ghouls move in by the non violent option Mr. Burke is the only human who is not killed.
Notable quotesEdit
- "What you did, it was a great thing. That place, those people... necessary sacrifices. Here's to a better future. Here's to Tenpenny Tower!"
- "Any moment now, you'll be dead. Are you excited to see what that's like?"
- "Why do you knuckle draggers always insist on doing things the hard way? Very well, Sheriff. Lead the way."
- "It was a wonderful thing you did. Inspirational...Truly."
- "The pulse charge is rigged? Excellent! Excellent!"
- Burke appears in Fallout 3, and Fallout Shelter.
- Mister Break appears only in the Point Lookout add-on.
Behind the scenesEdit
- Mr Burke's script was written by Emil Pagliarulo and voiced by Wes Johnson[2]
- Mister Burke does not exist in the Japanese version of Fallout 3, thus disabling the "detonate the bomb" option in The Power of the Atom as the Lone Wanderer cannot get the fusion pulse charge under any circumstances, which was done for cultural reasons.[3]
- Playstation 3 If the Lone Wanderer kills Burke, after a long while he may respawn, and can be found standing beside the bomb if it is disarmed, though he cannot be engaged in conversation. [verified]
- PC Playstation 3 Xbox 360 If the Lone Wanderer kills Burke and disarms the bomb, they will still encounter hitmen. If their bodies are looted, they will have contracts instructing them, signed "-B", as if the Lone Wanderer hadn't already killed Burke. [verified]


text:
Jack Andersen
In 1991, the National Cancer Institute identified phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables; these compounds may be cancer fighters.
- Yield
- Makes 6 servings
- Nonstick vegetable oil spray
- 1 large onion, thinly sliced
- 2 pounds plum tomatoes, halved lengthwise
- 1 pound carrots, peeled, cut into 1/2-inch-thick rounds
- 2 garlic cloves, unpeeled
- 1 tablespoon olive oil
- 2 1/2 cups water
- 2 3/4 cups (about) low-fat (1%) milk
- 1/2 cup thinly sliced fresh basil
- Preheat oven to 400°F. Spray large rimmed baking sheet with nonstick spray. Arrange onion, tomatoes, carrots and garlic cloves on prepared baking sheet. Drizzle with oil. Sprinkle with salt and pepper. Roast until vegetables are tender and brown, turning occasionally, about 55 minutes. Cool slightly. Peel garlic cloves. Transfer vegetables to large bowl (do not clean baking sheet).
- Add 1 cup water to baking sheet, scraping up browned bits; add to blender, then add half of vegetables and puree until smooth. Transfer to large saucepan. Add remaining vegetables and 1 1/2 cups water to blender and puree. Transfer to same saucepan. Gradually add enough milk to soup to thin to desired consistency. Stir in 1/4 cup basil. Simmer 10 minutes to blend flavors. Season with salt and pepper. (Can be made 6 hours ahead. Cover; chill. Bring to simmer before continuing.)
- Ladle soup into bowls. Sprinkle with remaining 1/4 cup basil and serve.
per serving: calories, 139; total fat, 3 g;saturated fat, 1 g; cholesterol, 5 mg


text:
I meet Marty from Vuelo Velo at the start of this year's monster track. He was showing off his gorgeous track bike and we talked about his experiences at this years NAHBS.
Interview with Marty Renwick of Vuelo Velo from Vuelo Velo on Vimeo.
another video from NAHBS from Michael Wendell
2010 North […]


text:
Shopping Cart
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Shopping Lists
You have no Shopping lists yet.
Compare Products
You have no items to compare.
You have any questions about our products? We can help you.Monday-Friday: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm IST
+91 44 4347 2168
No price available.
Please ask for a quotation.


text:
Earlier this year, we released a public preview of Flash Player called "Gala" that included support for H.264 GPU decoding on Mac OS X. We're happy to announce that this feature is now officially enabled in the latest Flash Player, and it can significantly improve the performance of HD video. You'll see these additional benefits on Macs with Mac OS X 10.6.4 or later supported by the Apple Video Decode Acceleration framework, including most MacBook, MacBook Pro, iMac, and Mac mini models shipped in 2009 or later. You can read more about the technical details behind Mac hardware decoding on our earlier blog post. And go get it.
Flash Player 10.1 introduced numerous major performance and power management enhancements, and the Mac in particular benefits from improvements that include full Cocoa support, graphics hardware acceleration using Core Animation, faster code execution, significant memory optimizations, and now GPU video decoding support. We've also got some major enhancements in the pipe that will further enhance how content is experienced using the Flash Player – stay tuned.
Tom Nguyen
Product Manager, Flash Player


