text:
Concord Mattress Store | Mancini's Sleepworld
More Infomation
Mancini's Sleepworld Concord
Mancini's has the best selection of mattresses, bedroom furniture, kids furniture and more in Concord and we guarantee the lowest prices! Don't forget Mancini's provides free delivery, free set-up and free removal of your old mattress on every premium mattress set purchased! (See terms for details.)
Since 1969, Mancini's Sleepworld has grown from a single location in Sunnyvale to over 33 mattress and furniture stores throughout Nothern California. Though we've grown, we're still family-owned and locally managed. Our Concord mattress store and furniture store has the perfect mattress, bedroom furniture, kids furniture, sofa or recliner you're looking for.
Mancini's Sleepworld carries mattresses from many quality manufacturers including Sealy, Beautyrest, Serta, Tempur-Pedic, Aireloom, Kluft and more.
Ask our sleep specialists about special beds that might alleviate back pain, snoring, and insomnia. It's our goal to provide you with the best night's sleep possible with the service only Mancini's Sleepworld can provide.
Our Concord mattress store serves Concord, Pleasant Hill, Clayton, Clyde, and Martinez with Mattresses and Furniture!


text:
What people are saying about Monte's Ham:
"The crowd had gathered from near and far to share in large helpings of Monte's Ham. The aroma was comforting, full flavored, very light smoke and the color was as if a fresh pork roast stood before us. There were seconds involved by those of us that would not admit to such indulgence!
Tonight we will savor the left over piece in my Jambalaya recipe and enjoy it again.We look forward to our next ham from Monte.
Fondly,Sybille & Gerrit van Kempen
Loaves and Fishes Cookshop
"Friends have been raving about your hams for years and after experiencing it, I can see why!!! Everyone loved it including my mother-in-law who doesn't like ham!" --B.L. North Carolina
"Last Christmas my extended family of 13 was saved by your ham, when we woke up to 30 inches of snow and literally could not get to a store for days while waiting for streets to be plowed. We ate ham in every possible configuration for several days, and never got tired of it. Thank you."
"The star of our dinner was undoubtedly the mouth-watering Monte's Ham, not only for its good looks but the unbelievable flavor. Our guests remarked that it was a delightful surprise to discover a whole new taste for ham. It even tempted my vegetarian niece to step on the wild side and eat meat for the first time in years!" – The W Household
"Can you say DELICIOUS? Your ham was the HIT of our event. Even A who is not a ham fan, ate a plateful. Thank you so much!"
"Had to let you know that my guests and I all thoroughly enjoyed the ham. There was actually much discussion about it — the flavor, color, the cloves, the basting sauce. It was all new to everyone and so delicious. A 5 star unanimous review!" – P.R. Maryland

subset: commoncrawl


text:
CHICAGO (AP) - November 8, 2012 --A Chicago man accused of binding his 22-month-old daughter with tape and posting a picture on Facebook with a caption that read, "This is wut happens wen my baby hits me back" has been convicted of battery charges.
Judge Lawrence Flood on Thursday found 22-year-old Andre Curry guilty of aggravated domestic battery and aggravated battery. Curry is slated to be sentenced Nov. 29, and he's eligible for a sentence ranging from probation to 7 years in prison.
After a bench trial last month, Flood cleared Curry of an unlawful restraint charge.
In issuing his ruling Thursday, the judge criticized Curry for obstructing his child's breathing for his own enjoyment.
Curry's attorneys have called his actions a stupid prank and say he didn't hurt the child.


text:
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Venezuelans have trouble agreeing on anything these days, whether it's who really won the election to replace Hugo Chavez or who to blame for this South American nation's mounting economic woes.
But for a few gala-filled hours, they put all that aside to embrace a shared national obsession: beauty. In what is traditionally the country's most-watched television event, millions tuned in Thursday night to watch as 18-year-old Migbelis Castellanos was crowned Miss Venezuela.
The 5-foot-7-inch, green-eyed blonde is a political science and communications college student from the state of Zulia. The youngest of 26 finalists competing for the crown, she'll represent Venezuela at next year's Miss Universe pageant.
Even as regular Venezuelans struggle to contend with galloping inflation, shortages of basic goods such as toilet paper and strict currency controls, the beauty contest, now in its 61st edition, is experiencing something of a rebirth.
After four years of reduced budgets and smaller venues, the pageant returned this year to Caracas' main indoor arena, the Poliedro, with a capacity of 15,000. Interest was also piqued by a new reality show beamed across Latin America, called "Miss Venezuela: Everything for the Crown," which followed the finalists as they learned to walk, talk and smile their way to glory.
Venezuela has won more major international beauty competitions than any other nation, including six Miss Universe titles, and beauty pageants rank alongside baseball as the country's most-followed diversion, one that transcends social class. A whole industry of grooming schools, plastic surgeons and beauty salons has emerged to prepare young women for the thousands of pageants that take place each year around the country in schools, army barracks and even prisons.
"It doesn't matter if you're Chavista or a government opponent, this is one sin we all share," Jose Luiz Martinez, a 21-year-old college student, said yesterday in downtown Caracas.
As if to prove that point, Maria Eugenia Enriquez, wearing a red shirt stamped with the piercing gaze of the late Chavez, said she never misses the festivities.
"I'm a revolutionary but I like to watch the show with my entire family," said Enriquez.
"Miss Venezuela is as much ours as the arepa," she said, referring to the corn cake that's an emblematic part of the country's diet.
Last night's show was expected to draw more than two-thirds of the television audience, according to Venevision, the network responsible for organizing and broadcasting the pageant.
