text:
Brief Bank # B-956 (Re: F 8.45a [Involuntary Manslaughter Causal Requirement (PC 192(b))].)
CAVEAT: The file below was not prepared by FORECITE. FORECITE has not made any attempt to review or edit this material and is not responsible for its content or format. FORECITE cannot guarantee the information is complete, accurate or up-to-date. You are advised to conduct your own independent, comprehensive research on all issues addressed in the material below.
NOTE: The text of the footnotes appear at the end of the document.
Date of Brief: October 2, 2002
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff and Respondent, No. A000000
Defendant and Appellant.
______________________________________/
APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF
On Appeal From The Judgment Of The Superior Court
State Of California, County Of Alameda
The Honorable Julie Conger
Judge of the Superior Court
AJ KUTCHINS
State Bar No. 102322
Berkeley, California 94705
Attorney for Appellant
LEGAL ARGUMENT
The Trial Court Deprived Appellant Of Due Process
And A Fair Trial When It First Failed, And Then Refused,
To Instruct The Jury On The Essential Elements
Of The Crime Of Involuntary Manslaughter
At least two things are clear in the massive jumble of evidence and argument that constitutes the trial record in this case: Appellant JOHN DOE applied unwelcome force to the person of the victim, Mr. S, and Mr. S died not long afterward. Accordingly, the jurors had little difficulty concluding that Appellant had committed a battery, which (under the instructions they received) provided the predicate for a verdict of involuntary manslaughter. What was less clear – indeed, it was the most fiercely contested issue in the trial – was whether Appellant DOE's actions actually caused Mr. S's death. The jurors were manifestly uncertain about the answer, and they twice asked the trial court whether the two things of which they were certain (i.e., that Appellant committed a battery, and that Mr. S died soon after) were sufficient to require that they return an involuntary manslaughter verdict – even if they "d[id]n't believe his actions resulted in the killing …." CT 549.
The obvious legal answer was that the jury should not have convicted JOHN DOE of involuntary manslaughter or any form of homicide unless they had found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that his actions did result in the killing. Unfortunately, the instructions originally given by the trial court did not provide the jurors with that essential legal principle. Rather, the involuntary manslaughter instructions garbled or omitted outright essential elements of that offense, and the instructions as a whole affirmatively misled the jury into believing that it was not necessary for them to find that Appellant's conduct resulted in the unlawful killing in order for them to hold him liable. The prejudice resulting from those erroneous instructions was multiplied whey the trial court responded to the jury's notes by flatly refusing to clarify the matter. As a result of the trial court's failure to make the law clear for the confused jurors, it is virtually certain that JOHN DOE was convicted of a homicide that some jurors did not believe he had caused.
The initial failure to instruct the jury on all of the essential elements of the crime of which they ultimately convicted Appellant deprived him of the fair jury trial guaranteed him under the Sixth Amendment and the right to due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth. United States v. Gaudin (1995) 515 U.S. 506, 509-10. The trial court's subsequent failure to respond fully and accurately to the jury's inquiries violated Penal Code, §1138, and also deprived Appellant of his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be tried by a jury that is adequately informed of the law governing all elements of the offense and thus able to determine each element. People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 97; People v. Giardino (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 454, 465-66; People v. Thompkins (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 244, 250-53. Because each error – and certainly both together – indisputably prejudiced Appellant, he is entitled to a new trial.
B. Background
Although the defendants were charged with murder, the trial court also instructed the jury on the lesser included crimes of involuntary and voluntary manslaughter. The standard involuntary manslaughter instruction provided to the jury, CALJIC 8.45, was as follows:
"Every person who unlawfully kills a human being, without malice aforethought, and without an intent to kill, and without conscious disregard for human life is guilty of the crime of involuntary manslaughter in violation of Penal Code Section 192, subdivision (b).
There is no malice aforethought if the killing occurred in the actual but unreasonable belief in the necessity to defend oneself against imminent peril to life or great bodily injury.
A killing in conscious disregard for human life occurs when a killing results from an intentional act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act is deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for human life.
A killing is unlawful within the meaning of this instruction if it occurred:
1. During the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony which is dangerous to human life under the circumstances of its commission; or
2. In the commission of an act, ordinarily lawful, which involves a high degree of risk of death or great bodily harm, without due caution and circumspection.
An 'unlawful act' not amounting to a felony consists of Battery, a violation of Penal Code sections [sic] 242.
The commission of an unlawful act, without due caution and circumspection, would necessarily be an act that was dangerous to human life in its commission.
In order to prove this crime, each of the following elements must be proved:
One, a human being was killed.
And two, the killing was unlawful."
CT 514 [CALJIC 8.45 (2001 revision)] [emphasis supplied].
The instruction given for voluntary manslaughter had an essentially parallel construction, but with an important difference; it provided, in pertinent part:
"Every person who unlawfully kills another human being without malice aforethought but either with an intent to kill, or in conscious disregard for human life, is guilty of voluntary manslaughter in violation of Penal Code Section 192(a). . . . . .
In order to prove this crime, the following elements must be proved:
1. A human being was killed;
2. The killing was unlawful; and
3. The perpetrator of the killing either intended to kill the alleged victim, or acted in conscious disregard for life; and
4. The perpetrator's conduct resulted in the unlawful killing.
A killing is unlawful, if it was neither justifiable nor excusable."