text:
Currently I am drawn toward promotional products that assist with technology. Everyday essentials such as iPad sleeves, Bluetooth enabled speakers, checkpoint friendly computer bags and battery power sticks help us make it thru our busy days. The smallest gadget, like a stylus helps the user navigate their tablet or smartphone without fumbling or making fingerprints on their screen.
And I have seen a lot of unique styluses out there. Models that have a screen cleaner embedded in the case, pen/stylus combos, and even a pen/stylus/highlighter combo! When I discovered the Vanessa bracelet/stylus I was wowed. A rubberized bracelet that has a stylus tip and that can triple as a bookmark? So cool!
The modern colors and sleek material are not to be ignored. My favorite is the green. Choose from 6 PMS shades to coordinate with your logo. This product would be unique and cost effective to mail to your favorite customers! They will be wearing your brand around town! Up to 3 colors can be screen printed on the center of the band.
Check out the Vanessa Stylus & Bracelet and our stylus offerings here.
Merchandising Manager


text:
Dagmar's potstickersFriday, August 5th, 2011
Long time no see! I know it's been a long while but I hope you'll quickly forget my absence if I'll post my signature dish. I guess everyone has a signature dish, a dish that you love to cook and that others love to eat. If I would have to choose, I think that my signature dish would be dumplings or actually potstickers, fried dumplings. They take some time to prepare, but they are sure worth every minute. Sometimes when my guests arrive I'm still folding the dumplings but the guests are more than willing to help out as it's a very nice way to spend time together. And sometimes I've even asked my girl friends to come earlier so we can fold the dumplings together while chatting and laughing.
I'm not saying that my recipe is a genuine Chinese one, because it probably isn't. But trust me when I say that it's scrumptious! The dough recipe I've found online and it's extremely to work with. I prefer it to the ready made dumpling wrappers that you can buy in Chinese stores. The filling is my own and it contains lots of cilantro/coriander since I love it. Serve the fried potstickers with a dipping sauce. I like to serve them with 2-3 different dipping sauces for variety (make sure to serve one small bowl per person and sauce). The uncooked dumplings freeze very well, just make sure to freeze them individually on a tray first so that they won't stick to each other. When cooking frozen dumplings, add a couple of minutes to the steaming process.
Dumpling dough (from Chow):
(Enough for around 30 dumplings depending on size)
2 cups flour
3/4 cups boiling water
Put the flour in the bowl of your food processor. Put lid on and start the machine. While running, add the boiling water through the feeding tube. Stop the machine a couple of seconds after you've added the water. The dough should look crumbly and when you pinch it, it should hold it's shape.
Transfer the dough to your work surface and carefully, making sure not to burn yourself, knead it with the heel of your hands for 30 seconds. You should now have an elastic dough. Put the dough in a ziploc plastic bag and seal. Let the dough rest for at least 15 minutes but not more than 2 hours. You'll quickly see that the hot dough will steam up the plastic bag.
While the dough is resting start on the filling. Feel free to play around with the quantities.
Dagmar's dumpling filling:
(makes maybe 60-100 dumplings depending on size)
800 gram minced meat of your choice
250 ml spring onions, finely chopped
150 ml fresh cilantro/coriander, finely chopped
7 garlic cloves, finely grated or minced
2 tbsp sesame oil
3 tbsp light soya
1 tsp maldon sea salt
2 tsp Maizena
fresh pepper
In a big bowl combine all ingredients.
Now it's time to fold the dumplings! I use a pasta machine to roll out the dough to a thickness of number 6 marked on the machine.
Cut out rounds with a glass or a dumpling mold. I've bought my molds in Poland and in the US at Bath Bed and Beyond. But to be honest I prefer to fold my dumplings by hand. There's something relaxing with folding each dumpling carefully with your hands. But it's up to you. On the below pictures you'll see dumplings made with both a mold and by hand.
Fill each round with filling, the quantity is depending on the size of the rounds. When using the above dough, you don't need to add water when folding the dumplings..
This is a dumpling made with a mold:
The below ones are folded by hand, in a crescent shaped form. Compared with the one made with the mold, the crescent formed ones have a flat and nice bottom that is easier to fry. Google to find descriptions on how to fold it. Or just play around.
Cover the dumplings with plastic foil while you're working. The below ones are hand folded.
To cook the dumplings as potstickers pour 1 tablespoon of oil in a frying pan. When hot, put the dumplings in the pan. Make sure to cook them in batches. Fry until golden and then add 1/3 – 1/2 glass of water and quickly cover the frying pan with a lid. Let the dumplings steam for 6-7 minutes. Remove the lid and re-crisp the dumplings. If there is any water left in the pan, let it boil off first. When cooking frozen dumplings, add a couple of minutes to the steaming process.
Serve the potstickers with a dipping sauce, for example this one:
Basic dipping sauce:
4 tbsp soya
2 tbsp sugar
1 tbsp rice vinegar
finely chopped chili
Mix the sauce ingredients and divide between small bowls.
These potstickers are made with the mold, which is seen on the flat shape. The ones seen in the very first photo of this post were hand wrapped.