While the self-styled 21st century socialist revolution implemented a decade ago by Chavez drove a wedge in Venezuelan society, the scale of political vitriol has intensified since the charismatic leader's death in March and the narrow victory by his hand-picked successor, Nicolas Maduro, over opposition leader Henrique Capriles, who has accused Maduro of stealing the vote. In turn, Maduro has slammed his critics as "lackeys" of the U.S. empire conspiring to destabilize the government.
The country's problems weren't visible under the bright lights last night, politics did nudge their way into the question and answer period, when the candidate for Caracas, Andrea Lira, said that more than chasing an ideal of beauty, she dreams of one day transforming her divided nation.
"I want my country to be a country that isn't complacent and that continues to struggle in the face of adversity so that we can come together in spite of our differences," she said in remarks that elicited extended applause from the audience.


text: all Maybe Baby products Sort by no. reviewsratingprice Clear filter View 1224 TRENDING PRODUCTSsee allErgobaby Natural Curve Nursing Pillow20 reviewsHuggies Clutch 'N' Go Baby Wipes125 reviewsBaby Jogger City Select52 reviewsBio-Oil Skincare138 reviewsMunchkin Miracle® 360° Trainer Cup27 reviewsRECENT BLOG POSTSsee all0 Best Humidifiers and Vaporisers0 Are We There Yet: A Mum's Guide For Traveling With Kids0 Your Must Have Baby Items List – Figure Out What You Really Need0 12 Tips for Flying with Babies and Toddlers0 The Second Baby: What I Would Do Differently0 The Secret World of Babywearing: What We've Learned (So Far!)0 JUMP Swim School tailors lessons for children with special needs0 Choosing a Pram for the Second Child


text:
Oscar Pistorius Is Granted Bail
PRETORIA, South Africa—Oscar Pistorius, the double-amputee Olympic athlete accused of murder, won bail on Friday, closing a contentious pretrial hearing that outlined sharply different versions of how his girlfriend died in his bathroom in the early hours of Valentine's Day.
Magistrate Desmond Nair told a packed courtroom that he concluded Mr. Pistorius didn't pose a risk to flee the country, and wasn't likely to try influence witnesses. He then set bail at 1 million rand ($112,400), with $11,300 in cash and proof that the rest is available. He said Mr. Pistorius must hand over his passports and turn in any other guns that he owns. Mr. Pistorius cannot leave the district of Pretoria without the permission of his probation officer, the magistrate said.
When the bail announcement was made, members of Mr. Pistorius's family shouted in approval. Mr. Pistorius then left the courtroom with a slight smile.
"As the family, we are convinced that Oscar's version of what happened on that terrible night will prove to be true," the athlete's uncle, Arnold Pistorius, said after the bail hearing.
The magistrate set the next court appearance for June 4. A judge will hear Mr. Pistorius murder case; South Africa doesn't use the jury system and doesn't have the death penalty.
The four-day bail hearing encapsulated the arguments from both sides, highlighting the state's challenge of convicting Mr. Pistorius of premeditated murder and his defense team's task of showing the death of girlfriend, the model Reeva Steenkamp, was a tragic accident.
The state has alleged Mr. Pistorius, known as "Blade Runner" for the J-shaped artificial limbs he used on the track, fired shots through a closed bathroom door in fit of fury following an early morning argument on Feb. 14. If convicted of the charge, Mr. Pistorius could face life in prison.
Mr. Pistorius's legal team says the disabled athlete thought there was a burglar inside his Pretoria home, and feared for his safety. In an affidavit read by his lawyer, Mr. Pistorius acknowledged shooting Ms. Steenkamp, but said he was horrified to learn that it was she—and not a burglar—who was behind the closed bathroom door.
The state prosecutor, Gerrie Nel, and Mr. Pistorius's lawyer, Barry Roux, sparred throughout the week, each seeking to poke holes in the other's starkly different version of events.
Mr. Nel said it didn't make sense that a man, fearful for his safety, would rush to the bathroom and fire shots through the door before checking where Ms. Steenkamp was located.
Mr. Roux, in previous days' arguments, criticized the lead investigator for not thoroughly checking phone records and potentially contaminating the crime scene by not wearing protective footwear.
In a boost for the defense, the lead investigator, Hilton Botha, was removed from the case on Thursday after attempted murder charges against him were reinstated earlier in February. The charges relate to an incident in 2011 when Mr. Botha and two other officers allegedly fired their weapons at a moving minibus in an attempt to stop the driver. No one was killed.
South African police have tapped the force's top detective, Lt. Gen. Vinesh Moonoo, to take over as lead investigator into the murder of Ms. Steenkamp.
A spokeswoman for South Africa's National Prosecuting Authority said they welcomed Mr. Botha's removal from the case, but acknowledged that the new investigation team has a lot of work to do to shore up its argument that Mr. Pistorius intended to kill his girlfriend.
"The magistrate pointed us to where the challenges are," said the spokeswoman, Bulelwa Makeke.
Mr. Pistorius's success on the sports track—he was the first disabled runner to compete against able-bodied athletes at the Olympic Games in London—won him adulation at home in South Africa and a raft of overseas commercial endorsements. But the public spotlight for Mr. Pistorius has been much tougher of late.
The African National Congress Women's League this week criticized what it considered favorable treatment of Mr. Pistorius for allowing him to stay in a police jail during the week, rather than prison like others awaiting bail hearings. The magistrate said he agreed to that request from his defense team because they needed to prepare the case.
Some sponsors have also distanced themselves from South Africa's star athlete. Nike Inc. and sunglasses maker Oakley both suspended contracts with Mr. Pistorius.
Under other terms of his bail, Mr. Pistorius must pay twice-weekly visits to a police station in Pretoria. He is also prohibited from visiting his home in Silver Lakes, on the eastern side of the capital, or speaking with residents there.
