text:
doing business in this state." The second act was approved December 19, 1865, and was entitled "An act to amend an act entitled'An act to regulate and tax foreign insurance and express corporations or associations doing business in this state.'" The act of 1870 is entitled "An act to amend an act to regulate and tax foreign insurance and express corporations doing business in this state, approved October 21, 1864; amended and approved December 19, 1865." The first amendatory act, in reciting the title of the original act of 1864, omits the words "banking" and "exchange," as contained in the latter act: and it is claimed by the plaintiff that by this omission the act was not sufficiently described. It is also claimed that the act of 1870 is void for the same reason, and also because the title purports to amend an act which has already been suspended. The words "banking" and "exchange" appear to have been omitted from the title of the original act as recited in the amendatory act for the purpose of making the entire statute, including the title, read as it was intended to stand after it was amended. Possibly this treatment of the title of the original statute was supposed to be in accordance with the requirements of the constitution, that "no act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or section amended shall be set forth and published at full length." Const. Or. art. 4, § 22. It has been generally understood that this provision refers to the body of the act or section, and that an amendment to an existing act requires no new title. Oregon v. Phenline, 16 Or. 107, 109, 17 Pac. 572. The reference to the title of the original act was therefore not accurate, but it was not such an error as was calculated to mislead the reader as to the purpose of the amendment. Trivial errors in describing the title of the original act, which cannot mislead, will not invalidate the amendatory act. People v. Howard, 73 Mich. 10, 40 N. W. 789. This statute, as amended by the act of 1865 and by the act of 1870, appears to have been set forth and published as required by the constitutional provision. Laws 1870, p. 46, and Gen. Laws Or. 1843-72, p. 616, compiled and annotated by Matthew P. Deady and Lafayette Lane. This was sufficient, and disposes of plaintiff's objections to both amendatory acts. Oregon v. Phenline, supra. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.
ASHLEY v. QUINTARD et al. (Circuit Court,N. D. Ohio, W. D. No. 1,424.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES-ApPEARANCE-WAIVER OF OBJECTION TO SERVICE.
October 3, 1898.)
A nonresident defendant, served only by publication in a proceeding in rem by attachment, by a removal of the cause to the federal court does not waive the right to move to vacate the service on the ground that the court did not obtain jurisdiction over the property sought to be reached.
Shares of stock in a corporation of one state, owned by a resident of another, cannot be reached by garnishment in a third state in which the corporation does business, by service of garnishment on the agent of the corporation In the state and of summons on the defendant stockholder by publication, in the absence of special statutory provision therefor; and a statute subjecting foreign corporations to suits and garnishment in the state asa condition precedent to their doing business therein, in connection with one authorizing attachments in suits against nonresidents, does not confer such authority. Such statutes, as affecting corporate garnishees, apply only to debts due from the corporation or to property held by it within the state; and a corporation is not a debtor of its stockholders in such sense that it may be garnished as SUCh, nor does it hold their stock except at the place where it has its domicile, and subject to the laws of such place.
SAME-STATUTES AFFECTIl\G FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.
State statutes subjecting foreign corporations to the service of process and to suits and garnishment within the state as a condition of their right to do business therein cannot be held to also require by Implication that their shareholders shall submit their shares of stock to the dominion of the state.
Though the Ohio statutes authorize the attachment of stocks and interests in stocks, and permit the garnishment of a foreign corporation doing business In the state in actions against nonresident defendants, and also require a corporation garnishee to make disclosure of any stock held thereIn for the benefit of the defendant, such statutes presuppose that the debts or property to be subjected, and to which the disclosures relate, are within the dominion of the state, and do not bring within such dominion shares of stock in a foreign corporation, whether the corporation as garnishee makes disclosure of their ownership by defendant or refuses to make such disclosure.
SAME-Sprus OF CORPORATE STOCK.
The situs of corporate stock for any purpose must be either the domicile of the corporation or that of the owner. Whether for the purpose of seizure and subjection to legal process It can be elsewhere than the domicile of the corporation, qurere.
On Motion to Vacate Service.
Appeal'iug only to make this motion, certain of the defendants ask to vacate a service by publication of an attachment writ, and to discharge the attachment. The suit was brought in the state court, and removed here by one of the defendants. That defendant, the Ann Arbor Railroad Company, has answered, but there has been no service of the summons upon QUintaI'd and others of the defendants, and only by the attachment and publication Involved in this motion have they been brought in, If at all. There seem to have been two writs, one from the state court before removal, and the other from this court after removal, but the question here made concerning each is the same. The attachment was served in Lucas county, Ohio, upon the defendant the Ann Arbor Railroad Company, by garnishment, to which that defendant has answered, saying that it is a corporation of the state of Michigan, operating a line of railroad partly In Michigan and partly in Ohio, only a small part of Its property being located in the state of Ohio. This garnishee's answer also states the defendants QUintaI'd and others, making this motion, are citizens and residents of New York; that each owns the amount of the common or preferred stock of the Ann Arbor Railroad Company set opposite his name in the garnishee's answer; and that the garnishee has no other property whatever of the said defendants in its possession or control. This is all that appears by the garnishee's answer. It is stated In the motion that the company has "Its principal office in Durand," in the state of Michigan, but this is not sworn to by anyone. However, by
the seeming agreement of counsel in argument it is generally understood that the company has an office in New Yor], City, where the stock books are kept, and, transfers are made, and other financial operations conducted; that it has its terminal offices at Toledo, Ohio, where most of its administrative or operative offices are kept, but its corporate headquarters are at the village of Durand, in Michigan. The details of these matters are not shown, as no affidavits have been submitted in support of or against the motion.
O. W. Everett, John J.Kumler, and Oharles S. Ashley, for plaintiff. Smith & Beckwith and Clarence Brown, for defendants. HAMMOND, J. (after stating the facts). Technically, perhaps, this motion should be decided solely upon the answer of the garnishee, which is not at all full in its statement of the facts, though it sufficiently appears by that document that the defendants are citizens of New York and nonresidents in Ohio, while the railroad company is only a Michigan corporation. But even that is not stated in the answer of the garnishee, but rather stands upon the agreement of counsel in argument that it is not incorporated in Ohio as it might be in both states. We find the fact to be that it is solely a Michigan corporation. It seems to be conceded by counsel for the motion that the shares of stock would be leviable either in Michigan, the corporate domicile of the company, or in New York, the residence of the owners of the shares. Apart from any authoritative adjudication on the subject, it is not very clear, considering the nature of shares of corporate stock, if it be leviable in New York, why it may not likewise be leviable in Ohio, or any other state, if service could be had upon the garnishee company. Merely because the debtors in execution or attachment reside in New York, and because that state may be taken as the situs of the shares for some of the purposes of ownership, such as the peculiar nature of the property permits,-as, for example, bequest by will or distribution after death intestate, or for taxation, and the like,-it does not follow that the shares may be subjected to the process of execution or attachment in that state, any more than other tangible or intangible personal property the debtors might own which happened, in fact, to be within the boundaries of the state of Michigan; wherefore the ultimate logic of the doctrine contended for by counsel for the motion must be that shares of stock are leviable only in the state where the company has its corporate domicile, or else in any state where there can be service on the company. Public policy would seem to favor the former rule, particularly as to quasi public corporations, and those which, like railroads, are' practically perpetuated in their existence in one way or another. It would be a convenience and source of safety to have one place only to which all might resort to effectuate by sale under judicial process any enforced change of title or ownership of the shares. If that should require the plaintiff here to go first to New York for his judgment, and then to Michigan for another judgment, it would only be a result common to legal procedure, and the same result that would be found necessary if the same debtors owned other property located in Michigan. Per· haps one suit in Michigan, the corporate domicile, furnished by a law of that state authorizing nonresidents to be sued as to any property located there, might ,suffice. The case of Jellenik v. }fining Co., 82
Fed. 778, is not against this doctrine, but rather in favor of it. There our Brother Severens held that plaintiffs, claiming that the share· holders held their shares fraudulently as against them, could not, in Michigan, try that question with shareholders nonresident there, under the laws of Michigan in that behalf. They first must go to the state of residence, settle the title there, and then to Michigan to com· pel a transfer, if the personal jurisdiction over the shareholders at their residence would not secure complete relief by compelling the transfer there. The truth is that the peculiar characteristic of shares of stock, united with the misfortune of having one's debtor owning property in foreign parts, combine to present difficulties in litigation concerning the shares which cannot be overcome, except in some such manner as that suggested by Judge Severens. Possibly they may be insuperable difficulties without special legislation to remedy them, but that is the reason for the existence of legislatures,-to provide remedies as the necessities for them arise. It does not follow from his decision that executions and attachments against nonresident shareholders cannot be had in Michigan. If so, however, it only shows that further legislation may be needed there to give relief as against nonresident shareholders in corporations. Even if it should result that shares in a corporation in another state than that in which the debtor resides cannot be subjected to execution or attachment for his debts, because there can be no personal service of summons on and judgment against him in that state upon which to base an execution, and that no attachment could be made effectual, that should not influence the courts in deciding such questions as tbis, for the reason that they can neither legislate nor impress a different quality upon property than it possesses inherently from the sources of its creation or origin. One must deal with the corporation itself in some form to subject shares of stock to judicial process against their owners, and it may be difficult to find the corporation for that purpose elsewhere than in the corporate domicile, particularly since the latest decisions of the supreme court seem to establish that it can have only one domicile or habitation for the purposes of suits against it, so far as federal jurisdiction is concerned, at least. Railroad Co. v. James, 161 U. S. 545, 563, 16 Sup. Ct. 621; Railroad Co. v. Steele, 167 U. S. 659, 17 Sup. Ct. 925; U. S. v. Northwestern Exp. Stage & Transp. Co., 164 U. S. 686, 689, 17 Sup. Ct. 206; Steamship Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 106, 111, 18 Sup. Ct. 526; Railway Co. v. Gonzales, 151 U. S. 496, 14 Sup. Ct. 401; Shaw v. Mining Co., 145 U. S. 444, 12 Sup. Ct. 935; In re Keasbey, 160 U. S. 221, 229, 16 Sup. Ct. 273. Under the existing judiciary act, the plaintiff, being an inhabitant of Ohio, might have brought this suit in this court originally, but he would have required personal service to reach the defendants. Having sued them in the state court, he might attach any property of theirs found in Ohio, and the question is whether his attachment has found their shares of stock in a corporation in Ohio. If it has not, they may move here to discharge the service made in the state conrt. Railway v. Brow, 164 U. S. 271,17 Sup. Ct. 126. How did the shares of stock become located in Ohio, and subjected to the quite absolute dominion of the laws of that state over any prop·