On the morning of August 3, 2001, the jury's second day of deliberations, they sent out a series of notes. CT 738. Among them was a request for a readback of the testimony of the medical examiner, Dr. Herrmann, focusing on the various theories about what precisely caused the death of the victim. [Footnote 1] As the day progressed, the jurors sent out several substantive requests for clarification of the law. CT 738. The penultimate one read:
"The charge, Battery [CALJIC] 16.140 AND The charge, Involuntary Manslaughter [CALJIC] 8.45
Does the fact that a killing occured [sic] render the charge Involuntary Manslaughter
Does that fact (alone) allow Battery."
CT 547.
The final jury note, apparently sent soon after, was as follows:
"Can or does [CALJIC] 16.140 apply due to the fact a human being was killed & knowing that 3.30 can apply to Battery 16.140? [Footnote 2] Because the belief that a defendant was not involved in the killing, even If I know there was a killing, but, I don't believe his actions resulted in the killing, for only 1 defendant."
CT 549 [strikeouts in original]. [Footnote 3]
To each of these last two notes, the trial court gave the same written response, as follows:
"You must decide the case for each defendant separately. The definition of battery was supplied solely to provide meaning to the language of the involuntary manslaughter instruction. A conviction of battery as to either defendant is not an option.
Julie C."
CT 548, 550.
Before sending those (identical) responses, the trial judge discussed the matter with counsel. RT 2301-03. Although the substance of the discussion appears to have occurred off the record, the court then went on the record to memorialize it. RT 2302. The judge first read the two jury notes, and then recited her response, which she had already composed. Ibid. She then invited counsel for the co-appellant to "put on the record" an additional request, to which he said:
"I would ask that the jury be instructed based on the whole question[:] ['D]oes the fact that a killing occurred render the charge involuntary manslaughter or does that fact alone allow battery?' That should be answered[:] 'A killing by itself without a causal connection does not render the charge involuntary manslaughter and battery ….'"
Ibid. The trial judge cut him off, and the following colloquy ensued:
[The Court]: "I think I have encompassed it by referring to what the voluntary [sic] manslaughter instruction is and they can refer to that."
[Co-appellant's counsel]: "'Does the fact that a killing occurred render the charge involuntary manslaughter,' [–] that should be answered 'no'."
[The Court]: "I don't see it as a question itself, I see it connected to the next clause or does that fact alone allow battery, and I was answering the entire question."
[Counsel for Appellant]: "I have a solution. You could cite them to – which number was it – that one-sentence instruction, 'in order for there to be murder or manslaughter there must be the death of a human being caused by an unlawful act. I think that was …."
[The Court]: "If they keep wondering about it I can do that also."
RT 2303.
The trial court's response was provided to the jurors, and almost immediately afterward they returned verdicts finding co-appellant Mr. W guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and finding Appellant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. [Footnote 4] Ibid.; CT 738.
C. The Involuntary Manslaughter Instruction Did Not Clearly Or Accurately Set Out The Elements Of The Crime
As the United States Supreme Court has reiterated:
"The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that no one will be deprived of liberty without 'due process of law'; and the Sixth, that 'in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.' We have held that these provisions require criminal convictions to rest upon a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt."
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 509-10 [citations omitted]. It follows that "'a jury's verdict cannot stand if the instructions provided the jury do not require it to find each element of the crime under the proper standard of proof.'" People v. Figueroa (1986) 41 Cal.3d 714, 726, quoting, Cabana v. Bullock (1986) 474 U.S. 376, 384-85. In this case, the standard instruction governing the offense of conviction failed to inform the jury of some of the necessary elements of that offense, and as such deprived Appellant of his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial.
The instruction governing the offense of which Appellant was convicted – involuntary manslaughter – purports to list all of the elements of the crime which the jury must find in order to convict ("[i]n order to prove this crime, each of the following elements must be proved:"), and then sets forth just two: "One, a human being was killed. And two, the killing was unlawful." CT 514 [CALJIC 8.45(2001 revision)]. On its face, this supposedly exhaustive list would permit anyone to be convicted of manslaughter anytime someone else was killed "unlawfully." In short, it is obviously not a complete or accurate list of the necessary elements of the crime.
Specifically, the list omits at least two other well-established elements of the crime. First, both the list and the instruction as a whole leave out the requirement of causation – i.e., that the killing was the result of the defendant's conduct – a fundamental element of involuntary manslaughter in this jurisdiction and every other. People v. Penny (1955) 44 Cal.2d 861, 867-68; 1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against the Person, §221, p. 883; see also, United States v. Main (9th Cir. 1997) 113 F.3d 1046, 1049 , and authorities discussed therein. Second, the list itself skips the elemental requirement that the "unlawful act" in question "was dangerous to human life or safety under the circumstances of its commission." People v. Cox (2000) 23 Cal.4th 647, 675; People v. Wells (1996) 12 Cal.4th 979, 986; People v. Stuart (1956) 47 Cal.2d 167, 173. While other language in that same instruction does purport to clarify that element, on examination the language is inaccurate, confusing and ultimately self-negating – in short, no help at all. We address each of these defects in turn.