Mr. Pistorius's coach, Ampie Louw, told reporters earlier in the day that if Mr. Pistorius was granted bail he would resume his training, but not compete.
Meanwhile, friends of Ms. Steenkamp sat in the courtroom teary-eyed. "We trust justice will prevail," said former housemate Kim Meyers.
—The Associated Press contributed to this article.
Write to Devon Maylie at email@example.com


text:
Legal aspects of business
Budget €30-250 EUR
It is a scenario and you need to give a legal advice to a person to solve a problem.
1500 words.
22 freelancers are bidding on average €109 for this job
Hi I would like to work for you. I will provide highly credible business paper with my senior level legal experience. You may validate my profile which is also verified in Freelancer with highest trust score 100%. More
Hi I am Monica I will write 1500 words for you related to a scenario. I will give a legal advice to a person to solve a problem.
Greetings... I have done M.S and currently enrolled in PhD program. I am well versed with all parameters of research and academic writing. In addition, I have access of worlds' largest databases such as EBSCOhost, Oxfo More
Hi, I would like to use my experience to serve you better. You can trust my sincere indulgence both in quality and time frame. If you will give me a chance, I will ensure that you're satisfied. I'm really interested in More
>>>> Dear SIR/Madam! Ready to assist you with HIGH QUALITY+ ON TIME DELIVERY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please contact in CHAT with FULL DETAILS regards, BESS
I try to ensure that my passion for writing comes through in what I write and I am dedicated to being the best writer I can be. I'm always looking to expand my horizons by learning new writing styles and genres and tak More
Hello I'm creative with superb writing skills and a passion for the job. I don't just get over projects but I always effort to deliver the best as per clients' requirements and leave them satisfied. Kindly give me more More
Greetings! I am law graduate with ten years of experience in legal opinions. Please PM me to discuss the project further. Thank you.
Hello, how are you doing today? Click on that__CHAT__button below so that I can ask a few questions concerning your project. I have read all the provided instructions and I am the right person to work on this task. I p More
Hello friend, welcome with your project. I have checked your requirements on this task and confident to deliver a plagiarism free high-quality paper. Please reply to discuss more on your project. Also, provide the req More
I have worked on vast assignments involving legal arguments. From contract law to labour laws, I cannot emphasize my desire to state my knowledge in this field. I humbly request that you knock my inbox to disclose more More
Through the years I have also learnt so much about different referencing styles. For this reason I can correctly use APA, MLA , Chicago and Harvard referencing guidelines to properly reference my work, while I can also More


text:
HONG KONG/BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Asian financial leaders warned Europe on Tuesday to limit any delay in stricter banking rules to months not years, fearing the United States' decision to shelve the controversial new global regime could derail it completely.
Europe is preparing to follow the United States in postponing the introduction of the Basel III reforms, EU sources told Reuters, and the delay could last six months or even longer if diplomats and lawmakers fail to break the deadlock.
"The fact is that the U.S. and euro zone are the most important regions where Basel III should have been implemented," Anand Sinha, deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India, told a Thomson Reuters Pan-Asian regulatory summit in Hong Kong.
"It would have been very helpful, even if there is a delay, if the U.S. and euro zone could have indicated a definite timeline, that is not there."
The global accord hatched by central bankers and regulators in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis demands that lenders set aside more capital to cover losses such as unpaid loans. It also lays out higher standards in determining what kind of assets a bank can use to meet these capital levels.
The rules, which triple the amount of basic capital banks need to hold, are meant to be phased in over a six-year period starting in January 2013.
While a delay would be good news for small banks seeking more time to adapt, investors dislike the uncertainty.
"It's not encouraging and it won't encourage investors," said Chris Wheeler, analyst with Mediobanca. "They just want it out of the way. They want the uncertainty buried."
The European Union is struggling to agree on many aspects of the package, including what kinds of assets can be considered liquid, or available at short notice.
Sinha warned that some emerging economies could use the European delay to argue that the new rules, designed to avoid future taxpayer bailouts, should not apply to them.
Banks in the Asia Pacific region will roll out the new rules on January 1. Switzerland will also comply although its finance ministry said earlier this year that most Swiss lenders already hold enough high-quality capital to comply.
"The fact that other people aren't doing it doesn't mean that we can't," Arthur Yuen, deputy chief executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, told the Thomson Reuters summit.
"In Europe it's a rather complicated process, but I do hope that the deferral of the implementation will only be in terms of months not years"
Speaking in Paris, Michel Barnier, the EU Commissioner who oversees financial regulation, said the bloc would start introducing the reforms next year, signaling a possible delay.
"I am awaiting a reply from the U.S. to a question I asked on the reason behind these few months' delay," Barnier told a news conference. "The bulk of the Basel III architecture will be put in place within the expected time frame."
Brussels is worried that Washington's decision to ignore the deadline will put EU banks at a disadvantage to U.S. rivals.
Barnier wrote to U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke asking when Washington will introduce the capital rules and flagging the risks if the United States and Europe take different tacks, people familiar with the matter told Reuters.
"The U.S. is dragging its feet which is not fair," one said.
But privately, many officials in Brussels concede that the same is likely to happen in the 27-member European Union and that the bloc will also be forced to delay implementation, marking a further setback in efforts to reform finance.
Many lenders already meet Basel's core capital buffer rules and the secretary general of the Basel Committee, which designed the accord, told Reuters a global system would still go ahead.
"Based on the position that the U.S. and Europe have adopted, they are still saying they intend to do it. And the new requirements are relatively modest," Wayne Byres said on the sidelines of a financial sector conference in Abu Dhabi.