erty situated within its boundaries? Certainly, if the corporation is not an Ohio corporation, the shares are not here in that sense. If the owners are not citizens of Ohio, they are not here in the sense that the situs of the shares is that of the domicile of the owners. They can be here, then, only because the corporation is doing business in Ohio, and operates a railroad within its limits. Can that fact operate to bring all the shares of all its stockholders within the dominion of Ohio, any more than it brings any other or all of their personal belongings here? We have seen that it does not operate to make the corporation itself an "inhabitant" of Ohio, so as to subject it to suit in the federal courts of Ohio as such "inhabitants." The plaintiff may sue it, if he can find service here, only because he himself is an inhabitant of Ohio, not because the company is an inhabitant here. Why, then, should its doing business here by permission of the state of Ohio bring here the shares of its stock, which do not belong to it, but to other people, when it does not itself become domiciled here? If it be true-as it is--that the laws of Ohio require as a condition of doing business in the state that the company shall submit to be sued here by process upon its officers doing its business within the state, it does not follow that those laws require the shareholders to submit their shares of stock to the dominion of Ohio, and thereby subject them to execution and attachment within that state. The laws do not say this in express terms. If the state has the power to attach such a condition to the license of doing business in the state, it should expressly define the condition, and it is not necessarily to be implied from any statutes authorizing proces('l against the company itself nor from any authorizing the property of nonresidents to be attached. The subjection of the shares of the stockholders to execution or attachment, or of the shareholders themselves to any kind of suit within the state, not connected with some liability of the company, is a subject·matter entirely foreign to the subject·matter of process against foreign corporations. It does relate, indeed, to the attachment laws, but it would be hard to hold that attachment statutes, without express words to that effect, should be construed to impose, as a condition of foreign corporations doing business in the state, a requirement that all its shareholders should be personally suable by the attachment of their shares if nonresidents, when that ownership is altogether foreign to the business of the company,-just as foreign as such a suit would be in its relation to shares of stock in any other company whatever that the nonresidents might happen to own, or as it would be to any other kind of property they might happen to possess. Without such a requirement, express or implied, it is impossible to find a location within Ohio of the shares of stock of a Michigan corporation belonging to nonresidents of Ohio. The company is liable to process by garnishment, undoubtedly; but when it answers that the defendant in attachment is one of its shareholders it might as well have said that it had in its hands the property of the defendant debtor, but that it was held by the company within the state of Michigan, and not within the state of Ohio,-locomotives, let us say, used wholly within the state of Michigan, or within the of New York, where the debtors reside,-if it be a proper ruling
that the situs of the shares, as to their individual ownership, follows the domicile of the owner. In that case the answer of the garnishee amounts to saying that the property in its hands is held by it for the owner in the state where the owner resides. There it may be reached by equitable, or, possibly, legal, attachment or execution; the owner, if in no other way, being enjoined in equity, after judgment at law, from disposing of the shares, and these being sold under direction of the court to satisfy the judgment; or, if need be, and right there were before judgment, be attached by like equitable proceeding, after the common custom of courts of equity in granting relief where is no remedy at law. It would greatly depreciate the value of the property, and deter investments in these quasi public enterprises, if the shares of stock are to be dragged into every state which the corporati(1'1 enters to do business, and be at one and the same time in all thos( states, for the purposes of attachment or execution against their owners. Shares of stock represent aliquot parts of the corporate prop· erty in a certain sense, but this is as to the whole property, and not segregated parts that may happen to be in a particular place or under' the particular dominion of a given state; and these shares cannot be ascertained and distributed on a winding up until all the property, wherever situate, has been gathered together for such a distribution in Bolido, and not as to each separate part. Therefore, the()retically as well as practically, the location of never so much of the corporate property in a state where it is not incorporated or organized, but is only doing business by permission, does not, as to that property so located, establish the shares or aliquot parts thereof in the state of that location. It is quite incapable of such treatment under any view of corporate existence or control. It is not worth the while to become involved in any intricacies of consideration as to the situs of a debt. It is only in a very qualified and somewhat metaphysical sense that a corporation is a debtor to its shareholders for their shares. The shareholders are the owners of the corporation, not its creditors, in relation to this matter of seizing the shares as property. The corporate property is not subject to seizure as their property for many reasons; and to reach the individual interests of the shareholders for the purposes of taxation, descent and distribution, and attachment and execution, and other purposes to be imagined, peculiar methods are to be ad-opted, and the situs of the shares may shift according to these needs, respectively. For the purpose of compulsory action to reduce the shares of any individual owner to money by judicial seizure and sale, almost necessarily you must act both upon the shareholder and the company, either jointly or in consecutive relation, and it is not enough to answer this necessity, which is founded in our rules of jurisprudence for giving notice before execution, to seize only the company by process of garnishment. It would embarrass its business to require the company constantly to look after the individual ownership of its shareholders in its shares, and they really have no duty in respect of this, except, perhaps, at its corporate domicile, where its shares are dealt with by it and the law, Every consideration, it seems to me, of public policy and private justice to the parties concerned, requires
90 ll'EDERALREPORTER.
thatthe situs of shares of stock for seizure by attachment or execution at law shall be that of the corporate domicile, or, if there can be any other, then that of the domicile of the shareholder. If they cannot be attached or taken in execution at either of these places, there is no reason why they should be elsewhere; and, if special legislation be required to reach them when the shareholder resides in one state and the corporation in another, it may be provided, and doubtless has been in many states. If special provision to that end is to be made for the plaintiff in Ohio because he is a citizen of Ohio entitled to its aid against nonresidents having property in the state, or any interest in property in the state, that likewise may be accomplished by appropriate legislation designed for the purpose,-such as affixing as a condition for doing business in the state a requirement that shareholders, as to their ownership in the shares, shall submit to suit in Ohio. But that has not been done, in my judgment, by any necessary implication from existing legislation,-either that subjecting the company itself to suit here by its voluntary or compulsory agreement to be served with process here,as a condition precedent, or by that prescribing a remedy by attachment against .nonresidents, nor by both these together. There is no indication in the attachment laws of any distinction between a home creditor and a nonresident creditor as to their benefit, and therefore there is nothing in the fact that the plain. tiff is an Ohio creditor which aids the implication under consideration. Nor does the fact that there may be a necessary implication from that agreement of effectual garnishment as to other property, like tangible personalty, or debts owing by the corporation to the nonresidents, aid that which we are asked to make as to the shares of stock. Garnishment. at law, as to shares of stock. is not the same thing as garnishment of a debt owing by the company, or of property held by it in hand; and equitable attachment by garnishment, or analogous procedure, to that end, would, in-the ordinary nature of equitable proceedings, require personal service on all the parties in interest, or such substituted service that it would not be appropriate where the principal defendant and the equitable garnishee were both out of the jurisdiction. Elsewhere than in the home state of the owner or the corporation, except in this qualified way that the garnishee corporation may be served with process, there could be no substituted process satisfactory to a court of equity, or a court of law proceeding with equitable remedies. Notice is essential in a court of equity to some one whom the court can control. That service is qualified by the fact that the shares of stock are not in the garnishee's hands or under its control elsewhere than in the state of its creation, because by the laws of that state alone the shares also are created; and, owing to that - peculiar creation, they are regulated and governed nowhere else ?S to all their incidents, including that of alienation, by judicial process, as by other methods. The service is not qualified by any restrictive effect to reach only suits concerning its own business, for the company may be garnished generally, as to all people, in Ohio; but Ohio cannot, or at least has not undertaken by the attachment laws, to administer the laws of Michigan in relation to shares of stock in Michigan corporations. And the alienation of the shares as against the