1. The Omitted Element of Causation
The glaring omission of the element of causation from recent iterations of CALJIC 8.45 has prompted criticism from the most thorough analyst of California jury instructions. See, 1 FORECITE: Latest Developments in Criminal Jury Instructions (3d ed. 2002) F 8.45a, p.657 [suggesting that the omission comprises federal constitutional error]. It is not surprising, however, that the issue has not previously been addressed in a published case. In most cases, the failure to set out causation as a separate element in a list of the elements of involuntary manslaughter would be of little consequence, for the facts would leave no room for doubt that there was some causative link, and other standard instructions regarding causation would in any event fill the gap. In this case, although it was clear that Appellant engaged in an offensive touching of the victim, it was far from clear whether his actions – as opposed to the clearly unlawful conduct of the other defendant, or some other cause – brought about Mr. S death. Moreover, the other instructions that were given the jury generally served only to reinforce the uncertainty and confusion engendered by the absence of causation from the list of elements.
The obvious problem with omitting causation from the list of "elements" (and from the involuntary manslaughter instruction as a whole) is that doing so gives rise to the inference that causation was intentionally excluded because it is not in fact an element of the offense. This is the inference classically referred to in the law as "expressio unius est exclusio alterius." See, People v. Anzalone (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1074, 1078-79. In the instant case, that inference was emphatically underscored by the parallel language of the instruction on voluntary manslaughter which was also before the jury. CT 510 [CALJIC 8.40]. The voluntary manslaughter charge used virtually the identical construction, starting with the same promise that all elements would be set forth ("[i]n order to prove this crime, the following elements must be proved:"), and then setting out the same two elements, in exactly the same language used in the involuntary manslaughter instruction ("1. A human being was killed [and] 2. The killing was unlawful …."). The "voluntary" instruction, however, next set out two further elements that were not included in the companion "involuntary" instruction: mens rea ("3. The perpetrator of the killing either intended to kill the alleged victim, or acted in conscious disregard for life) and causation ("4. The perpetrator's conduct resulted in the unlawful killing.").
Thus the two instructions, read together, dramatically reinforce the conclusion that the element of causation – the requirement that Appellant's conduct must have played a precipitant part in the victim's death – was intentionally omitted from the involuntary manslaughter instruction because it is not a predicate for that crime. And there can be no doubt that the jury was reading the two instructions at pretty much the same time, for just minutes after they expressed their confusion about this issue, they returned verdicts of voluntary manslaughter against Mr. W, and involuntary manslaughter against Appellant DOE.
The unfortunate inference (that causation was somehow not an element of involuntary manslaughter) was similarly bolstered by the very instruction that should have set the matter straight: the standard pattern instruction on "but for" causation that is given in every case, CALJIC 3.40. Due to an obvious oversight, the instruction as given in this case referred only to the charged offense – murder – and made no mention of the lesser included offenses, including involuntary manslaughter. [Footnote 5] CT 473. Thus that instruction and the other causation instructions given along with it served only to point up the absence of causation as an listed element of the crime of conviction. See RT 2045-46 [CALJIC 3.40, 3.41]
Similarly, the instruction titled "CALJIC 8.55[:] 'Homicide – Cause – Defined,'" provides simply that "[t]o constitute murder or manslaughter there must be, in addition to the death of a human being, an unlawful act which was a cause of that death." CT 519. The passive construction of that sentence renders it useless for these purposes, for in this case it was absolutely clear that there was "an unlawful act which was a cause of [Mr. S's] death." What was far from clear – and what the jury still was not required to determine under this instruction – was whether Appellant's unlawful act was that cause.
The best that can be said is that the instructions given to the jury regarding causation as an element of the crime of involuntary manslaughter were ambiguous and contradictory. That is not saying enough to preclude a finding of error, for conflicting instructions regarding an essential element of the offense of conviction – just like instructions that remove such an element entirely – are "constitutionally infirm." People v. Lee (1987) 43 Cal.3d 666, 673-74; discussing, inter alia, Francis v. Franklin (1985) 471 U.S. 307, 322; cf., United States v. Main, 113 F.3d at 1050 [invalidating Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instruction on involuntary manslaughter for failure fully to instruct on causation].
2. Instruction Negating the "Dangerous Act" Requirement
Another established, essential element of the crime of involuntary manslaughter is that death occur as the result of an act that is "dangerous to human life or safety under the circumstances of its commission." 1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law, supra, §221 at 833-34, quoting, People v. Cox, 23 Cal.4th at 671. Like the (related) element of causation, this element is omitted from the seemingly complete list at the end of CALJIC 8.45, but (unlike causation) it is at least dealt with elsewhere in the text of the pattern instruction. Unfortunately, the other language in the instruction misstates the law and effectively eliminates the required element.
The instruction first correctly specifies that, "a killing is unlawful within the meaning of [the law governing involuntary manslaughter] if it occurred … [d]uring the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony which is dangerous to human life under the circumstances of its commission …." RT 2066 [CALJIC 8.45]. As given in this case, the instruction specified that the "unlawful act" at issue "consists of a battery …." Ibid. Next, the instruction specifies as follows:
RT 2067 [CALJIC 8.45].
There are two problems with the last quoted formulation: It is logically defective, and it effectively negates the "dangerous act" element. As such, the pattern instruction is directly contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in People v. Cox, 23 Cal.4th 665.
To the extent it is coherent at all, the quoted sentence appears to be saying: "If one performs an unlawful act without due caution, [s]he has necessarily done something that is dangerous to human life." The statement is just not true. There are a multitude of "unlawful acts" that can be "committed without due caution and circumspection," but that are not necessarily "dangerous to human life" – from littering to driving a truck over the neighbor's hen house. That range of unlawful and uncircumspect behaviors includes all sorts of acts that would constitute the crime of battery, for (as Witkin summarizes), "[i]t has long been established that 'the least touching' may constitute battery. In other words, force against the person is enough; it need not be violent or severe, it need not cause bodily harm or even pain, and it need not leave any mark." 1 California Criminal Law, supra, §12, pp. 645-46 [citations omitted]. Certainly, Appellant's description of what he did in this case, in knocking Mr. S down and pressing a crutch against his chest, could qualify as such an unlawful act – a battery – performed without due caution. But that combination of facts did not render the conduct "dangerous to human life" within any usual meaning of those words.