By standardizing EU capital rules, the law would make it easier for the European Central Bank to supervise lenders, the first step towards a banking union - a cornerstone of closer fiscal integration in the euro single currency area.
"In practical terms, it seems to be impossible to do something that is implemented by January 1, but officially that hasn't been said," a senior lawmaker in the European Parliament said.
Banks have been pushing for a delay of the new rules until the beginning of 2014, arguing that the U.S. move would put them at a disadvantage.
After months of tortuous, often late-night negotiations between the parliament and EU member states, several issues relating to the new regime remain unresolved and agreement on the broader rules has yet to be reached.
The drawn-out process of signing off a law has frustrated regulators. "This is not a good situation," said one. "They are holding themselves up for ridicule if they don't adapt on time."
Additional reporting by Stanley Carvalho in Abu Dhabi and Yann Le Guernigou in Paris.; Writing by Carmel Crimmins; Editing by Sophie Walker


text:
1. The rules for consideration of a motion for summary judgment are discussed and applied.
2. The hearing requirement under K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 79-213(g) for a request for property tax exemption is considered.
3. The rules for interpretation of a statute are discussed and applied.
4. The Board of Tax Appeals is a specialized agency charged with the duty to decide taxation issues. Its decisions are ordinarily given great weight and deference when it is acting within the scope of its expertise. If there is a rational basis for the Board's interpretation, it should be upheld on judicial review.
5. The final construction of a statute rests with the judiciary.
6. "Item" as used in K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 79-201w in regard to property tax includes distinct property that may become part of a whole.
Appeal from Kansas Board of Tax Appeals. Opinion filed August 3, 2001. Affirmed.
William E. Waters, of Kansas Department of Revenue, for appellant Division of Property Valuation.
Patricia J. Parker, assistant county counselor, for appellant Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners.
G. N. (Jerry) Capps, of Wichita, for appellee Allen, Gibbs & Houlik, L.C.
Before GREEN, P.J., KNUDSON, J., and PHILIP C. VIEUX, District Judge, assigned.
KNUDSON, J.: The Kansas Department of Revenue's Division of Property Valuation (PVD) and the Board of County Commissioners of Sedgwick County, Kansas (County), appeal from the grant of summary judgment by the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) to Allen, Gibbs & Houlik, L.C. (taxpayer). BOTA concluded the taxpayer is entitled to a property tax exemption for 43 computer keyboards purchased to replace defective keyboards. We affirm BOTA's decision.
PVD and the County contend a replacement computer keyboard is a component part of a computer and not an "item" as that word is used in K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 79-201w. In a unanimous decision, BOTA disagreed and found a replacement computer keyboard is an "item" and the keyboards are exempt from taxation.
Two issues are raised on appeal: (1) whether summary judgment was proper, and (2) whether BOTA correctly interpreted K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 79-201w.
K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 79-201w states, in material part:
"The following described property, to the extent specified by this section, shall be exempt from all property or ad valorem taxes levied under the laws of the state of Kansas:
"(a) Any item of machinery, equipment, materials and supplies which, except for the operation of the provisions of this section, would be required to be listed for the purpose of taxation pursuant to K.S.A. 79-306, and amendments thereto, and which is used or to be used in the conduct of the owner's business, or in the conduct of activities by an entity not subject to Kansas income taxation pursuant to K.S.A. 79-32,113, and amendments thereto, whose original retail cost when new is $250 or less."
PVD's contention that the keyboards are not exempt is based upon PVD Directive No. 95-030, which was issued for the benefit of county appraisers. See K.S.A. 79-505. The directive provides, in material part:
"The purpose of this directive is to define the term 'item' for purposes of the new exemption. The Director takes the position that an interpretation of an 'item' should begin with the Tangible Personal Property Ad Valorem Tax Return (Form PV-PP-2E, hereinafter referred to as a 'rendition'), which was an express concern of the legislature.
"The Director takes the position that as a general rule, a line-item on an acceptably filed rendition is the equivalent of an item for purposes of the new exemption. However, the Director recognizes that taxpayers vary in reporting practices due to differing purchasing procedures and styles.
"Consequently, some adjustments to this general rule must be made in order to place taxpayers on more equal footing."
The directive then provides rules and illustrations as to what is or is not an "item," including:
"Second, if a single line-item represents a good that must be used in conjunction with other goods in order to serve its purpose or function, the line-item is not an item. Rather, the line-item represents only part of an item. For example, if a taxpayer lists a 'computer keyboard' as a line-item on the rendition, the line-item does not constitute an entire item. The computer keyboard cannot serve its purpose or function without the remainder of the computer system; therefore, the keyboard is part of a computer system. The computer system is the item. The keyboard and its other components, even though they may be separately identified and listed on the rendition, are merely parts of an item."
The taxpayer takes issue with PVD's definition of "item." The taxpayer contends K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 79-201w is unambiguous and that the plain meaning of "item" includes distinct property that becomes part of a whole.
In granting the taxpayer's motion for summary judgment, BOTA stated:
"6. The applicant purchased the computer keyboards to replace defective keyboards in the applicant's possession. The applicant purchased these keyboards separately from any computer system. The applicant listed these keyboards on the personal property rendition as exempt items. The retail cost when new of the keyboards is $250 or less. The County, relying upon PVD Directive No. 95-030, informed the applicant that the keyboards were not exempt. Neither the County, nor PVD dispute these facts.
"7. There do not appear to be any facts in dispute as to the cost of the personal property. The only issue before the Board is whether or not the computer keyboards are 'items.' PVD Directive No. 95-030 attempts to define the term 'item.' The directive indicates that a piece of personal property is not an 'item' if it can not perform its function independently without use of another good. The directive provides the example of how a computer keyboard is not an item because the keyboard can not perform its function without the remainder of the computer system. The Board finds the parties have presented a question of law, so the applicant's motion for summary judgment is ripe.