shareholders, property of their own, as it is, and not of the corporation, by compulsory processes of any kind, is yet so intimately connected with the corporation administration that the alienation should be solely under the control of the laws of Michigan upon grounds of public policy, if nothing more. Whatever may be said of other forms of its corporate obligations, those to its shareholders must have their sole location in its own domicile (possibly as well in the domicile of the shareholder for some purposes), and they cannot, in the nature of the thing, follow the corporation into any place where it is liable to suit or process. To illustrate what is meant here, let us suppose that the laws of Michigan provided that shares of corporation stock should be exempt from attachment and execution, and could be subject to judicial alienation only by a bill in equity at the particular place where the company had its headquarters in Michigan. Could the shares be judicially alienated elsewhere on any theory that they had no situs, and wllowed either the shareholder or the company wherever either should go? Or, if the Michigan law required 30 days' advertisement before a judicial sale could operate to transfer the stock, and the Ohio law only 10 days, would the Ohio law override the Michigan law? Justice Story, in Black v. Zacharie, 3 How. 483, 511, holds that from the nature of stock of a corporation the validity of its assignment is necessarily, like every other attribute of a corporation, to be governed by the local law of that state, and not by the local law of any foreign state. In that suit the attachment of the stock was in the domicile of the corporation. It was also held, as to shares of stock, to be a principle of international jurisprudence that "personal property has no locality, and that the law of the owner's domicile is to govern the validity of the transfer or alienation, unless there is some positive or customary law of the country where it is found to the contrary." Page 514. This would imply that shares of stock are "found" in the place where the company is domiciled. And again I suggest that an attachment or garnishment in Ohio would not reach property held by the garnishee corporation iIi Michigan, albeit there may be service of process on the corporation in Ohio. There is no confusion here between the necessary manucaption by the sheriff of tangible things and the impossible manucaption of intangible choses in action, but only the suggestion that inherently shares of . stock, unlike other choses in action, perhaps, require something more than mere notice to the obligor to effectuate their seizure. In Gottfried v. Miller, 104 U. S. 521, 528, it was held that an attachment of shares gave the attaching plaintiff no title to the company's property, and "did not in the least incumber it," or prevent its assignment by the company. Therefore the garnishment does not reach the company's property in Ohio, and the location of the property there does not affect the question. It must be conceded that notice to the company's agent in Ohio that the defendant's shares had been attached would qua notice be as effectual if the Ohio agent did his duty as if lodged at the home office in Michigan. It would get there by a more roundabout route, that is all. And we know it has been as effectual here, for the garnishee defendant appears and sets up the defense for its shareholders just as
they set it up for themselves. But that is not the foundation of the public policy, or of the rule against the effectiveness of the garnishment. The objection of public policy is that, if shareholders are required to submit to foreign attachment on their individual liabilities in every state, far and near, to which the company goes to do busi. ness, they will be deterred; and the ground of judgment is that Ohio has not expressly imposed that burden by its statutes, and shares of stock in a foreign corporation are not, necessarily, to be imported into the statute by implication. Moreover, the nature of corporate shares is such that special legislation directing the procedure is required, so that there may be no inconvenient or disastrous conflict between the laws of Ohio and those of Michigan in the process of subjecting them to judicial sale and transfer to a purchaser. But if the Ohio laws governing judicial alienation were a copy of those of Michigan, it would not meet the difficulty. They would not be Michigan laws, which alone control. The absence of such special legisla. tion is, however, against the idea that foreign shares were supposed fo be included in the attachment or garnishment laws, or that the shareholders have had such a condition precedent imposed on them. The ordinary attachment laws did not reach chases in action, because incapable of manucaption by the sheriff, and they were supplemented by garnishment statutes desrigned to subject them; but, if there be a necessity or sound reason for it, the garnishment statute must likewise be held to fall short as to chases they cannot properly reach, and shares in a foreign corporation are of that nature, inherently. The line of reasoning in Reimers v. Manufacturing Co., 17 C. C. A. 228, 70 Fed. 573, is, a fortiori, in support of the reasoning of this opinion, although the plaintiff here is a citizen of Ohio,-an immaterial circumstance, as I have already endeavored to show. That was the case of a debt owing by the corporation, and, as suggested here, stands on a different footing from foreign shares of stock which are not a higher in grade and different in property incidents. debt, but So, the line of reasoning in Mooney v. Manufacturing Co., 18 C. C. A. 421, 72 Fed. 32, somewhat in conflict with the last-cited case, is not against that here, because that, too, was the garnishment of a debt, and not foreign shares of stock. The elaborate and very able opinion of Vice Chancellor Pitney in Insurance Co. v. Chambers (N. J. Ch.) 32 Atl. 663, is in full accord with the opinion here expressed as to the essential difference between the garnishment of a debt owing by a foreign corporation and its shares of stock. While disapproving very vigorously the ruling of the New York courts that debts owing by a corporation cannot be attached by garnishment served upon the agents of the company in a state where it has no corporate existence, and is only doing business, he approves with equal emphasis the holdings of those courts that the shares of stock cannot be so attached. Plimpton v. Bigelow, 93 N. Y. 592, 29 Hun, 362; Straus v. Glycerine Co., 46 Hun, 216; Id., 108 N. Y. 654, 15 N. E. 444; Douglass v. Insurance Co., 138 N. Y. 209, 33 N. E. 938. And he remarks, in commenting on this point, that "stock in a corporation cannot be levied up{)n by an ordinary execution against the hold· er, except by special statutory provisions; and it would be most unjust
to hold a corporation liable as garnishee upon its stock when it eannot relieve itself from liability by delivering the stock over to the (secsheriff or other officer serving the writ." Shinn on tion 209, at page 406, and section 498, at page 868) cites, besides the above cases, a large number from other states to the effect that shares of stock are not leviable except by special statutory provision. Id. § 30, at page 49; Id. § 100, at page 156,-as to effect of the residence or nonresidence of the attaching plaintiff. Id. § 105, that the garnishee company is a foreign corporation notwithstanding its presence, doing business, in Ohio. Id. §§ 208, 209, at pages 402, 406, as to statutory methods of seizing shares of stock. Id. § 476, at page 485, that it is a fundamental requirement of attachment process that the indebtedness must exist or the property be within the state,-citing many cases,-so that on this principle it cannot be said that the garnishee company is indebted or holds the defendant's shares within the state of Ohio. Id. § 477, at page 485, that a mere custodian of a chose in action who is not indebted to the holder is not liable to garnishment. Id. §§ 489-498, as to character of persons who may be served as garnishee,-only those through whose control the thing may be subjected by judgment to the plaintiff's debt within the state (section 489). As to the situs of proper!;y subject to garnishment, section 490 is very instructive, it being shown that, according to many authorities, if the garnishee be a nonresident, and the thing he holds (or owes) is not within the state where the process is served (or the debt be not payable there), but is deliverable to the owner elsewhere, the service is not effectual to reach it; and the trustee of choses is not considered to carry them around wherever he may go or be found (at page 860). Id. § 491, is to same effect,-that where the principal debtor and the garnishee both reside out of the state, and the debt is payable not generally, but by its particular terms, elsewhere, the garnishment is ineffectual, because the thing to be done is not within the power of the court to be compelled. Can these shares of stock be said to be distributable in Ohio, and are they not payable only in Michigan? Id. §§ 492-498, as to corporations as garnishees, domestic and foreign, showing that, while the general rule is that a foreign corporation which is amenable to process in another state may be subjected to garnishment there for anything it holds within the state, or for any debt it owes generally to the principal debtor, and not specially in another place, it cannot, without special legislation to that end, be reached by garnishment for the stock of a member. It also must be conceded that after notice and publication in another state a judicial sale of the shares by the sheriff or other officer would be, in fashion and substance, just like a sale of the same kind in ,the home state of the corporation as against a nonresident member, for that is one way the purpose of appropriation may be accomplished, and, perhaps, a sufficiently effectual way of doing it; the purchaser at judicial sale being thus armed with the title to compel a transfer of the stock in the books. But, again, that does not meet the objectior. of want of dominion over the thing appropriated; not any more than if the state of Ohio should do the same thing as to tangible property or even land of the nonresident debtor situated in another state;
thereby, through substituted service, seeking to appropriate that which is in another state to the payment of debts due its own citizens or others re!Sorting preferably to its courts. Indeed, in my view, shares of stock more nearly resemble land than movables in the quality of being fixed within the boundaries of the state which created them, and regulates all their qualities and incidents, as property. It is a question of resemblances and analogies, and is capable of no other treatment. The often-announced doctrine that the situs of shares follows the owner, like the situs of movables, wherever in fact they may be located, can only be said sub modo at most. Even as to land, by control of the person of the owner titles may be transferred away from their situs by judicial compulsion to execute the deed according to the law of the place where the land lies; but this hardly could be done by any plan of substituted service of process on the owner and notice to the tenant of the land. Whatever may be said in favor of the situs of shares following the owner for other purposes, for the purpose of judicial transfer the analogies swing back towards that of land, rather than movables. If the home state of the corporation may subject them as movables or as choses in action are subjected, and does this, it is sufficient to say that that state also has the same power to so subject lands, if it choose; and it does not follow that the underlying principle of the law of garnishment permits another state to do likewise with other corporate shares than those of its own creation. At all events, the statutes of Ohio have not in express terms undertaken to subject by garnishment foreign shares, as the property of nonresidents, when the corporations happen to have agents within the state doing corporate business there, and amenable to process. One section regulates service of a summons on corporations, and another applies this to foreign corporations having "a managing agent in the 'state;" Rev. St §§ 5044, 5046. In any civil action the plaintiff may have attachment against the property of the defendant,-of course, within the state is here implied,-when the defendant is a nonresident. ld. § 5521. This attachment commands the sheriff to attaGh the lands, tenements, goods, chattels, stocks, or interest in stocks, rights, credits, money, and effects of the defendant "in his county." ld. § 5524. The sheriff is directed how to execute the writ as to real property and movables, including an appraisement, and on bond may leave the thing seized with the garnishee. Id. §§ 5528, 5529. If the officer cannot get possession of the property, he leaves a notice with the garnishee to appear in court and answer. ld. § 5530. If the garnishee be a corporation, service may be had on the principal officer or managing agent, clearly including a foreign corporation. Id. § 5534; Railroad Co. v. Peoples, 31 Ohio St. 537. But none of these statutes direct that return of its shares shall be made by a foreign corporation so served except by whatever implication may be made upon the terms of this section authorizing service on the managing agent, and a section following, which declares that the garnishee shall make disclosure, "and in case of a corporation, of any stock heldtherein for tbe benefit of the defendant," taken also in connection with the leading section, supra, that stocks or interest in stocks may be attached. The statutes seem to make no distinction between domestic and for-