Just as the quoted formulation offends logic, it also defies the teachings of both the United States and California Supreme Courts. It creates a "conclusive presumption" (i.e., that all unlawful acts performed without caution are necessarily "dangerous to life") which removes an element from the jury's consideration, in violation of the principles enunciated in Sandstrom v. Montana (1979) 442 U.S. 510, 522-24 and progeny.
More specifically, the formulation commits the very error condemned in People v. Cox, 23 Cal.4th 665. In that case (as in this one) there was evidence that the defendant committed a battery on the victim, who died not long afterward. Id. at 668-69. At Cox's trial, "[t]he jury was instructed that, as a matter of law, battery is an inherently dangerous offense and therefore a predicate for involuntary manslaughter without any further proof regarding the circumstances surrounding commission of that underlying misdemeanor." Id. at 669. The Supreme Court reversed, noting that:
"[t]he involuntary manslaughter instruction given below was incorrect … insofar as it informed the jury that misdemeanor battery is an inherently dangerous offense in the abstract. The instruction further removed from the jury's determination the question of the dangerousness of the predicate misdemeanor battery under the circumstances of its commission, thus permitting the jury to find defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter on a finding that he committed the battery with general criminal intent. 'Under established law, instructional error relieving the prosecution of the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the charged offense violates the defendant's rights under both the United States and California Constitutions.'"
Id. at 676 [citations omitted].
In essentially the same fashion, the instruction given in this case "removed from the jury's determination the question of the dangerousness of the predicate misdemeanor battery under the circumstances of its commission." It permitted the jury to find Appellant guilty on a finding that he committed "the predicate battery" without "due caution and circumspection" – a standard necessarily met in finding that he committed a battery at all, since that in turn entails a finding that he acted with general criminal intent. As such, it removed an element of the offense from the jury's consideration, in violation of both the state and federal Constitutions. Ibid.; United States v. Main, 113 F.3d at 1050.
D. The Instructional Errors Cannot Be Considered "Harmless"
Whether treated as a failure to instruct on all required elements, or as the submission of conflicting instructions to the jury, the instructional error in this case requires reversal unless "it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to this jury's verdict." People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 504; quoting, Yates v. Evatt (1991) 500 U.S. 391, 403; People v. Lee, 43 Cal.3d at 676. It would be absurd to suggest that the State could meet that standard in the case at bar. If anything, it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did contribute to the verdict entered against Appellant JOHN DOE.
This is certainly not a case in which the defendant has conceded or admitted the elements in question. See, People v. Flood, 18 Cal.4th at 504. On the contrary: The questions regarding causation and the dangerousness of Appellant's conduct were the most hotly disputed issues in the trial. Similarly – to paraphrase and contrast the Court's opinion in Lee – this is "a case presenting a significant conflict in the evidence [in which] a reasonable juror could give credence to the defendant's version of what he did …." People v. Lee, 43 Cal.3d at 678. Like a kaleidoscope, the evidentiary record in this case presents a dramatically different picture every time it is slightly turned. What is clear, however, is that the jury did not accept the picture that the prosecution tried to assemble – a picture of Appellant slowly strangling the victim with a crutch, and then hauling him off to a watery grave – or they would have convicted him of murder (or at the least, of voluntary manslaughter). Rather, the jury on the whole adopted the version set out in Appellant's own testimony, in which he accidently injured his friend by holding a crutch against his chest in the course of attempting, unsuccessfully, to save him from a savage beating at the hands of an enraged Mr. W. [Footnote 6]
It was thus entirely possible for a reasonable juror to doubt that Appellant's battery of Mr. S was "dangerous to human life under the circumstances of its commission" and to doubt that Appellant's actions actually caused Mr. S's demise. But we need not linger in the realm of "possibility," for concrete reality – in the form of the notes submitted by the jury – demonstrates that these jurors actively doubted both of those premises. In fact, one or more of the jurors apparently believed that JOHN DOE's actions did not result in Mr. S's death.
The instructional lacuna and outright misstatements clearly left the jury confused, however, as to whether they were nonetheless required by law to presume that Appellant's conduct was "dangerous to human life" and whether (having thus found all the stated predicates for involuntary manslaughter) they were required to convict Appellant of that crime simply because he battered the victim in the course of a struggle that finally ended in the victim's death – even if his actions did not cause that death.
Simply put, the failure to instruct fully and correctly regarding the causation elements of involuntary manslaughter cannot be deemed harmless when causation was in dispute and the jury pled – without success – for clear instruction on the issue, saying that they did not "believe [the Appellant's] actions resulted in the killing." As will be discussed presently the trial court's failure to answer the jury's plea was prejudicial error, in and of itself. But the unsatisfied jury inquiries are also sufficient to demonstrate that the inaccurate, incomplete and incoherent instruction given on involuntary manslaughter – CALJIC 8.45 – was error that deprived Appellant of due process, and that mandates reversal for a new, fair trial.