"8. The applicant asserts that the computer keyboards are items. The applicant notes that the term 'item' is not defined in K.S.A. 79-201w, and amendments thereto. However, the applicant did cite to a definition of the term 'item' from Webster's New International Dictionary, Unabridged. All of the definitions provided by the applicant appear to indicate that an item is merely a part of the aggregate. The applicant asserts that statute is unambiguous. Therefore, the applicant asserts, the Board need not look at the legislative history, but rather the plain meaning of the words. The applicant requests that the Board look at the plain meaning of the term 'item.'
"9. The applicant asserts that PVD's directive is too broad and would have a disparate impact on the merchant's and manufacturer's inventory exemption granted pursuant to K.S.A. 79-201m, and amendments thereto. The applicant notes that K.S.A. 79-201m, and amendments thereto, grants an exemption for 'items' of personal property held as inventory. The applicant asserts that if the Board applies PVD's definition of the term 'item,' then merchants and manufacturers who sell computer keyboards must report those keyboards on their rendition.
"10. The applicant finally asserts that the Board has already rejected PVD Directive No. 95-030. See In the Matter of the Application of TCI of Overland Park, Inc., Docket No. 1997-4756-TX; In the Matter of the Application of Chronicle Broadcasting of Wichita, Docket No. 1999-4377-TX. The applicant asserts that the facts in the TCI application are analogous to the current application. The applicant notes that TCI was requesting an exemption for converter boxes used to decode signals for cable television. The applicant notes that in TCI the Board rejected the County's argument that tangible personal property was not an 'item' if it was a component of a system.
"11. PVD asserts that when interpreting a statute, the parties must try to determine what the Legislature was thinking when the statute was drafted. PVD asserts that there were two reasons the Legislature passed K.S.A. 79-201w, and amendments thereto. First, the statute was to be taxpayer friendly. The statute would not require taxpayers to render such items as paper clips, tape dispensers, etc. The second reason was that the Legislature believed the statute would be revenue neutral. The belief was that if taxpayers were not required to render paper clips and tape dispensers, the counties would have to perform few audits.
"12. PVD asserts the legislative history of the statute indicates an amendment was proposed that would define 'item' as the applicant has proposed to define the term. PVD notes the amendment was not passed. PVD asserts there is an inference that if the amendment was not passed, then the Legislature did not intend to [define] 'item' in the manner suggested by the applicant. PVD asserts that if the Legislature does not define the term, then the parties who enforce the statute are expected to define the term.
"13. PVD asserts that if the Board adopts the applicant's definition of 'item,' then taxpayers will break down the item as far as possible to report the 'item.' PVD notes taxpayers will not render a computer system, but rather will render a monitor, a keyboard, etc. PVD asserts that such an interpretation would not be revenue neutral, as the Legislature had intended the statute to be. PVD asserts that the Legislature feared taxpayers would break down 'items' in terms of component parts to the point of nuts and bolts. The end result would be taxpayers would have no personal property to render for taxation purposes.
. . . .
"16. The Board notes that:
The law in Kansas is well settled that interpretation of statutes is a question of law and this court's review of questions of law is unlimited. The overriding principle of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained from the plain language of the statute. When the statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to the intent of the legislature. If, however, the interpretation of one section of an act based on its plain meaning would contravene the purpose of the legislature, the entire act should be construed according to its spirit and reason. When an act is clear on its face, there is no need to consult legislature history or extrinsic materials. Gehring v. State, 20 K.A.2d 246, 248, 886 P.2d 370 (1994) (citations omitted) review denied (February 8, 1995).
"17. The Board finds that it is unnecessary to examine the Legislative history of K.S.A. 79-201w, and amendments thereto. The Board notes that it agrees with PVD's assertion that if the Legislature does not define a term, then the agency responsible for enforcing the statute would define the term. However, the Board, as the highest administrative tribunal in the State of Kansas, finds that it is the agency responsible for ultimately defining the term 'item' because the Board has jurisdiction over all tax exemption requests. See 79-213, and amendments thereto.
"18. The board also agrees with PVD that when defining a term in a statute, deference must be given to what the Legislature intended. As PVD noted, the statute was intended to be taxpayer friendly and revenue neutral. The Board disagrees, however, with PVD's assertion that defining the term 'item' in the manner proposed by the applicant is inconsistent with the Legislature's intent. Furthermore, the Board is not persuaded by PVD's assertion that taxpayers will begin to break down personal property down to nuts and bolts. First, the taxpayer would have no evidence to support such claims of cost. For example, a taxpayer would have a difficult time demonstrating the cost of each piece of his or her $1,000 desk. Second, such a cost breakdown, if it could be demonstrated, would appear to be cumbersome and expensive.
"19. If the purpose of K.S.A. 79-201w, and amendments thereto, is to be taxpayer friendly and reduce the need for audits, the applicant's definition of 'item' appears to meet that goal. It would be difficult for taxpayers to report the component parts on the rendition or be able to determine if the county had correctly determined the value. Typically, an item of personal property is depreciated for a set number of years. After the item has been depreciated for the term of years, the item is left on the assessment rolls at 20 percent of its original value. However, if the Board were to adopt PVD's analysis, a taxpayer could be subject to double taxation. For example, a taxpayer with a complete computer system, including the CPU, monitor, and keyboard, would not be forced to report the newly purchased replacement keyboard. The retail cost when new of the keyboard would be added to the remaining value of the computer system. It would appear, though, that the cost of the original keyboard should be subtracted from the value of the computer system. If the computer system was purchased as a package deal, i.e. there was no price listed for each component part, then the taxpayer would not be able to provide that information to the County for the appropriate subtraction. In essence, the taxpayer would be taxed for two keyboards. If that were to occur, taxpayers may start underreporting the costs of certain component parts to compensate the possible double taxation.