eign corporations, and there is none so far as relates to property held by either within the dominion of the state. But the distinction inheres as to property not held by the corporation within the dominion of the state in the nature of that fact itself, and appears when the answer is made and discloses that fact, if it does; or it would appear on proceedings against the corporation if it withheld the disclosure of the shares, and were proceeded against for an insufficient answer. Then the question would arise whether the shares were in fact within the state; but surely the fact that it does disclose them does not make them any more within the state than if the disclosure were not made, and the fact concealed, particularly if, as here,'the liability were denied. These statutes must be read in the light of the fact that the legislation pertains to things in Ohio, and not things in other states, and, as to foreign corporations, that they may hold things not within this state, as may other garnishees (Shinn, Attachm. § 490), notwithstanding the broad language that corporations must disclose the shares held by the principal debtor. The statutes, in any event, do not undertake to enact that foreign shares held by a nonresident may be laid hold of in Ohio, except by construction and implication upon very broad language, making, in terms, no discrimination as to shares of stock and that kind of property the company might actually hold within Ohio; because, probably, the legislature knew that the language could not be extended to include things over which it had no power, or if it had any, required especial legislation for its exercise, so as not to intrench upon the inherent qualities affixed to shares of stock in the state of their creation. International comity would forbid this, if the power existed. Thus, while the legislature requires garnishee corporations to return their shares for judicial sale, that does not necessarily mean that the shares of foreign corporations may be judicially sold in Ohio, or that, if the owner does not reside here, they may be sold in spite of that fact. The language of all legislation is supposed to be restricted by considerations of international and interstate comity. The authorities indicate that the method of subjecting foreign shares to attachment would be by imposing that liability as a condition precedent to doing business in the state; and that not only the corporation, but the shareholders individually, should also submit to suit here. The absence of such a condition, expressly made or by implication arising from the scope of the statutory scheme, as it does in the case of the corporation itself, is a controlling circumstance to restrict the broad language of these attachment and garnishment statutes. Other provisions of the statute disposing of the property are significant as to its construction on this point. The property seized may be sold for preservation, put in the hands of a receiver, left with the garnishee on bond, etc.; but always he may discharge himself by paying the debt or delivering the property over to the officer. And how could a Michigan corporation deliver shareholder's stock to an officer in Ohio? It might transfer on the books to a Michigan sheriff, perhaps; but could it do this, properly, to a foreign sheriff, at the order of a foreign statute or a foreign court? Or, rather, would Michigan, by comity or constitutional obligation, be compelled to recognize and give effect to these foreign laws and or-
ders made in other states? If not, the property is scarcely to. be held to be within Ohio for that purpose. Rev. St Ohio, §§ 5539-5553. Again, after judgment for the plaintiff the property is to be sold, and by another section paid-up shares are declared to be personal property, and may be sold on execution. Rev. St. Ohio, § 5555 et seq.; Id. § 3255. Suppose the laws of Michigan should declare that shares held in a railroad company should be deemed real estate,-as they might,-or that they should not be liable to execution at all; how could the laws of Ohio operate to change all that by the mere form of garnishment and sale of the shares? The difficulties are inextricable, and, while the cases have not been examined in other directions for analogies or results, and confining our consideration to these particular statutes and to these facts, I do not doubt that this garnishment has not in the least incumbered the shares with any lien, or so put them in custodia legis that it can be made the basis of any publication, process, or judgment here against the nonresident defendants. The case of Miller v. U. S., 11 Wall. 268, 294, abundantly illustrates the difficulties of seizing stocks by mesne or final process elsewhere than in the home state of the corporation by showing the difficulty of doing it there, as pointed out by the opinions and dissenting opinions, which are very instructive on this subject of seizing shares of stock by judicial process. That, too, was a case of Michigan stocks, and it appears they are not to be attached in that state by mesne process, unless the law has been changed since that time. It was done in that case by garnishment notice at the home office perforce of an act of congress acting within the state of Michigan. What was said by the Sixth circuit court of appeals, through Mr. Circuit Judge Taft, in speaking of a statute of Michigan which said that "any corporation, domestic or foreign, may be garnished under this act" (How. Ann. St. Mich. § 8086), well applies here:
"At all e,ents, there is nothing in the garnishee statute of Michigan expressly requiring a foreign corporation to submit to a judgment in garnishment in such a case. And the mere provision that such corporation shall be generally subject to garnishment is not to be interpreted as imposing a liability, power to impose which is rendered doubtful by the considerations already stated." Reimers v. Manufacturing Co., 17 C. C. A. 230, 70 Fed., at page 575.
We are told by connsel that the precise question has not been decided by the Ohio courts. Counsel disagree as to whether debts due by nonresident garnishees can be attached in Ohio by service when the garnishee is found in Ohio; but it may be conceded that they may when the garnishee has a business residence here, and yet it does not appear that shares of stock also may be seized, since they stand on a different footing from debts. The case of National Bank of New London v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 21 Ohio St. 221, was the seizure of shares in an Ohio corporation, and establishes that, where the nonresident debtor owns such shares, they may be subjected by garnishment under the above statutes. So, in Norton v·.Norton, 43 Ohio St. 509, 3 N. E. 348, as to the shares of an absconding debtor in an Ohio corporation; but this is only an affirmance of the doctrine of Miller v. U. S., 11 Wall. 268, that garnishment notice is an appropriate way
ASHLEY V. QUINT.i.RD.
to seize shares of stock in the home office of the corporation, and they go no further than that. It is said in Norton v. Norton, supra, that "at common law stock in corporations was not subject to levy or attachment. The shares of stock were neither a chattel or a chose in action." And that the Ohio statutes seize the shareholder's equitable interest in the corporation. 43 Ohio St. 521, 522, 3 N. E. 351. Can the Ohio statutes have the effect to thus change the common law in Michigan? In Railroad Co. v. May, 25 Ohio St. 347, sanction is given to the validity of garnishment in West Virginia of.a debt due by the railroad company to a citizen of Ohio at the suit of his creditor, also a citizen of Ohio. The railroad company was a corporation of West Virginia, presumably, though the fact does not distinctly appear. In Railroad Co. v. Peoples, 31 Ohio St. 537, it is said that for all purposes of proceedings under the attachment and garnishment laws a foreign corporation operating a railroad in Ohio under the statutes in that behalf is to be held a domestic corporation; but this was said upon a showing that the garnishee foreign company had here in Ohio, in its possession, cars and like tangible property belonging to the principal debtor, also a foreign company. The case did not concern shares of stock at all. In Root v. Davis, 51 Ohio St. 29, 36, 36 N. E. 669, there are expressions of the opinion which favor the doctrine about which there is so much conflict, that "the credits of a nonresident debtor, without personal service upon him, cannot be attached in this state by simply serving the process of garnishment upon his debtor residing within the jurisdiction of the court issuing the process. That would be, as claimed, to give the laws of the state an extraterritorial effect." And some doubt of the soundness of the case of Railroad Co. v. May, supra, is expressed. But this was said only arguendo, does not appear in the official syllabus, and was held not to apply as between citizens of the state in relation to their residence in different counties. The case of Winslow v. Fletcher, 53 Conn. 390, 4 Atl. 250, cited by plaintiff, is in favor of the ruling here made, though in that case neither of the parties was a resident of Connecticut, except the garnishee. But I have endeavored to show that the mere residence of the plaintiff does not increase the power of the state in the premises. It is the presence in the state of the defendant, or the thing he owns, which is the essential element of control, and not the presence of the plaintiff, where the state makes no discrimination, and allows all plaintiffs, whether resident or nonresident, equal access to its courts, as most states do, even for the purposes of appropriation by attachment of the property of a debtor found within the state. In that case a Massachusetts creditor sought to reach shares of stock in an Indiana bank belonging to his Indiana debtor, in the hands of a Connecticut garnishee, holding them asa pledge. It was held that he must go to Indiana, "where, in contemplation of law, the stock is situated. By coming here they can only succeed upon the theory that in some sense the stock is located in this state. Such a theory is inconsistent with a familiar and wpll-settled rule that stock in a corporation, for the purposes of an attachment, has its situs where the corporation is located." It is further said that the sale of stock in another state
90 FEDERAlL REPORTER.
by execution or process is not open to creditors in this state. The case il!ttltronger, of course, for a plaintiff, where the company whose sllareholder$ are attached is doing business, and has considerable of the corporate property, in the state issuing the process, and is liable generally to suit there. But the principle is the same in either case, for it is not the company which is sued, but another, who has never asked any perrnission to do business in the state on conditions agreed upon as precedent to the privilege, and who is, therefore, not pro hac, and forth-at purpose, a resident of the state, by agreement. He stands outside of all this, and, to my mind, is in no sense in a different category than the Indiana shareholder in the Connecticut case. In Miller v. Hooe, 2 Cranch, C. C. 622, Fed. Cas. No. 9,573, a District of Columbia garnishee answered that he held property of the defendant debtor under his control at his mill in Virginia, just across the line; and the court held that it was not liable to the process. In the case of Pinney v. Nevills, 86 Fed. 97, it was decided by the circuit court of Massachusetts, upon the authorities cited, that shares of stock in a foreign corporation are not subject to attachment under the statutes of Massachusetts. Mr. Circuit Judge Colt says: "The general rule of law is that shares of stock in a foreign corporation, owned by nonresidents, are not the subject of attachment." I must confess that there is diffiCUlty in dealing with the logical bearing of the fact that a large part of the corporate property is in Ohio, and that, if this corporation is amenable to suit in Ohio by general process, which is notice to it for all purposes of process, and may be garnished as to things in its hands and under its control as domestic corporations may be, notice about its shares delivered in Ohio is quite as effectual qua notice as if delivered in Michigan, for the excitation of its own action in the premises; that, after such notice, it may do practically, as to those shares, either by way of notice to its shareholder or by way of its dealing with them, anything it might do if the same notice were lodged across the line, and that there is a good deal of barren technicality about the situs of such property, and its shifting from one place, to another, as may be convenient for the uses that may happen to be wanted for a situs for it. Yet I am convinced that the soundest principles of public policy, private justice, and international or interstate comity and obligation require that shares of stock shall be subjected, in invitum, as against an owner not served with process personally, only in the state which created the stock, and regulates its incidents by its own laws, and has the sole right to declare how and under what circumstances it shall be liable to judicial process operating alone upon the stock, and not upon the owner. If I am wrong about this ruling, and it puts unauthorized restrictions upon the statutes of Ohio, it is satisfactory to know that a mandamus will compel this court to take the jurisdiction. Motion granted.
WINTERS v. COWEN et at. (Circuit Court, N. D. Ohio, W. D. October 10, 1898.)