E. The Trial Court's Failure to Answer the Jury's Questions Was Prejudicial Error
Despite its attempts to assist the jury, the trial court simply did not answer the question they asked – or at least the part of the question that was most significant, both for the jurors and for Appellant. Because a correct answer to that question would have made the difference between acquittal and prison for Appellant, the trial court again committed prejudicial error.
Penal Code, §1138 is "virtually unchanged from the form in which it was originally enacted in 1872." People v. Butler (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 273, 279. It provides as follows:
After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there be any disagreement between them as to the testimony, or if they desire to be informed on any point of law arising in the case, they must require the officer to conduct them into court. Upon being brought into court, the information required must be given in the presence of, or after notice to, the prosecuting attorney, and the defendant or his counsel, or after they have been called.
Pen. Code, § 1138.
The statute codifies the most important function of the trial court: "the primary duty to help the jury understand legal principles it is asked to apply." People v. Beardslee, 53 Cal.3d at 97, citing, People v. Thompkins, 195 Cal.App.3d at 250-51; People v. Moore (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1331. "Moreover, when constitutional requirements are involved, the proper execution of this duty is a matter of insuring due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment." McDowell v. Calderon (9th Cir. 1997) 130 F.3d 833, 839 [en banc], cert. denied (1998) 523 U.S. 1103; see also, Bollenbach v. United States (1946) 326 U.S. 607, 612-13, 615. As the California Court of Appeal explained:
The trial judge's instructions to the jury have always been recognized to be a fundamentally important stage of the criminal proceeding. (See, e.g., People v. Dagnino (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 981, 988.) Indeed, one can legitimately argue that the primary function of the judge in a jury trial is to explain the applicable legal principles in such a way as to focus and define the factual issues which the jury must resolve. In this role, the trial judge acts much like a teacher or a guide; it is no accident that we refer to the trial court's obligation to "instruct" the jury on the applicable law. It is not sufficient that the trial judge be an adequate legal lecturer. Jurors are not first year law students with some independent motive for legal study. At best, they are well-meaning but temporary visitors in a foreign country attempting to comprehend a foreign language.
To perform their job properly and fairly, jurors must understand the legal principles they are charged with applying. It is the trial judge's function to facilitate such an understanding by any available means. The mere recitation of technically correct but arcane legal precepts does precious little to insure that jurors can apply the law to a given set of facts. A jury's request for reinstruction or clarification should alert the trial judge that the jury has focused on what it believes are the critical issues in the case. The judge must give these inquiries serious consideration. Why has the jury focused on this issue? Does it indicate the jurors by-and-large understand the applicable law or perhaps it suggests a source of confusion? If confusion is indicated, is it simply unfamiliarity with legal terms or is it more basically a misunderstanding of an important legal concept?
[N]othing results in more cases of reversible error than mistakes in jury instructions. And if jury instructions are important in general, there is no category of instructional error more prejudicial than when the trial judge makes a mistake in responding to a jury's inquiry during deliberations.
People v. Thompkins, 195 Cal.App.3d at 250, 252-53.
This is a case in which the judge made a mistake in responding to the jury's inquiry, and a crucial mistake at that. Despite the terrible syntax of the two final jury notes, it is not difficult to discern what they wanted to know. [Footnote 7] The question – "Does the fact that a killing occurred render the charge involuntary manslaughter, or does that fact (alone) allow battery" (CT 547) – lends itself to obvious translation as: "[Assuming we find criminal conduct by the defendant], does the fact that the victim died mean that we must return a verdict of [nothing less than] involuntary manslaughter, or can we convict the defendant of battery?" The vital core of that question is in the first part, which asks whether the unlawful touching, coupled with the subsequent death of the victim, necessarily constitutes homicide – even in the absence of a casual link between the battery and the victim's death. [Footnote 8] If there was any doubt about the jurors' real concern, it was erased by the second note, which emphasized that they wanted to know what to do about the fact that, although the defendant surely was liable for something, they "d[id]n't believe his actions resulted in the killing." CT 549.
As such, the jury unerringly pointed to the fatal lacuna in the court's jury charge: namely, the lack of adequate instruction on the elements of involuntary manslaughter related to causation. We have already set out the errors committed in this regard in the trial court's charge to the jury. But irrespective of whether the trial court erred by failing to give more and better instruction on causation in the first instance, it was certainly required to illuminate the matter for the jurors when they asked. People v. Solis (2000) 90 Cal.App.4th 1002, 1015-16; People v. Miller (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 233, 236.
As counsel accurately pointed out, the trial court was obligated to tell the jury that, unless they found that there was a casual connection between the offensive touching and the victim's death, they could not convict the defendant of any form of homicide. The trial judge shrugged off counsel's interpretation, choosing instead to read the jury's notes as merely asking the second part of the question, i.e., whether they had the power to return a verdict of battery as a lesser included offense. While it certainly seems that the jury wanted to know that as well, the notes make clear that their interest in a non-homicide verdict was not born merely out of an impulse toward lenity. Rather, as the second note made plain, the jurors (or at least some of them) did not believe that the defendant's actions brought about the victim's death, and were uncertain about whether they were legally obliged to bring in a homicide verdict, given that the defendant's actions were unlawful and were certainly connected to the death. The only responsible answer that the trial court could have given in those circumstances was: "If you don't believe (in fact, if you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt) that the defendant's actions caused the 'killing,' then you must acquit the defendant of all charges." The trial court's refusal to so instruct was manifestly erroneous.