text:
Industries Environment
With respect to hydroelectric projects, FERC safeguards the environment by:
- Ensuring that planned projects will minimize damage to the
- Requiring that all hydropower applicants communicate with federal and state Natural Resources agencies, Indian tribes, and state water quality agencies prior to submitting an application to FERC -
Initial Consultation Contact List
- Ensuring that all license applicants perform the necessary studies to base an informed decision on the project;
- Issuing draft Environmental Assessments (EAs) or draft Environmental Documents for comment. FERC makes electronic copies of the draft and final EISs available to the public. A limited number of paper copies are also available from the Public Reference Room (call toll-free 1-866-208-3676);
- Incorporating license requirements designed to reduce environmental impacts;
- Visiting projects that are requesting relicenses or license amendments. Scoping meetings are held to determine the most important environmental resources to address in an EA or EIS; and
- Maintaining a licensing handbook with guidelines for preparing the Exhibit E, the environmental information exhibit required to be included with each application.


text:
Kirk Sutphin Pays Tribute
Aug 17, 2013
Charley Kahana: Hawaiian/Lummi Fiddler in Washington State
Aug 16, 2013
A Different Kind of Celtic Music: Discovering "Fest Noz" with Brittany's Ossian
Aug 15, 2013
Kevin Burke: Dedicated to the Music
Jun 09, 2013
Ric Sanders and Chris Leslie: Folk Fiddling for Fairport Convention
Jun 08, 2013
Among the many booths in the Exhibit Hall at the 2012 International Bluegrass Music Association's World of Bluegrass Conference this past September were many musical instrument manufacturers and dealers displaying their wares. Those represented varied from big names like Gibson Musical Instruments and Martin Guitars, to smaller-name luthiers producing one-of-a-kind masterpieces completely by hand.
One such luthier is Barry Dudley, whose company Dudley Violins has appeared at the Conference for the past three years and has gained a number of fans and endorsees in the bluegrass, Celtic, classical, jazz, and country music fields. His attention to details in tonality and playability are what attract players such as Darol Anger (Turtle String Quartet, David Grisman), Oriol Sana (Barcelona Bluegrass Band), Shane Guse (Alan Jackson, Brooks & Dunn), David Blackmon (Randy Travis, Collective Soul), Tania Elizabeth (The Duhks), and Celtic fiddler Jessie Burns.
Barry's first interest in musical instrument making was the guitar. "While I was in Atlanta working for BellSouth as an engineer, I would hit all of the guitar stores in the area during my lunch hour. Around 1973 or 1974, I walked into the shop of guitar maker Wade Lowe. I saw him carving the headstock of a classical guitar. My heart just jumped at that moment in time! I realized that these cool instruments were being made by hand and they don't just "appear" at the store. I talked Wade into letting me apprentice for him, but unfortunately, he closed his shop due to a heart attack right before I was supposed to start. I put that idea on the back burner of my life, and went back to school to finish up my ministry studies.
"As I was finishing up, though, I was realizing that the ministry was not for me. I bought a book on how to make classical guitars. I made a few guitars, and some people told me to check in with Wade again. This was like twenty years later, so when I went to him, he was impressed with my work, but told me to consider making a violin. So I bought a book on violin making and started off with that."
Barry's passion for violin making soon meant that his waking hours were completely filled. "I started literally doing two 40-hour-a-week jobs, working as an engineer for a company out of New Jersey and making violins. About 2004, the company laid me off. I saw that I had lots of orders for violins that took most of my time, so I decided to stick with the violin making."
Dudley violins soon began to earn a great reputation, especially with country and bluegrass fiddlers. "The first real artist to take an interest in my work was David Blackmon. He was in Athens [Georgia], heard about me, came over and tried out my pieces. Then it sort of spread by word of mouth." An interesting endorsement came when bluegrass fiddler Bobby Hicks visited Barry's booth at IBMA a few years ago. "I didn't recognize him, but I invited him to try out my violins because I saw he had a case under his arm. When I learned who it was, I was shocked! He left that day with one of my fiddles."
As his craft progressed, Barry found that his niche in the violin world was designing and making five-string models. "That is what my reputation is built on. David Blackmon was the one who got me interested in making them. What makes them unique is that they are designed to be five-stringed violins, not just a four-string with an extra hole drilled in the pegbox. I used the Guarneri Cannone as my base model, and then I expanded on it. The internal air volume makes the low C string resonate evenly and is balanced with the other four strings. That's one of the problems that I noticed with previous five-string violins, a lack of balance. That fifth string is like giving an artist another color on his palette—it gives off so much more. It allows fiddlers to do guitar and saxophone licks."
Another feature of Barry's fiddles is the choice of wood. "Traditionally, violins have been made with the back, sides, and neck being maple, and the top being spruce. After my experience with guitars, knowing that rosewood was a good guitar wood, I thought about using it on the violin. The same with mahogany and walnut. Other people kept telling me that those wouldn't work. But it worked to me, and about ninety percent of the violins I make consist of 'alternative' wood. I incorporate a lot of aesthetic points from guitar making into my violins, such as laminated necks. I may laminate maple into a rosewood or walnut neck."
What would be Barry's advice to someone interested in becoming a luthier? "You need lots of patience. You are going to make mistakes in the beginning. You need to be tenacious and keep at it. If you make a mistake, you have to ask yourself if you can you work around it without compromising your quality… It may take twenty or thirty fiddles to fully understand what you are doing. You have to be willing to make some sawdust."
[For the full text of this interview, purchase the Spring 2013 issue.]
For more information on Barry Dudley's violins, please visit his website at www.dudleyviolins.com/.
[Matt Merta has been writing for various music magazines for the past twenty years. He teaches guitar and bass in Detroit, Michigan, as well as performs and writes songs under the pseudonym Mitch Matthews.]