No. 1,418.
.A. railroad company which authorizes another company to issue and sell mileage tickets good over its road makes the latter company its agent, and cannot repudiate the contract so made with a passenger who in good faith buys a ticket from such agent.
Under the decisions of the Ohio courts, where punitive or exemplary damages are allowable, the jury may take into consideration the fair and reasonable expeuses to which the plaintiff has been subjected in the vindication of his rights by lltigation. Where the general passenger agent of defendant railroad company deliberately repudiated a large number of mileage tickets which had been issued and sold to the public by his authority, and, in consequence of his orders, plaintiff, who had purchased one of such tickets in good faith, was ejected from a train, such a reckless disregard of the duties of the defendant and the rights of its ticket holders, by one of its controlling officers, constituted implied malice, and warranted the imposition of exemplary damages.
On Motion for New Trial. Motter & McKenzie and James M. Brown, for plaintiff. J. H. Collins, for defendants. HAMMOND, J. Briefly, the facts are that the defendants and the Cincinnati, Jackson & Mackinaw Company had an interchangeable mileage book arrangement, and, by a ticket agent at Cincinnati, sold one of the books to the plaintiff. It was repudiated by the defendants, and the plaintiff was ejected from their train without violence, indignity, or other injury than that resulting from the inconvenience and delay incident to the occasion, as it appears in the proof. The Mackinaw Company had sent for sale in bulk at wholesale something over 600 of these books to the agent in Cincinnati. Instead of selling for cash, as he was expected to do, he trusted the broker, who did not pay, and, failing to recover them, the Mackinaw Oompany instructed all its conductors to outlaw every book presented within the designated numbers covering the 600 books. It also demanded of the defendants that they should reject, according to a list of the numbers, each of these 600 outlawed books; but the defendants, declining to take this burden, repudiated its contract by refusing to receive any book whatever issued by the Mackinaw Company, and so instructed their conductors. The plaintiff's book was not in the outlawed list, having been purchased before the trouble arose. The correspondence between the general passenger agents of these two companies, who were the officials responsible for this ejection of the plaintiff, shows how recklessly they disregarded the rights of the public holding their in· terchangeable mileage books, innocently, and without notice of any trouble in the premises. It was an entirely unjustifiable performance on their part to ignore the right of the plaintiff certainly, and others of the public who had bought books unaffected with the alleged in-


text:
Why does part-time work in Australia play such an important role in the life of an international student? It will not just complement the living and study experience, but also help in gaining relevant work experience in desired areas of interest, which will come to be of great use for full time employment- on completion of the course.
Five Simple Steps
We present you with five simple steps for you to land that perfect part-time job that you need while you study in Australia.
Step 1: Know Your Facts!
Before you begin your first ever part-time job hunt in Oz, there are a few rules and conditions you must get yourself to know. Here they are!
1. Eligible or Not?
For those students who've obtained their students after 26, April 2008, the Australian Government offers permission to work automatically in their visas. Dependent family members of the student may also work part time. There is however, a restriction on the number of hours. You can work up to 40 hours per fortnight as soon as the course you've enrolled for has begun and in case of vacation, you may work as many hours as you can possible put in.
2. Rules & Conditions:
- In case the course you've enrolled for does not have work as part of its course, then you get 40 hour per fortnight.
- If you're doing any form of voluntary or un-paid job, then this will not be included within the 40 hour per fortnight slot.
- If you have begun your masters by research or your doctorate, then you will be given unlimited rights to work. During any preliminary course undertaken in the postgraduate research sector again will qualify you for 20 hours per fortnight.
3. In Session?
Your course is considered to be in session for you to begin part-time work during the complete time period of the semesters including the exam periods. Even if you've completed your studies and still have your 'Confirmation of Enrolment' in effect, then the course is still considered to be in session. In case, another course is taken up and points are to be credited to the main course, the main course in still considered to be in session.
Step 2: Learn Your Rights!
For all those working in Australia, inclusive of international students, there are some basic rights they cannot be denied while at work. It's interesting to know that most Australian employers come under the coverage of what is called an "award" which sets minimum conditions and wages for the relevant industry.
Some basic rights are:
- The minimum wage
- Being dismissed from any job in an unfair manner
- Rest periods and breaks
- A safe and health work environment
Make sure you get to work in the conditions that you are supposed to!
Step 3: Let's get down to brass tacks!
How do you actually search for job opportunities? There are many ways, needless to point out, but here are a few that you may want to know:
- Online job sites and the age-old way of looking up newspapers as well
- You may want to take note that some uni's put up announcements on their job-notice boards in campus or online.
- Register yourself at a recruitment company; it will help you find short-term work if you haven't been successful in your search.
Step 4: Look In the Right Places!
If you have a clear idea of where and what to look out for, it sure does make one world of a difference. The land down under has numerous industries that offer part time work opportunities; here are a few to get you started:
- The Hospitality Industry (Includes bars, restaurants, and cafes)
- The Retail Industry ( Includes clothes stores, department stores, and supermarkets)
- The Agricultural Industry ( Includes fruit picking and farming)
- The Tourism Industry (Includes motels and hotels)
- Administration Jobs
- Tutoring Jobs
- Telemarketing and Sales Jobs
In case you have any prior experience, you may be able to pursue part time work in your own area or field.
Step 5: Prerequisites
Last but not least, the most important prerequisites to finding a part-time job in Australia or anywhere in the world for that matter:
- English Proficiency Skills - Having a good command of the English language is a basic-must and you must be able to communicate with ease.
- Make Contacts - Socialise well not just with you won nationality students but with locals as well and create a good network.
- Exude Confidence - Put yourself in the employer's shoes; given the kind of competition you will be up against for any job roles, be the kind of confident and outstanding candidate you would employ if you were hiring, while being interviewed.
All that being said, overall this is how the scene is going to be in Australia for an international student. Make the most of the situation and the allotted time slot to help ease your financial burden as much as possible.
Image Credit: www.germanystudentscommunity.com

subset: commoncrawl


text:
To enhance the quality of life of the citizens of Mumbai and improve the economic and social fabric of the city. In short, to transform Mumbai / Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) into a world-class city, one of the best places in which to live and do business in.
Mumbai First is an initiative to make the city a better place to live, work and invest in. It aims to serve the city with the best that private business can offer. It will achieve this by addressing the problems of today and the opportunities of tomorrow, through partnerships with government, business and civil society.
To promote and support policy initiative for the betterment of Mumbai and welfare of its inhabitants.
To sponsor, promote, support or provide financial assistance to the programmes and initiatives for the general welfare of the residents of Mumbai or to make Mumbai city a better place to live, work or visit.
To organize, sponsor, promote, establish or conduct social, socio-economic or statistical research in any way or by any means in respect of the City of Mumbai and its surrounding areas.
To canalize international knowledge and expertise in the above referred fields of work and to adopt them for the use in the city of Mumbai and its adjoining areas.
To coordinate with Central and State Government, Municipal Corporation, other government and non-government agencies in respect of public welfare programmes, policy initiatives and research for the City of Mumbai and its residents.
To mobilize public support and establish network of Mumbai's residents and organisations with the relevant goals to further the cause of City's improvement. To organise, sponsor, promote or conduct workshops, seminars, studies, conferences, on the relevant topics and do all such acts for achieving the above objectives.
To disseminate knowledge, provide training in the aforesaid fields; maintain schools, colleges, educational institutions, research establishment, libraries, museum, auditoriums, studios, and other facilities in the City of Mumbai.
To develop, promote or acquire knowhow, scientific knowledge, benefits of research or other rights and to promote exploitation therein such a manner and on such terms as may be found fit for the general welfare of Mumbai city and its inhabitants


text: This photo was taken at my brother's wedding on November 9th 2015. I kept telling Stephen that I wanted him to request a song for us to dance to {slow dance because Stephen and I both hate dancing that doesn't involve two people holding onto each other and swaying back and forth}. He wouldn't do it. He had let me know that he was too nervous to dance with me in a room filled with people. Later in the evening we had to run back to my parents house to check on my dog. Before we got in the car Stephen told me to hang on one second. He sat in his car for a few minutes by himself and then got out. "Gravity" by Sara Bareilles started playing and he took my hand and we danced. In an empty parking lot we shared our first dance. That was one of the most romantic things Stephen has ever done for me.


text:
- Bio
- 2014 Press Clip Book
- Photos: (View//Download)
Afrolicious Announces New Album
California Dreaming Remixed Out Now + Nationwide Tour Dates
Afrolicious, the live-electronic outfit from San Francisco, has assembled some of the finest DJs and producers from around the world to remix their debut album. California Dreaming Remixed is set to be released on June 17th and features remixes from Jamaican dub legend Scientist, Rob Garza from Thievery Corporation, Peruvian electronic live hybrid Novalima, Brazilian nu-disco producer Trotter, Australia's Omegaman, Miami's Stereo 77 and the Bay Area's DJ Smash, J Boogie, Izzy Wise and Antonio Guedes.
"The great thing about this record is all the people who contributed came to the project organically," says producer and Afrolicious band leader Pleasuremaker. He adds, "I was DJing a show in San Francisco and Scientist came up to me after my set and wanted to know who the vocalist was on our song "Crazy." He told me it reminded him of the late Jamaican vocalist Junior Delgado who was one of his frequent collaborators. He offered to do a remix on the spot and I was humbled to say the least and took him up on his offer." Other collaborations developed through the network of musicians Afrolicious has worked with including Thievery Corporation's co-founder Rob Garza, who first took notice of Afrolicious over three years ago and signed them to his ESL record label. The record covers lots of ground, from Afro-House to dubbed-out disco and is united by beats throughout that will not disappoint dancers and music connoisseurs.