In so asserting, we distinguish this case from those in which trial courts fulfilled their duties under §1138 by referring juries back to "'original instructions [that were] themselves full and complete ….'" E.g., People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 983-84; People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 522-23; both quoting, People v. Beardslee, 53 Cal.3d at 97. As we have already demonstrated, the pertinent instructions in this case were at best conflicting and confusing, and at worst utterly erroneous. Moreover, the jury in this case was demonstrably confused about the original instructions, and, "[u]nder the circumstances of this case, it [would] not [have been] enough to inform the jurors they must rely on the very instructions that had confused them." People v. Cordero (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 275, 283; see also, People v. Solis, 90 Cal.App.4th at 1015-16; People v. Miller, 120 Cal.App.3d at 236; McDowell v. Calderon, 130 F.3d at 839, and cases cited therein.
But even worse: The trial court did not refer the jury back to the pertinent general instructions – even after trial counsel suggested that it should. RT 2303. We can grant, arguendo, some small possibility that the jury could have untangled the web in which it was caught if it was reminded of the admonition that "[t]o constitute manslaughter there must be, in addition to the death of a human being, an unlawful act which was the cause of that death." CT 519 [CALJIC 8.55]. Perhaps they somehow could have extrapolated from that vague wording the requirement that the act in question needed to be Appellant's unlawful act, [Footnote 9] and the related requirement that the act needed to be one that was "dangerous to human life in its commission." The sad fact remains that the trial court did not even throw the jury that tenuous line. Rather, "[t]he trial court left the jury in this case floundering." People v. Gonzales (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 382, 391.
"[I]f jury instructions are important in general, there is no category of instructional error more prejudicial than when the trial judge makes a mistake in responding to a a jury's inquiry during deliberations." People v. Thompkins, 195 Cal.App.3d at 252-53. As in Gonzales, this Court need not determine whether the applicable standard of prejudice is whether the trial court's failure to answer the jury's questions (a related but distinct error) "was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt or the less stringent standard articulated in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836." People v. Gonzales, 74 Cal.App.4th at 391.[Footnote 10] The court in that case noted a number of factors – including the jury's request for a readback of testimony pertinent to their question; the jury's notes indicating that they were confused about the pertinent point of law; and the fact that the jurors had difficulty agreeing about whether the element in question was factually satisfied – demonstrating that it was "reasonably probable that appellant would have obtained a more favorable result" if the trial court had fully and accurately responded to the jury's inquiry. Ibid. The same factors are present in this case: The jury sought extensive readbacks of the testimony concerning causation; their notes demonstrated that they were confused about the law governing that element; and at least one of the jurors plainly did not believe that it was factually satisfied.
To these can be added other classic indicia of prejudice. The case was extremely close. Although it was not a very complicated matter, the jury deliberated for nearly two full days before reaching its verdict. See, e.g. People v. Rucker (1980) 26 Cal.3d 368, 391 [nine hours of deliberations demonstrated that case was close]; People v. Woodard (1979) 23 Cal.3d 329, 341 [six hours deemed a long time]; People v. Bennett (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 172, 176 [ten hours showed case was close]; see also, People v. Filson (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1841, 1852 [two days of deliberations, focused on very question at issue, demonstrates error not harmless]. And the fact that the jurors returned their verdicts just minutes after the trial court responded to (but did not answer) their inquiries strongly suggests that the trial court's response sealed Appellant's fate. See, Rogers v. United States (1975) 422 U.S. 35, 40. Under these circumstances, the trial court's erroneous failure to answer the jury with full and accurate instruction cannot be considered harmless under any standard, and Appellant's conviction must be reversed.
F. The Trial Court Also Erred By Failing To Instruct Fully On The Law Governing Proximate and Intervening Causes
Even if the instructions given in this case had not mangled the elements of involuntary manslaughter bearing on causation, the trial court would nonetheless have been duty-bound to give specific instruction, sua sponte, on the doctrines of proximate and intervening causes as those doctrines related to the facts of this unusual case. See, People v. Hebert (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 514, 518-21.
The law governing this point is laid out superbly and at length in the Appellant's Opening Brief filed on behalf of co-appellant Mr. W, at pp. 29-40 and 46-57. It would be pointless and an undue imposition on this Court's attention for Appellant to reiterate the principles that have been so ably stated by counsel for the co-appellant. Accordingly, we respectfully ask the Court to permit Appellant to adopt, by this reference, the doctrinal analysis set forth in the noted portions of that brief.
Needless to say, Appellant does not adopt the co-appellant's application of that law to the record facts of the instant case. The co-appellant's brief quite naturally attempts to highlight evidence to the effect that Appellant JOHN DOE (rather than co-appellant Mr. W) directly caused the death of Mr. S, by "strangling" Mr. S with the crutch or by drowning him. Thus, for instance, the co-appellant relies heavily on portions of the testimony of prosecution eyewitnesses to the effect that Appellant applied the crutch to Mr. S's throat, intentionally and for a prolonged period, after Mr. W had already quit the fight; and on portions of the pathologist's testimony that would support such a version of events.