text:
PurpleStride San Diego 2020
PurpleStride San Diego 2020 is celebrating its 10th anniversary!
PurpleStride walks are among the largest sources of funding for the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. When you Wage Hope at PurpleStride, you join a vibrant community of survivors, impacted families, loved ones, researchers and advocates committed to rewriting the future of this deadly disease. Learn more.
Event Contact
Customer Service
Other Event Inquiries
Top Fundraisers
2 - Michelle Olszewski ($210.00)
3 - Kathryn Trulock ($160.00)
4 - Deborah Gallo ($135.00)
5 - Claire Caraska ($110.00)
6 - David Anderson ($40.00)
7 - Susan Anderson ($40.00)
8 - Elizabeth Temple ($40.00)
9 - Evangeline Laserna ($35.00)
10 - Lisa Kobzi ($35.00)
Top Teams
PurpleStride is one of the largest sources of funding for the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network.
Through fundraisers across the country we are able to make strides to advance research, continue to serve more and more patients, and be the leading provider of pancreatic cancer services and information in the world. Learn more.
Scientific Research
We push research forward through our nationally acclaimed grants program and clinical initiatives.
Patient Services
We connect patients with the latest treatment options and provide in-depth disease information.
Government Advocacy
We advocate for legislative support from Congress to increase federal research funding.
Community Engagement
We lead and activate communities across the globe for our cause.
It was by pure chance that I went to the emergency room one day in May. Who knew what I thought was "gas pain" would change my life forever.Learn More
In 1989, Todd Horne lost his mother to the disease. Then in 2015, Todd was diagnosed with stage II pancreatic cancer.
Editor's Note: Todd lost his fight with pancreatic cancer, but his story continues to inspire others to Demand Better for patients and their families.
We stride because it's what "Papa Z" would have done. Creating Team Papa Z has been one of the best decisions I've ever made.Learn More
PurpleStride is back and better than ever! This year, our event will take place on Sunday, 10/25/2020, and will take participants on a lovely route at De Anza Cove at Mission Bay Park*.
Register now and join us for a day filled with hope and inspiration to raise funds, awareness and support for pancreatic cancer! Register here.
*Date and venue pending approval.
We stride to make sure that other people have a chance, because a five year survival rate of 9 percent is unacceptable and because it's what "Papa Z" would have done.
Allison Zalesny, PurpleStride Fundraiser
Join the conversation in your local community