1. Crazy (Scientist Remix)
2. Pleasure Power (DJ Smash Disco Remix)
3. Pleasure Time (Novalima Remix)
4. Give it All Up (Rob Garza Remix)
5. Never Let No One (Trotter Remix)
6. Revolution (Omegaman Remix)
7. California Dreaming (Izzy Wise and Antonio Guedes Remix)
8. Do What You Got to Do (Lucio K Remix)
9. Horizons (Stereo 77 Remix)
10. Do What You Got to Do (Angel Funke Remix)
11. Crazy (J Boogie Remix)


text:
Good Morning,
Futures are up this morning, bonds are down.
AIG is reportedly working on a plan that would break the company up and to sell assets, but evidently that plan is running into problems this morning. Still, the stock rose a lot in percentage terms last night. At this point I would have to assume that any attempt to do break the company up would be yet another company playing the shell game to hide good assets in one company and to push the crap off to be abandoned later. The shell game is completely illegal and yet our government has not stepped in to stop the nonsense at all, and in fact have been promoting and sponsoring it. This type of activity is reprehensible; it deprives creditors and employees from getting to the good assets for any type of recourse. This is why we have bankruptcy laws so that supposedly an adult can get in and distribute what's left. Frankly, this should make Americans furious as we have pumped billions into AIG. Is there anyone looking after our interests? If so, they better get on it.
Let's run down the rest of the headlines, I'll post an employment update later:
• Jobless claims jump to 26 year high, continuing claims rise to another record, first time ever above 5 million. 667,000 filed last week, economists were predicting a drop to 625,000.
• GM lost 9.6 billion unbelievable dollars in the 4th quarter… did I mention unbelievable?
• Obama's budget sees $1.75 trillion deficit for this year. Not that I like the GDP number, but it's 12.3%. Here's a better comparison… Total tax receipts last year totaled $2.7 trillion… that puts the $1.75 trillion at 65% of income!! And that's non-GAAP accounting, not including future liabilities! Oh, there's $750 billion in there to help the banks… who wrote that budget? A banker? YES! Who do you think is giving Obama all this wonderful economic advice? WAKE UP AMERICA!
• Oh, Citi is close to announcing a deal w/.gov… again. I can't wait. It's not nationalizing. Oh yeah, we'll MAKE money on that deal.
• Durable goods orders dropped 5.2%, twice as much as expected. This was the sixth consecutive month of declines.
New home sales data comes out soon.
Right now I show us on the edge of the triangle, just beneath yesterday's high, and just outside of the down channel. I will respect a break of the triangle as it would be the second time if it occurs.
There was a small change in the McClelland Oscillator yesterday which means a large movement in price should come today or tomorrow, direction not indicated by that reading.
The stochastic oscillators are near overbought on the 30 and 60 minute timeframes providing room to move higher, but there's much more room lower.
Although I have the DOW and S&P peaking out of the top of the triangle now, the RUT, NDX, and Transports are still well inside. Bonds are down again…
Have a good day,
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Morning Update/ Market Thread 2/26
Posted byAmy Jamison at5:55 AM


text:
Sabres edge Red Wings for first home victoryby Joe Yerdon
BUFFALO -- Tyler Ennis and Zemgus Girgensons scored in the shootout Sunday to give the Buffalo Sabres a 3-2 win against the Detroit Red Wings at First Niagara Center.
"You hate losing more than you love winning. Winning's awesome," Girgensons said. "It's a different feeling. It feels good. I just hope we can keep going and improve."
Ennis and Girgensons helped the Sabres win at home for the first time this season. Goalie Michal Neuvirth made 36 saves through 65 minutes and stopped two of three shots in the shootout for Buffalo. The Sabres are 2-2-1 in the past five games despite scoring six goals over that span.
"We worked and they took it to us a little bit in the beginning of the third period and I thought we fought back and they went ahead 2-1, we fought back and tied it up which is a great sign," Sabres coach Ted Nolan said. "We bent a little bit today but we didn't break and [it's] the first time I think we've come from behind to get a victory."
The win came in the first of a four-game homestand for the Sabres.
"We've got a little bit of a home stretch here," forward Chris Stewart said. "We've got a chance to put together four or five games at home and a couple wins and some Eastern Conference and divisional opponents coming in too. So I think we've just got to build on it. We had a rough October and we weathered the storm and we're going to learn a lot more about what this team's about in November."
Stewart tied the game 2-2 at 13:08 of the third period when he scored his first goal of the season. Stewart snapped a one-timer off a pass from Ennis that was initially stopped by Jimmy Howard (19 saves), but it bounced off Red Wings defenseman Brendan Smith and crossed the goal line.
"I was coming from the bench and we kind of made eye contact and he put it right on my stick," Stewart said. "I got it off pretty heavy. I almost thought about head-butting it in."
The Red Wings had a potential game-winning goal by Henrik Zetterberg waved off with 2:32 left in overtime when officials ruled Johan Franzen interfered with Neuvirth in the crease. Franzen played for the first time since Oct. 17 after he missed six games because of a groin injury.
"I was talking to the ref a couple times during the game and he said, he told me, 'I know he's standing in the crease so whenever they're going to score a goal I'm going to disallow it,'" Neuvirth said. "I was glad he actually did it."
The Red Wings did not argue the call.
"We were in the crease. Don't be in the crease," Red Wings coach Mike Babcock said. "It was a disallowed goal."
The Red Wings outshot the Sabres 4-0 in overtime, but were unable to put one legally past Neuvirth. The Sabres took advantage of the added opportunity in the shootout.
"We had a power play in the overtime. We have to score one of those," Detroit forward Tomas Tatar said. "Unfortunately we didn't do that. And a shootout is 50-50, they scored more goals than we did, and they won the game."
Pavel Datsyuk scored 4:27 into the third period to give the Red Wings a 2-1 lead. Datsyuk's goal came when he took a pass from Justin Abdelkader, got in behind the Sabres defense and beat Neuvirth over his right shoulder into the top corner of the net for his fifth goal of the season.
"He's playing well and it's fun to play with him," Red Wings captain Henrik Zetterberg said. "He creates a lot of chances and he created a lot of chances for other people. When he got his chance, he scored. That's what's special about him."
Datsyuk extended his goal-scoring streak to four games. His two points gave him eight over the same span.
"Pavel is a magic man," Tatar said. "He's playing really well and I think everybody knows it. Everybody has to be aware of him. His plays are really good. … He gave us a chance to win the game."
But Datsyuk's goal also provided the Sabres with a wake-up call.
"I think in a 1-1 game we were kind of back on heels and when Datsyuk scored that goal, I think we got back on our toes and we played with nothing to lose," Stewart said. "We got pucks in, we started forechecking hard and winning 1-on-1 battles and we got rewarded."
Sabres forward Brian Flynn opened the scoring 6:55 into the second period with his first goal of the season. Flynn chipped in a rebound of a Girgensons wraparound attempt over Howard. The goal was Flynn's first since Feb. 28, 2014, a span of 25 games.
Tatar tied the game 1-1 with his third goal of the season at 12:55 of the second. The Red Wings kept the Sabres defense pinned in their end and Tatar sent a wrist shot from outside the faceoff circle past Neuvirth.
"We want to win it in regulation, that's the whole thing," Smith said. "We should've put more points on the board."


text:
Last week Sweden officially "recognized" Palestine as though it were an existing state imbued with all the accouterments of a genuine nation. That is, it was a nation invisible on any standard map except the ones to be found in Palestinian school books. This was as much an exercise in fantasy as recognizing the Wizarding World of J.K. Rowling as a real, authentic state with which to exchange ambassadors and diplomatic immunities. The "recognition" is fundamentally an endorsement of Hamas's genocidal agenda. Daniel Greenfield remarked about this delusional cretinism in his October 30th FrontPage article, "Sweden Recognizes Unelected Government of Bankrupt Terror State That Doesn't Control its Own Territory":
…Sweden didn't recognize an elected government. It recognized the leadership of a terrorist group…..
Not only is it unelected and not in control of its own territory, but it's funded by foreign interests. If it had to function as a state, it would die tomorrow. Not only doesn't it have the infrastructure, but it doesn't even have the economy.
…Sweden recognized the unelected government of a bankrupt terror state that can't function as a state or a government because… that's how much it's new leftist leaders hate Israel and Jews. There's no rational reason for extending state recognition to an entity that fails the test of functioning as a state at every level from the economy to elections to simple territorial control.
But, then, Sweden was not setting a precedent in acting on its own fantasies. In a nearly analogous exercise in leftist ideological incontinence was President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the U.S. recognizing the Soviet Union as a legitimate government in 1933. Josef Stalin and his terror leadership at the top of the Soviet machine controlled Russian and satellite territories, but their economy was anemic and failing. Read Walter Duranty's white-washing New York Times story of November 17th of the event here. One certainly couldn't accuse him of "Communophobia." Duranty was a "journalist" like I am a nuclear physicist or beautician.
The recently published The Days Trilogy: Expanded Edition of H.L. Mencken's memoirs contains a lengthy and illuminating section about the journalist's visit to Palestine, then under the British Mandate, in 1934. In Chapter XIX, "Pilgrimage" (pp. 578-580), he records the contrasting differences between Jewish lands and Arab lands. Not much has changed since Mencken's visit, at least in terms of Muslim character.
These [Jewish] colonies interested me greatly, if only because of the startling contrast they presented to the adjacent Arab farms. The Arabs of the Holy Land, like those of the other Mediterranean countries, are probably the dirtiest, orneriest and most shiftless people who regularly make the first pages of the world's press. To find a match for them one must resort to the oakies now translated from Oklahoma to suffering California, or to the half-simian hillbillies of the Appalachian chain. Though they have been in contact with civilization for centuries, and are credited by many fantoddish professors with having introduced it to Europe, they still plow their miserable fields with the tool of Abraham, to wit, a bent stick. In the morning, as Fellman [A.L. Fellman, a guide from the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem Mencken befriended] and I spun up the highroad to the north, I saw them going to work, each with his preposterous plow over his back, and in the evening, as we went westward across Galilee, I saw them returning home in the same way. Their draft animals consisted of anything and everything – a milch cow, a camel, a donkey, a wife, a stallion, a boy, an ox, a mule, or some combination thereof.