"20. The Board finds no support for PVD Directive 95-030 in this exemption request. The term 'item' is not an ambiguous term that requires an extensive research into the legislative history. Furthermore, the legislative history appears to support the applicant's request. The applicant's interpretation of K.S.A. 79-201w, and amendments thereto, is very taxpayer friendly and would remain revenue neutral. The Board is not persuaded that taxpayers would begin to break down tangible personal property into screws, nuts, and bolts. Such action could not be documented for reporting, nor would be cost-effective. Finally, the request by the applicant in this matter is not unreasonable. In this instance, the applicant can demonstrate that the retail cost when new of the keyboard is $250 or less. The keyboard is a separately sold item with a defined cost."
Motions for reconsideration were considered and denied by the Board. Both PVD and the County have made a timely appeal. We have jurisdiction under K.S.A. 2000 Supp. K.S.A. 74-2426(c)(3).
The PVD and the County claim there are facts in dispute, they were denied a hearing that is required by statute, and the PVD claims it had not had an opportunity to commence discovery; therefore, summary judgment was not proper.
"Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court is required to resolve all facts and inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought. When opposing a motion for summary judgment, an adverse party must come forward with evidence to establish a dispute as to a material fact. In order to preclude summary judgment, the facts subject to the dispute must be material to the conclusive issues in the case. On appeal, we apply the same rules and where we find reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied. [Citation omitted.]" Bergstrom v. Noah, 266 Kan. 847, 871-72, 974 P.2d 531 (1999).
"Ordinarily, summary judgment should not be granted when discovery is incomplete." Bank IV Wichita v. Arn, Mullins, Unruh, Kuhn & Wilson, 250 Kan. 490, 498, 827 P.2d 758 (1992). However, if the facts pertinent to the material issues are not controverted, summary judgment may be appropriate even when discovery is unfinished. See Parker v. Farmway Credit Union, 11 Kan. App. 2d 223, 227, 718 P.2d 643, rev. denied 239 Kan. 694 (1986). A case is ripe for adjudication when the disagreement has taken a final shape and the court can see the legal issues it is deciding, including the impact of the decision upon the adversaries. Department of Revenue v. Dow Chemical Co., 231 Kan. 37, 41, 642 P.2d 104 (1982).
The PVD and the County allege there is a material question of fact regarding the original cost of the keyboards. The County raised this concern in its response to Taxpayer's motion for summary judgment, but by the time oral arguments were held, the County agreed that the keyboards were subject to exemption, depending upon the legal interpretation of the word "item." The County stated:
"As far as whether this is ripe for summary judgment, Jerry did provide information that cleared up some of my issues. And my other concerns were that I could not match up--we could not match up some invoice numbers with--with the descriptions that he--he gave in his application. But I--I think if that is the only remaining issue then as long as we can match up the invoice to the item in the application, I'm not going to have a problem with that. We just--we will just have to apply and those--review those invoices and if we could not match--if after getting together we could not match them, we'll get an explanation or get clarification then I suppose we would have to come back to the Board on that. But I think most of my concern has been addressed regarding the additional discovery."
Taxpayer added: "I've tried to resolve the factual differences. Although the factual issues do not preclude summary judgment on the legal issues that we presented. We can hammer out factual issues later. The legal issue is--is the one that's of paramount importance at this time."
There is no indication in the record that any further information was sought. "[I]n opposing a motion for summary judgment, the adverse party must come forward with some evidence to establish a material dispute of fact." Schultz v. Schwartz, 28 Kan. App. 2d 84, 87, 11 P.3d 530, rev. denied 270 Kan. ___ (2000).
In its reply to the motion for summary judgment, the PVD alleged controverted facts existed because it had not commenced pretrial discovery. It did not bring forth any conflicting evidence. BOTA set a telephone conference to discuss discovery, witnesses, and other matters. There is no record of that conference, but after the hearing, BOTA issued a memorandum clearly stating the parties had agreed "that only a legal issue remains for the application." At oral arguments, counsel for PVD stated: "I think the issue that's before the Board clearly is a question of law." Based on the record, there was no actual dispute between the parties that the keyboards were purchased for less than $250, and this finding was reflected by BOTA's order. The PVD did not make any specific discovery requests on the record and agreed only a legal argument existed for the hearing. It must be precluded from claiming it was denied discovery. The County also abandoned its claim and is also precluded from raising the issue. See Catholic Housing Services, Inc. v. State Dept. of SRS, 256 Kan. 470, 476, 886 P.2d 835 (1994).
The PVD also argues it was denied a hearing under K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 79-213(g). This statute provides:
"After examination of the request for exemption, and the county appraiser's recommendation related thereto, the board may fix a time and place for hearing, and shall notify the applicant and the county appraiser of the time and place so fixed. . . . In any case where a party to such request for exemption requests a hearing thereon, the same shall be granted. Hearings shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Kansas administrative procedure act. In all instances where the board sets a request for exemption for hearing, the county shall be represented by its county attorney or county counselor." (Emphasis added.)
In the initial application, the county appraiser did not request a hearing on the exemption request. Taxpayer specifically stated it did not request a hearing on the matter. The PVD admits it did not request a hearing, yet it argues it did not waive a hearing. K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 79-213(g) clearly requires a party in an exemption proceeding to request a hearing. Neither PVD, Taxpayer, nor the County requested a hearing in any of their motions or responses contained in the record. Additionally, it is apparent to us that the parties were granted an appropriate hearing if summary judgment was a proper remedy. Because we believe that it was, PVD's claim of being denied a hearing rings hollow.