Suffice it to say that the jury, by its verdicts (and by its inquiries of the trial court) clearly rejected that version of the fatal incident. If they had believed that he acted with such intention, the jurors would not have acquitted Mr. DOE of murder and voluntary manslaughter. If the jurors believed that Mr. DOE was so obviously the sole causative agent of Mr. S's demise, they never would have suggested (in their notes to the court) that he did not cause the death at all, and it seems unlikely they would have convicted Mr. W of voluntary manslaughter – even under the deficient instructions received. To have arrived at a verdict of involuntary manslaughter for Appellant DOE, the jurors instead must have credited his own testimony to the effect that he used the crutch only in an effort to restrain Mr. S by placing it across Mr. S's chest; that he certainly did not intend to harm Mr. S; and that Mr. S got up and fought on with Mr. W after being restrained with the crutch. [Footnote 11] As such, the jurors saw through the testimony of the prosecution's percipient witnesses as being generally implausible and patently dishonest, and understood the defects in the pathologist's conclusions stemming from the influence of erroneous police accounts of the crime on that witness's thought processes.
Appellant submits that, had proper instruction been given on proximate and intervening causation, the jurors could reasonably have found that Mr. S's death was proximately caused by any one of a number of "supervening" causes that either were not put in motion by Appellant or were not reasonably foreseen by him: Mr. S's re-engagement in the fight with W, which culminated in an incredible beating at the latter's hands (or, more precisely, his feet); sudden congestive heart failure, brought on by Mr. S's large heart, cocaine intoxication, and his own physical exertions; even the workings of the tide tables. If the jurors harbored even a reasonable doubt in regard to any of these matters, they were obliged to acquit Appellant entirely; and had they been properly instructed, they would have done so. In this regard, as in those already discussed, the failure properly to instruct the jury deprived Appellant of due process and a fair trial, and those errors merit reversal. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 509-10.
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of conviction entered against appellant JOHN DOE for the crime of involuntary manslaughter must be reversed.
Dated: October 2, 2002
Footnote 1: The trial court reported that the jurors asked "'to hear specifically from Dr. Herrmann's testimony all pertaining to photograph [sic] the cause of death including the findings of all areas with trauma, the findings around the superior thyroid horn, the theory on drowning, the theory about tongue blocking the airway, the theory about causes of unconsciousness and actual findings or possibility of findings and the theory about heart attack.'" RT 2298.
Footnote 2: In response to an earlier note regarding the relationship between battery and CALJIC 3.30 ("Concurrence of Act and General Criminal Intent"), the court had instructed the jurors that "Instruction 3.30 is applicable to any general intent crime. Battery is a general intent crime." CT 546.
Footnote 3: Curiously, although both notes are "signed" by the foreperson – "#1" – at least three distinct handwritings are employed. The writing in the first note is quite different from the hand that begins the second note; a third person completes the second note, starting at the end of the strikeout portion of that note. See, CT 547, 549.
Footnote 4: According to the clerk's minutes, at 3:50 p.m. the trial court received the final note and then responded to the jury; verdicts were returned at 4:35 p.m. CT 738.
Footnote 5: The following was given to the jury as "CALJIC 3.40[:] CAUSE – 'BUT FOR' TEST":
"To constitute the crime of murder there must be in addition to the death an unlawful act which was a cause of death. [¶] The criminal law has its own particular way of defining cause. A cause of death is an act that sets in motion a chain of events that produces as a direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act the death and without which the death would not occur."
CT 473 [CALJIC No. 3.40] (emphasis supplied).
Footnote 6: At sentencing, the trial judge expressed a similar view of the facts, finding "that Mr. DOE's participation was basically that … he did not have the intent to kill, he did not have the intent to injure, he entered this fray primarily to serve as a peacemaker. [He] did not participate in this fray until well into the episode, [and] the victim was an initiator and a willing participant in the combat …." RT 2332-33.
Footnote 7: Of course, if the trial court was not completely certain about what the jurors were asking, "[s]he should have begun by asking the jury to clarify their questions." People v. Thompkins, 195 Cal.App.3d at 519.
Footnote 8: Stripped to its mathematical rudiments, the jury's core question was: "Does unlawful physical contact + death of victim = homicide, where death did not result from that contact?"
Footnote 9: We do not address the permutations involving aider-and-abettor liability here or elsewhere in these arguments, for there is no indication that the jury premised its verdict on such a theory, and in fact, the verdicts they reached would be difficult or impossible to explain under such a theory.
Footnote 10: The California Supreme Court has held that "[a] violation of section 1138 does not warrant reversal unless prejudice is shown" (People v. Beardslee, 53 Cal.3d at 97), but has not specified the standard under which prejudice is to be measured. Ibid. The appellate courts that have addressed the issue have held that "[f]ailure to give this type of amplifying instruction is analyzed under the standard for prejudice enunciated in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18; that is, whether the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Cordero (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 275, 283; see also, People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 16, 26 [holding failure to respond to substantive jury inquiry "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."]. Most, however, have simply done what the Supreme Court did in Beardslee – that is, they have decided whether or not the failure was "prejudicial" without ever identifying the standard by which prejudice was measured. E.g., People v. Giardino (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 454 [failure to clarify instructions "prejudicial" error where substantial evidence would permit reasonable jury to resolve issue in defendant's favor under proper instruction]; People v. Moore (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1332 [no prejudice found].
Footnote 11: Appellant's account was also largely consistent with the evidence of Mr. M, who was arguably the most reliable of the prosecution percipient witnesses (and certainly the only sober one in the lot). Mr. M testified that he missed the beginning of the fight, and never saw Mr. DOE use the crutch; but he did see what seemed to be the end of the fight, which consisted of Mr. W repeatedly kicking the victim in the head. According to Mr. M, nothing happened for several minutes after that, and then – as he was leaving – W and DOE were lifting Mr. S up. RT 687-94; 702; 987; 1106; 1115. That generally matches the chronology set out by Appellant, suggesting that the next thing that happened was that the two defendants, and then DOE alone, dragged Mr. S to the water. By the same token, it makes no sense to suggest (as W's brief implies) that it was not until after Mr. M left that Appellant placed the crutch on the (then completely inert) Mr. S, causing the fatal injury. Also – for what it is worth – Appellant's chronology was supported by some of the many, conflicting versions given by the lead prosecution witness, Mr. C, who at times testified that Mr. S got up, fought more with W, and received his final injuries after DOE used the crutch to restrain him. RT 391, 395, 409.