Never, even in northwestern Arkansas or the high valleys of Tennessee, have I seen more abject and anemic farms. Nine-tenths of them were too poor even to grow weeds: they were simply reverting to the gray dust into which the land of Moab to the eastward has long since fallen. As for the towns in which the Arabs lived, they resembled nothing so much as cemeteries in an advanced state of ruin. The houses were built of fieldstone laid without mortar, and all the roofs were lopsided and full of holes. From these forlorn hovels ragged women peeped at us from behind their greasy veils, and naked children popped out to steal a scared look and then pop back.
Of edible fauna there was scarcely a trace. Now and then I saw a sad cow, transiently reprieved from the plow, and in one village there was a small flock of chickens, but the cows always seemed to be dying of pellagra or beriberi, and the chickens were small, skinny, and mangy.
These Arab villages were scattered all about, but most of them were on hilltops, as if the sites had been chosen for defense. Sweeping down from them into the valleys below were the lands of the immigrant Jews. The contrast was so striking as to be almost melodramatic. It was as if a series of Ozark corn-patches had been lifted out of their native wallows and set down amidst the lush plantations of the Pennsylvania Dutch. On one side of a staggering stone hedge were the bleak, miserable fields of the Arabs, and on the other side were the almost tropical demesnes of the Jews, with long straight rows of green field crops, neat orchards of oranges, lemons, and pomegranates, and frequent wood lots of young but flourishing eucalyptus. Fat cows grazed in the meadows, there were herds of goats eating weeds, and every barnyard swarmed with white leghorn chickens. In place of the bent sticks of the Arabs, the Jews operated gang-plows drawn by tractors, and nearly every colony had a machine shop, a saw-mill, and a cannery.
The contrast between the buildings on the two sides of the hedges was a remarkable as that between the fields. The Arabs, as I have said, lived in squalid huts letting in wind, rain and flying things, and their barns were hardly more than corrals, but the Jews lived in glistening new stucco houses recalling the more delirious suburbs of Los Angeles, and their animals were housed quite as elegantly as themselves. The architecture on display, I should add, caused me to cough sadly behind my hand, for the general effect was genuinely oriental, as indeed it is in Los Angeles. The Jews appeared to be very proud of their habitations, for every time Fellman and I stopped at one and found the householder at home, he insisted on showing us through it, and almost always pointed with swelling emotion to its tiled floors, its screened doors, and its running water in the kitchen.
These Jews, however, appeared to spend but a small part of their time admiring their quarters: virtually all of their waking hours were given to hard labor in the fields. In the larger colonies they did not even come in for meals, but were fed from a lunch-wagon working out of the central kitchen….
Fellman and I dropped in at several schools, and inspected the young inmates. They looked as healthy and happy as the prize babies whose pictures appear in the rotogravure advertisements of the milk companies…
The focus on Jerusalem and that region today is not on "Arabs" but on fictive "Palestinians," who claim that Israel stole Palestine from them, neglecting to mention that they are basically "refugees" refused admittance by other Arab states in order to create a wedge in the campaign to erase Israel, and that they're now on their second, third, and perhaps even fourth generation of "refugees." Gaza began as a "displaced persons camp" for Arabs, and, if truth be told, it still is one. Its Hamas-ruled population is definably stateless. Also, Gaza and the West Bank have advanced over Mencken's stone huts and pitiful farms and live in conditions measurably better thanks solely to the billions of dollars in foreign aid that have been poured into those sink holes over the decades.
It should be noted that Western foreign aid partly fuels the Muslim invasion of Western nations. Muslims seem to want to escape the culture of corrupt, skimming-off-the-top governments which foreign aid sustains, but yet bring with them the same creed of submission to the corruption and Allah that they left behind. All nations that receive Western foreign aid, for all practical purposes, are on international welfare. Like our own welfare class in this country, they will never learn to become independent, responsible, and self-sustaining for as long as they are on welfare, which, concerning our own domestic welfare class, aside from direct and indirect taxation such as inflation, is merely another method of wealth distribution to beneficiaries across the seas.
Mencken could be brutally wry, so much so that you could practically hear the cat scream in protest as he suspended it by its tail for the dogs of satire to have at it. He was, as a rule, incorrigibly sardonic when discussing any religion. When he made some less than flattering remarks about Jews, he was accused of being anti-Semitic. He told a newspaper, "I don't like religious Jews. I don't like religious Catholics and Protestants" (p. 806). This was a natural, non-discriminatory form of cat-baiting for a man who disliked religion qua religion, organized or not. He had no respect for deities or for anyone who worshipped one without reservation or hesitation or critical faculty. One can only imagine what he would write about Muslims. I don't think it would be less acerbic than Winston Churchill's estimate of them. HIs 1922 article, "Where is the Graveyard of Dead Gods?" certainly exemplifies that dispassionate attitude.
"The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. Its evil effects must be plain enough to everyone. All it accomplishes is (a) to throw a veil of sanctity about ideas that violate every intellectual decency, and (b) to make every theologian a sort of chartered libertine." (The American Mercury, March 1930)
Yet, whether Mencken was a certified atheist, or an agnostic or a skeptic is an elusive determination I have never been able to resolve to my satisfaction. In my column, "Mencken, Islam, and Political Correctness" of January 2010," I refer to him as an agnostic. He was married in an Episcopal church (p. 806), but that might have been just a courtesy to his wife.
Mencken, a brittle and unforgiving curmudgeon on virtually every subject he tackled, penned a 1938 newspaper column urging German Jewish refugees be allowed to come to the U.S. to escape the Nazis, "Help for the Jews" (P. 808). When he visited Havana, Cuba, in April 1941, before the attack on Pearl Harbor, he helped some Jews go to the U.S (p. 809). He wrote:
There is only one way to help the fugitives, and that is to find places for them in a country in which they can really live. Why shouldn't the United States take in a couple hundred thousand of them, or even all of them? ("Help for the Jews," 1938, in The Impossible H.L. Mencken, Anchor Books, 1991).
This was at a time when the U.S adopted the official and disgraceful policy of refusing Jews asylum. See the saga and tragedy of the S.S. St. Louis here.
Mencken certainly was a man of mixed premises. He very likely rued the day when he published a column in The Atlantic in November 1914, "The Mailed Fist and Its Prophet," which, on one hand, extolled the "positive" influence of Friedrich Nietzsche, "heretic, rhapsodist, and prophet of the superman," had on Germany and German culture in the 19th century, but on the other hand underscored the role of ideas in Western civilization. While he was an isolationist in regards to World War II, he wound up calling the Nazis "ignorant thugs." He was a registered Democrat and initially was enthusiastic about FDR, but as the realities of Roosevelt's policies became apparent, ruthlessly attacked him and FDR's "Brain Trust."
At one point in his career, Mencken was mistakenly identified as Jewish in some kind of who's-who listing. When he learned about this, he said he didn't much mind. His best friends were Jewish and through years of wear and tear he was pretty nearly circumcised.
Seventy years have passed since Mencken's tour of Palestine. The only thing that has changed since his drive with A.S. Fellman about the Arabs is the extent and cost of the window-dressing that disguises the Muslim mentality. And the only thing that has changed about the Jews is their numbers in that region and a determination to survive and live as life should be lived.
.ח'ם חיים במלואם
And Mencken certainly did.
*The Days Trilogy: Expanded Edition, ed. Marion Elizabeth Rodgers. New York: Library of America , 2014. 872 pp.


text:
Welcome to the Zoylner Family page at Surname Finder, a service of Genealogy Today. Our editors have compiled this checklist of genealogical resources, combining links to commercial databases along with user-contributed information and web sites for the Zoylner surname. As additional sources for vital records, original documents, vintage photographs and surname-based DNA projects are discovered, this page is updated to offer the best list for researching Zoylner ancestry. Share this page on Twitter!
Completed by on
The Zoylner Family Tree
It is important to remember that there is no single Zoylner family tree, as last names were assigned to people for various reasons. Have you struck a Zoylner brick wall? Read "Documenting Genealogical Research" for some helpful advice.
Best Tree Collections for Discovering Zoylner Ancestors
Zoylner Genealogy
Many things can go wrong when a record collection is indexed. If you're having diffculty finding Zoylner ancestors in a particular database at one site, try finding it on another and compare the results. If you want to know When were Zoylner births first recorded in the United States?, then read this frequently asked question.
Top Five Genealogy Databases to Search for Zoylner
Vital records are essential for family history research because they were typically created at or near the time of the event, making the record more reliable. There are currently matching Zoylner records at Ancestry.com! Start exploring this online Zoylner family history resource today.
Death Records
Military Records
Origins of the Zoylner Surname
There are no clear, concise answers to why or how one of your Zoylner ancestors took on the surname. It may have been based on their occupation or a distinguising physical trait. Keep in mind that it was not unusual for a last name to be altered as an ancestor entered a new country.
Zoylner DNA Projects
While DNA testing cannot conclusively tell you if two Zoylner ancestors were related, it can easily prove if they weren't. Be sure you understand what types of research issues each different DNA test can address before you spend any money. If you're not sure how DNA testing could aid your Zoylner research, read "When do you use DNA?".
Zoylner Family History
For most people, just about every aspect of their life has been influenced in some way by their ancestors. Look beyond the names and dates to understand how and why your Zoylner ancestors lived and strived to make a better life for their descendants. Our team of seasoned experts are here to help you learn about different aspects of genealogy. Reading "The Role Of History In Genealogical Research" may help you think of some different tactics to compiling your Zoylner family history.
Photo Collections
Networking with Zoylner Researchers
When you've come up against a brick wall in your genealogy research, posting a message board query can help; one of the biggest benefits is that message board queries are accessed through search engines, which means even someone not specifically engaged in genealogy but interested in your subject may find your query and bring valuable new information to the table -- it happens! The article "The Art of Posting Queries" provides some valuable tips for posting successful Zoylner queries.