The resolution of this appeal involves the interpretation of K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 79-201w. An interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and this court's scope of review is unlimited. See In re Tax Appeal of Boeing Co., 261 Kan. 508, Syl. ¶ 1, 930 P.2d 1366 (1997).
"It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction, to which all other rules are subordinate, that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. [Citation omitted.] The legislature is presumed to have expressed its intent through the language of the statutory scheme it enacted. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed, rather than determine what the law should or should not be. [Citation omitted.] Stated another way, when a statute is plain and unambiguous, the appellate courts will not speculate as to the legislative intent behind it and will not read such a statute so as to add something not readily found in the statute. [Citation omitted.]" In re Marriage of Killman, 264 Kan. 33, 42-43, 955 P.2d 1228 (1998).
"'The rule of strict construction means that ordinary words are to be given their ordinary meaning. Such a statute should not be so read as to add that which is not readily found therein or to read out what as a matter [of] ordinary English language is in it.'" In re Tax Appeal of Alex R. Masson, Inc., 21 Kan. App. 2d 863, 868, 909 P.2d 673 (1995) (quoting Director of Taxation v. Kansas Krude Oil Reclaiming Co., 236 Kan. 450, 455, 691 P.2d 1303 [1984]). Constitutional and statutory provisions exempting property are to be strictly construed. Taxation is the rule; exemption is the exception. All doubts are to be resolved against exemption and in favor of taxation. In re Tax Appeal of Univ. of Kan. School of Medicine, 266 Kan. 737, 751, 973 P.2d 176 (1999).
BOTA is a specialized agency that is charged with the duty to decide taxation issues. Its decisions are ordinarily given great weight and deference when it is acting within the scope of its expertise. See In re Tax Appeal of Univ. of Kan. School of Medicine, 266 Kan. at 749. If there is a rational basis for the Board's interpretation of a statute within its field of expertise, it should ordinarily be upheld on review. McTaggart v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 267 Kan. 641, 645, 983 P.2d 853 (1999). However, here we have disagreement between two administrative agencies as to the interpretation of K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 79-201w. Under these circumstances, we respect the position of each agency but recognize the final construction of a statute rests with the judiciary. In re Tax Appeal of Alsop Sand Co., Inc., 24 Kan. App. 2d 527, 530, 948 P.2d 667 (1997), aff'd 265 Kan. 510, 962 P.2d 435 (1998).
We have quoted at length from the Board's final order that supports the taxpayer's interpretation of "item." Essentially, the Board found that notwithstanding the lack of a statutory definition, "item" has an ordinary meaning that is readily understood. We agree. An "item" is defined as "one of the distinct parts of a whole." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 643 (1984). Likewise, in Black's Law Dictionary, "item" is defined as "[a] piece of a whole, not necessarily separated." Black's Law Dictionary 837 (7th ed. 1999). We adopt the Board's conclusion that a review of nebulous legislative history is not necessary to provide us with a common and readily understood definition of "item." We conclude the Board correctly interpreted K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 79-201w.
The PVD makes a rather tepid and confusing argument that the Board's interpretation of the statute results in partial tax exemptions, which are unconstitutional. See State ex rel. Stephan v. Parrish, 257 Kan. 294, 311, 891 P.2d 445 (1995). It claims that under BOTA's definition, some computers are partially exempt and others are fully taxable. This is not correct. BOTA's interpretation allows an exemption for any piece of personal property that may or may not constitute a whole mechanism. In other words, if a computer system is purchased as one piece and the individual components are not selected individually and the system is one complete package and invoiced as one price, then, unless the total cost of the entire system is less than $250, the taxpayer is not entitled to an exemption. But, if the system is purchased as most systems are, by individually selecting a monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. separately with itemized invoicing, then each item under $250 would be exempt. Further, in this particular case, the keyboards were replacement keyboards; they were purchased totally separate from the original system and were properly granted exempt status.
Finally, a review of legislative history is not persuasive evidence that the Board's interpretation of the statute is erroneous. As we have already suggested, the legislative history, such as it is, can be read to support nearly any interpretation one wishes to advance. Nevertheless, in the interests of completeness, we will briefly consider the statute's genesis.
K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 79-201w began as House Bill 2108. The bill was created as a result of reactions to a 1993 memorandum sent by the PVD to all the county appraisers suggesting they check personal property tax renditions to ensure proper tax collection. As a result of the memo, counties realized taxes had not been collected properly and some taxpayers were found to be delinquent, resulting in significant penalties and interest. The delinquencies were traced to nonreporting of small, insignificant items, such as paper clips, rubber bands, and the like. The stated purpose of the bill was to greatly simplify operations for small businesses across the state by establishing a "de minimis amount or threshold" amount that would be subject to exemption. The bill was intended to alleviate "some of the reporting burden imposed upon taxpayers who must file a rendition for ad valorem tax purposes." Initially, the exemption threshold was set at $2,500. This number was lowered because of the negative economic impact such a large exemption would have on the tax base.
Bob Corkins, representing the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Industry, explained the administrative burden on small business is "unrealistic, overwhelming, and even counterproductive from a tax collection perspective when [small business owners] are forced to track items of negligible value." Corkins noted the bill did not define the term "item" and presented a proposed balloon amendment which included a definition. That definition reads:
"As used in this section, an 'item' of property shall, in the case of machinery and equipment, consist of any mechanism and those of its components which play a direct, integral, and essential part in the mechanism's operation in a commercially useful or productive application. In the case of materials and supplies, an 'item' of property as used in this section may consist of any collection of like materials or supplies in any such quantity that is ordinarily made available for sale."