text:
Skyedog necesitaba un nuevo diseño de papelería y lanzó un concurso de diseño en 99designs.
Un ganador ha sido elegido entre 110 diseños de 20 diseñadores freelance.
Web Marketing Partners
We are a marketing company that helps local businesses market themselves online. We need a business card that evokes new media and yet is easy for off line people to understand. We have a twitter ID, Face Book Fan Page and Youtube Tv channel we want to put all those links on the card we need some white area somewhere for people to write notes on we also have email and web addresses to put on there.
Business owners at the higher end. Attorneys, Doctors, Dentists small but high client value businesses the decision makers they like to make a note on the card back or where there is white space. An unusuual sized card might be an answer.
we need to get all our urls and one email address on the card we need to be stand out from crowd and new media ish kind of way we also don't want print too small as many clients wear glasses at their age. We don't have a logo.
We need white space some where for people to write a quick note
That's it


text:
2 lb boneless, skinless chicken thighs
5 cloves garlic, minced
1 onion, chopped
8 oz chili sauce (like Heinz)
1 teaspoon hickory liquid smoke
1 tablespoon ginger juice
2 1/2-3 tablespoons raspberry hot sauce*
sea salt
freshly ground black pepper
1 1/2 teaspoon ground mustard
1/2 teaspoon cardamom
The night before you want to make the pulled chicken, place the thighs, garlic, onion, chili sauce, liquid smoke, ginger juice, hot sauce, salt and pepper in a resealable bag or marinating container. Mix to coat the chicken in the other ingredients. Refrigerate.
The next day, add the contents of the marinating container and all remaining ingredients to a 2 quart slow cooker. Cook on low in the slow cooker 1 hour on high plus 2 1/2 hours on low or 3 1/2 hrs on low. When done, meat should shred easily with a fork. Shred chicken with a fork. Toss to evenly coat with sauce. Serve on rolls.
*I used the Captain Mowatt's Fireberry Sauce that I picked up on a trip to Maine. I think another fruity yet hot hot sauce would work but if you can find it, pick up a bottle!


text:
A 24-year-old Florida man was found Thursday night by Rocky Mountain National Park after he had become disoriented while snowshoeing in the Mill Creek Drainage area of the park. Rangers located the man at 8:45 p.m.
The man contacted park rangers at 2:30 p.m. today, January 2, via cell phone. He was solo snowshoeing near Flattop Mountain (12,324 feet) when he became disoriented. At that time, he was not asking for assistance but seeking directions and guidance from rangers. Weather conditions Thursday afternoon in the area consisted of sunshine, high winds, blowing snow and temperatures ranging in the mid-20s.
The man continued down from above treeline and remained in contact with park rangers. The man eventually asked for assistance and stopped traveling when darkness fell around 5:15 p.m. He was not prepared to spend the night in the backcountry. Three park staff search teams focused their efforts mainly in the Mill Creek Drainage area. One team followed fresh snowshoe tracks and located the man in thick timber along Mill Creek at approximately 8:45 p.m.
After park rangers assessed his condition they began to snowshoe out with him.


text:
Hello Spa Style readers! I'm the art director and a designer for SpaStyle spadecor.com, and I've put together a selection of inspiring artwork for your spa interior. Look for my upcoming posts with new and fabulous artwork that we're adding to spadecor.com!
A print that features elements of the sea and fresh, green bamboo. This framed artwork is a substantial piece, measuring 53″ wide and 32″ high.
Framed in a rich espresso frame, and featuring double-matting, this print reflects the image of falling drops of water. It can be hung vertically or horizontally, and measures 25″ x 49″.
Tranquility Found by Ridgers
A gallery-wrapped print resembling a calm morning at the ocean side. An abstract that is soft and restful to the eye. Measures 27″ x 27″.
Ginko Art
Made of wood and framed in a shadowbox style, the ginkgo leaves are painted in soft metallic paint with an espresso frame. A warm and neutral piece. Size 24″ x 24″.
I'll leave you with a little inspiration for your own spa interior – the treatment rooms of the Four Seasons Silicon Valley featuring artwork hung from the ceiling to create dimension in the room. So gorgeous!!!


text:
05 / February 2019
2018 key valuation and damages cases
At year-end, Sylvia Golden, BVR's executive legal editor, provides a roundup of the key business valuation and damages cases. Here are her choices for 2018. Some of the courts' decisions have changed the legal landscape and are must-know cases. Other rulings are confined to the specific case, but they contain important lessons for appraisers of how to, and, more often, how not to, perform as a financial expert. Read more >>