You may also want to consider posting a query to the Community Message Boards at Genealogy Today to get assistance from other researchers on your most elusive Zoylner ancestors.
Zoylner Achievements & Celebrities
Web Sites & Blogs with Zoylner Research
If you are having difficulty locating records for the last name of Zoylner, contact the folks at ProGenealogists for a free research estimate. You may also find it helpful to read, "When, Why and How to Hire a Professional Genealogist."
RootsWeb search of US Naturalization Records
RootsWeb search of Obituary Daily Times
RootsWeb search of Social Security Death Index
To recommend your web site/blog for inclusion on this page, please submit a link to the user-contributed directory at Genealogy Today. Your web page may appear once its content has been reviewed by our editors.
Upcoming Zoylner Family Reunions
Notifying everyone in advance to bring old photos and documents can bring big rewards, making a special place at the reunion (maybe even a special Zoylner booth) where people can come at their leisure to sit, look and chat; in addition to information and clues that might be written on the back of a photo, every photograph has a story and serves as an excellent stimulus to recall -- people might comment not only on the people in the photo, but also on what's in the background, or they might have information around where the photo was taken or the event -- just be sure to have someone there to capture new information. The article "A Great Way to Unite a Newly-Found Family" may provide you with tips for hosting a successful Zoylner reunion.
Surname Finder, The Zoylner Genealogy and Family Tree Page [on-line resource], New Providence, NJ, USA: Genealogy Today LLC, 2019.


text:
Saturday, 20 June 2015
Days of the Week/Months of the Year
Posted by Classroom Treasures at 17:32
Labels: Freebie, Māori Resources, Printable
3 comments:
- Zoe Fryer6 July 2016 at 15:49
Love these word sheetsReplyDelete
Hi there,ReplyDelete
firstly, your resources are lovely. Thanks for making them available to others.
I had a pinterest image pop up which was for a maori feeling chart, but I can't find it anywhere on your blog. Are you able to let me know where I can access it from?Replies
Two appologies Robyn,Delete
Sorry to reply so late!
Number 2 - the resource was made with images I was given as a hard copy and the owner was unknown. I have since found where it came from and I am unwilling to take any risks associated with copyright so have withdrawn it from the blog. Fingers crossed that it doesn't cause me issues at any point. Lesson learnt!
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Alice 3 Action Functions
How do I get functions from the Methods Panel to the Code Editor when writing a new method?
I am going through the book Alice 3 in Action and attempting to create a method from instructions on pages 63-64. I am unable to drag and drop functions from the Methods Panel to the Code Editor to make my Ogre move its arm.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 AM.
Copyright ©2019, Carnegie Mellon University
Alice 2.x © 1999-2012, Alice 3.x © 2008-2012, Carnegie Mellon University. All rights reserved.


text:
By Sgt. 1st Class Mark BellApril 22, 2009
DISNEY WORLD, Fla. - "My daddy is a hero."
Those simple words of bright-eyed, eight-year-old Jessy Hill described her father as she held his neck after celebrating a dream-come-true Disney moment.
Jessy and her 11-year-old brother, Austin, got the opportunity of a lifetime Aca,!" to be grand marshals of one of the most famous parades known to anyone who has ever been a fan of Mickey Mouse.
Sgt. James Hill, an Army Reserve Soldier who recently returned from his second deployment to Iraq, and his wife, Keri, were attending an Army Reserve Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Workshop when the Hill family was randomly selected to be honored during the weekend parade.
Aca,!A"I couldnAca,!a,,ct think of a better way to celebrate what they endured during my deployment,Aca,!A? he said about his children. Aca,!A"Like other military families, our deployments are not just about the Soldier. It also affects our children in more ways than one may see and, hopefully, will not go unnoticed.Aca,!A?
Thousands of onlookers packed sidewalks, street corners and small patches of green grass as the thumping, tap-your-feet beat of Aca,!A"Celebrate a Dream Come TrueAca,!A? parade music engulfed the young and old during the daily parade here.
It was that time of day, where people from different cultures and ideals stood together to celebrate their own dreams and forget their worries in a way only Disney could deliver -- a moving musical to celebrate dreams with an extra swirl of special recognition to all U.S. military families.
As the announcer broadcast an acknowledgment of the Month of the Military Child and the Hill Family to the entire Magical Kingdom, strangers from all over the world stood and began clapping. Sporadic chants of Aca,!A"thank youAca,!A? and Aca,!A"we love youAca,!A? could be easily heard over the pounding music.
For one memorable hour, Austin and Jessy Hill were not only representing Army Reserve children, but every U.S. military child around the world.
Aca,!A"TheyAca,!a,,cve earned it,Aca,!A? Keri Hill said about her children who have gone through two recent deployments. Aca,!A"TheyAca,!a,,cve gone a whole year with just me and without their father. They need to have a lot of fun, and thatAca,!a,,cs what we are doing here today.Aca,!A?
She said military children experience deployments differently than adults.
Aca,!A"They are without a parent and donAca,!a,,ct exactly understand what the deployment is about,Aca,!A? Keri Hill said. Aca,!A"They rely on us, as parents, to explain why their mom or dad is leaving for an extended period of time. I think it impacts them harder than it does us.Aca,!A?
After the non-stop waving and with a big smile etched on his face, Austin Hill said the short ride was an amazing experience he will never forget. He couldnAca,!a,,ct wait to return to his home in Canton, N.C., to tell his family and friends about his magical experience.
Aca,!A"I enjoyed seeing the crowdAca,!a,,cs faces,Aca,!A? he said. Aca,!A"There are people out there that really do care about Soldiers like my dad. It really makes me feel good about what he does as he serves our country with other Soldiers in Iraq.Aca,!A?
Austin also quickly echoed his sisterAca,!a,,cs view and said his father went to do something for his country Aca,!" something most youth his age never experience.
Aca,!A"He did the right thing,Aca,!A? he said about his father going to Iraq. Aca,!A"HeAca,!a,,cs definitely my hero, too.Aca,!A?
When asked about one good thing about the deployment, Austin laughed and said, Aca,!A"We had one less mouth to feed and more food for me.Aca,!A?
The witty young Carolinian also had some advice for other youngsters whose parents deploy overseas.
Aca,!A"It will be nothing,Aca,!A? he said hugging his father. Aca,!A"It will be over in a while, and they will be home soon.Aca,!A?
Both James and Keri Hill said communication was the key ingredient for their successful deployment away from home.
Aca,!A"I think you have to be honest and explain what is happening but not make it scary,Aca,!A? she said about discussing deployment with children. Aca,!A"We tried to make the most of it.Aca,!A?
From trips to the local movie theatre to late nights on the webcam with James, Keri Hill said listening to their children made a world of difference.
Aca,!A"We canAca,!a,,ct replace dad but we did our best in his absence,Aca,!A? she said. Aca,!A"They need to know that we care enough and the community cares enough to honor them. They get to come here and not worry about anything and most importantly, dad made it back home.Aca,!A?
After experiencing the musical parade from the helm, Keri Hill was amazed by the support for the military family.
Aca,!A"This would bring a tear to anyoneAca,!a,,cs eye to experience what my family just went through,Aca,!A? she said.
As the Hill family disappeared into the sea of people from around the world and the ropes holding back the parade onlookers were taken away, everything seemed to go back to normal Aca,!" a typical family enjoying the magical moments of spending time together in a place where dreams did come true for two military children.
Aca,!A"Our deployments are never about my absence, but rather about our children,Aca,!A? James Hill said. Aca,!A"They are the true American heroes, like so many other families who are separated as their mothers or fathers serve our country and protect the ideals we instill in our children.Aca,!A?


text:
AUSTELL, Ga. -- A metro Atlanta bus driver is being credited saving several kids after a fiery accident, Friday afternoon.
According to Douglas County Schools Transportation Director Andy Micacchione, the accident happened near the intersection of Maxham and Old Alabama roads in Cobb County when a pickup truck slammed into a Douglas County bus after running a red light.
The truck soon caught fire and those flames quickly spread to the bus which still had students inside, Micacchione said.
The driver, Shuronda Crawford-Richardson, quickly got the three students off the bus and all escaped injury, later being reunited with their parents. The bus driver, who's been with Douglas County for seven years, said her students are "her babies" and their safety will forever be her top priority.
Now Crawford-Richardson is being hailed as a hero by the school system. Micacchione said the school's transportation department has already decided to honor her for her act of courage and will nominate her for a statewide award.
On Monday, Crawford-Richardson will speak for the first time about her quick actions to save her students.


text:
The founders of the ice cream company Ben & Jerry's have long proven themselves to be involved in political and social issues and the brand's newest flavor and accompanying commercial both reflect that fact.
The commercial that comes with the brand's 'One Sweet World' ice cream flavor features animated fruits that are clearly replicating the course of the U.S. presidential election. The commercial features angry animated lemons that are following a lemon leader that resembles Donald Trump, who offers divisive rhetoric that excludes the other fruit and food items in the town. Eventually, the commercial's protagonist is seen photographed enjoying some music with a lemon and the town comes to realize that multiple flavors are what makes it special. The end of the commercial features the quote "We don't live in a one flavor world," – referencing both the ice cream and the rhetoric of Donald Trump.
The Ben & Jerry's brand and the founders behind it have been vocal throughout the election campaign that transcending racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and bigotry is what should be a priority for America and people around the world – and this campaign embodies this idea in a way that is highly palatable.
Political Ice Cream Campaigns
More Stats +/-
Story-Telling Ice Creams
Potato-Inspired Ice Cream Cones
Thai Pumpkin Ice Creams
Chilled Goat Cheese Desserts
Soda-Flavored Milkshakes
Ben & Jerry's New Flavor is Being Promoted with a Hopeful Message
- By: Mishal OmarNov 8, 2016
References: benjerry & adsoftheworld
References: benjerry & adsoftheworld