This definition considers the mechanism and its parts to be an "item." The PVD incorrectly argues this definition is identical to the one suggested by Taxpayer and adopted by BOTA. The use of the conjunction "and" requires both the mechanism and the component parts to be considered as a whole, not as individual items. The legislature chose not to adopt this definition after hearing testimony that included a discussion of purchasing a computer system through several invoices in order to qualify for the exemption. Therefore, it can be inferred that the legislature envisioned the definition of "item" to be a distinct part of a whole, which is the plain meaning of the word. See State Dept. of Administration v. Public Employees Relations Bd., 257 Kan. 275, 284-85, 894 P.2d 777 (1995).
Moreover, in written testimony to the Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee, the Director of PVD, in noting the fiscal note of the legislation, said, in part:
"Taxpayers that currently report items with component parts as a single item will have the incentive to break the item down as far as possible in order to take full advantage of the new exemption. For example, a computer may be broken down into a monitor, keyboard, etc. The impact of this occurrence cannot be quantified but is likely substantial." (Emphasis omitted.)
We confess our excerpts of legislative history have been selective; however, we have only wished to make the point that legislative history can be invoked to support the Board's interpretation as readily as the interpretation the PVD urges.
For the reasons stated, we are disinclined to overrule the Board's interpretation of K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 79-201w.


text:
ENERGETIC EARNINGS: Chevron Corp. posted a 41 percent rise in net income for the fourth quarter. The company's refinery operations improved over last year as input costs fell while prices it fetched for the fuels it produced rose.
OUTPUT UP: Oil and gas production rose slightly from a year earlier. It jumped 6 percent since the third quarter.
CASH RICH: Chevron ended the quarter with $21 billion in cash. CEO John Watson why said the company plans to pay dividends, buy back stock, invest in new projects and keep a lot handy in case oil prices fall.


text:
My tamagotchis always appear to yawn at 8:30pm but don't go to sleep until 9. So one night i turned the lights out at 8:30 and they both went straight to sleep. Has anyone else found this? I really like this new feature as it was always a pain having to stay up till late with all my other tamagotchis.
Started by kiwi_raven , Sep 15 2004 07:22 PM
Started15 Sep 2004
Last Post15 Sep 2004
Posted 15 September 2004 - 07:39 PM ( #2 )
Yes, it's usefull. A Tamagotchi goes to bed when it can no longer stay awake, but that doesn't mean it's not tired before-hand. If you turn the lights out before they fall asleep themselves, they'll go right to sleep and you'll raise their happiness, too.
Posted 15 September 2004 - 08:00 PM ( #3 )
cool i never new it raised their happines thanx.


text:
The Schedule
Saturday, October 20, 2012
UCSB Campus Pool
UCSB vs. UCLA, 12 p.m.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
UC Irvine Anteater Aquatics Complex
UCSB vs. UC Irvine, 12 p.m.
Rousing Rematches
In its second week of Mountain Pacific Sports Federation play, third-ranked UC Santa Barbara (14-4, 0-1) will host No. 2 UCLA (17-2, 1-0) before traveling to face No. 6 UC Irvine (14-4, 0-1) in what will undoubtedly be two thrilling matchups between the squads.
With an upset over the Bruins and a narrow defeat by the Anteaters in nonconference competition, this weekend's games will aim to reign dominance in one while seeking reprisal in the other.
After a historic UCSB victory in the teams' previous contest at the Southern California Tournament (Sept. 30), the Gauchos rewrote the record book as they shattered a two decade, 35-game losing skid against the Bruins. Not only did the monumental win advance the Gauchos into a second-place tournament finish, it also catapulted UCSB into a No. 2 national ranking - its highest position since 1979.
On the other hand, the Gauchos hope to settle the score against UCI who handed them their second loss of the season in a nail biting, 12-11 double overtime loss at Stanford's Northern California Invitational (Sept. 16). Both teams holding identical records, Sunday's game will prove significant moving forward in MPFS play.
After falling 9-7 to then-ranked No. 5 Stanford (8-3, 2-1) in last weekend's conference opener, UCSB aims to regain momentum and conclude victorious. This Saturday's first sprint will take off at noon, hosted at UCSB's Campus Pool. Sunday's game will be played at UCI's Anteater Aquatics Complex, also beginning at noon.
Breaking Down the Stats
With a week of MPSF action underway, UC Santa Barbara enters this weekend with a 14-4 overall record, 0-1 in MPSF play. Compiling an overall .778 winning percentage, fourth-best in the MPSF, the Gauchos have scored 245 goals to place fourth among MPSF offenses. Consistent contributors to UCSB's offensive success, juniors Evan Dellinger and Matt Gronow remain on the leader board of MPSF scorers for the seventh consecutive week. Advancing to 12th place, Dellinger posts a 2.12 goals per game average, tallying a total 36 goals on the season. Gronow shifts to 14th on the leader board, tallying a team-leading 37 goals, averaging 2.06 goals per game. Shining for the Gaucho defense, senior Myles Christian ranks third - his highest of the season - amongst MPSF goalkeepers with 136 saves, averaging 11.3 saves per game.
The Path Towards a Championship
Saturday's matchup will be the second of three remaining home games for the third-ranked squad. After hosting UCLA, the Gauchos will travel to UCI on Sunday, October 21 for their third conference contest.
The following weekend, UCSB will return home to face Pepperdine (Oct. 27) before beginning a three-week road swing at USC (Nov. 3), Pacific (Nov. 10), and Cal (Nov. 11).
Tickets for home men's water polo games are available by visiting the Ticket Office in the Intercollegiate Athletics Building on campus, by calling (805) 893-UCSB or by clicking here.