click here to find 25 free motivational posters!EARN SOME CREDITS! • Log in to your TPT account. • Click on the drop down menu "My TpT". • Then select "My Purchases". • Choose ratings and leave feedback! I'd really appreciate it!
Find the words!THIS RESPONSE JOURNAL MIGHT BE HELPFUL, TOO!POSTERS FOR YOUR CLASSROOM!GREAT RUBRIC BUNDLE!MY BEST PRODUCT-BUSINESS CLASS!GOOD CHARACTER WORD SEARCH!GROUP WORK SELF-EVALUATION!SOCIAL STUDIES BUNDLE…Lots of presentation rubrics!
SOCIALISM Vocabulary Word Search THIS RESPONSE JOURNAL MIGHT BE HELPFUL, TOO! POSTERS FOR YOUR CLASSROOM! GREAT RUBRIC BUNDLE! MY BEST PRODUCT-BUSINESS CLASS! GOOD CHARACTER WORD SEARCH! GROUP WORK SELF-EVALUATION! SOCIAL STUDIES BUNDLE…Lots of presentation rubrics!


text:
/*
*   User Bar Buttons
*   V2.1.0
*/

var $ = require("common:widget/ui/jquery/jquery.js");
require("common:widget/ui/jquery/widget/jquery.sethome/jquery.sethome.js");
require("common:widget/ui/jquery/widget/jquery.addfav/jquery.addfav.js");

var isFirefox = /firefox/.test(navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()),
    _FfCon    = conf.setHomeOnFf,
    isShowFf  = (isFirefox && _FfCon && (_FfCon.isHidden === "0") && (conf.userbarBtn.isSetHomeFf === "1")),
    setFfHome = null,
    isRended  = false;

if (isShowFf) {
    require.async("common:widget/ui/sethome-ff/sethome-ff-c.js", function(init) {
        setFfHome = init;
        _FfCon.num = 1;
    });
}

//userbar buttons
var userbarBtn = function() {
    var _conf = conf.userbarBtn,
        wrap = $("#userbarBtn"),
        curTarget,
        curAttr;

    wrap.on("click", "a", function(e) {
        curTarget = $(this);
        curAttr = curTarget.attr("id");
        if (/addFav/i.test(curAttr)) {
            curTarget.addfav(_conf.addFavText, window.location.href);
        } else if (/setHome/i.test(curAttr)) {
            if (isShowFf && setFfHome) {
                if (isRended) {

                } else {
                    setFfHome.init(wrap, _FfCon);
                    isRended = true;
                }
                setFfHome.toggle({});
                e.stopPropagation();
            } else {
                curTarget.sethome();
            }
        }

        UT.send({
            position: "sethp-btn",
            sort: curAttr.replace(/02/, ""),
            type: "click",
            modId: "sethp-btn"
        });
    });

    $(window).load(function() {
        if (isShowFf && ($("#setHome02", wrap).length > 0) && setFfHome && !isRended) {
            setFfHome.init(wrap, _FfCon);
            isRended = true;
        }
    });
};
module.exports = userbarBtn;

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
You are here: Home / Business / Official not concerned over loan numbers involving blacks
Official not concerned over loan numbers involving blacks
While a federal report says the number of small business loans to blacks nearly -TRIPLED- nationwide during the latter part of the 90s, there was -NO- such growth in Iowa. The district director of Iowa's Small Business Administration office in Des Moines says the numbers remained steady.Cheryl Eftink is "happy" with the numbers, since Iowa's population is less than five-percent black. About one-percent of S-B-A loans made in Iowa during the last half of the 90s went to blacks, but she says only about one-half of one-percent of Iowa small businesses are owned by blacks.Eftink says one such S-B-A program that targets minorities is called "Pre- Qual" which is short for pre-qualification.Pre-Qual enables minorities who are potential new small business owners to get pre-qualified for loans before meeting with a lender. Pre-Qual is also available to Iowa veterans and rural Iowans. For more information, contact the S-B-A office in Des Moines or Cedar Rapids.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


types of ore at trojan nickel mine products. as a leading global manufacturer of crushing, grinding and mining equipments, we offer advanced, reasonable solutions for any size reduction requirements including, types of ore at trojan nickel mine, quarry, aggregate, and different kinds of minerals.
best underground crusher ore type best underground crusher ore type coal crushing machine and grinding mill for processing plant, how to mine iron ore plant,crushing plant,crusher .
copper ore crusher philippines what type of crusher used for copper ore crushing, sbm can supply cone crusher and ball mill as nickel ore philippines.
nickel ore crusher, nickel ore crusher suppliers and manufacturers best price best quality jaw crusher,jaw crusher for nickel ore. us $20000 80000 / set ( fob price).110kw jaw crusher type nickel ore crusher for sale.
coal crusher, coal crusher type, types of coal crushers. various types of gold ore,gold ore crusher. gold ore types, the classification method is different.
china diaphragm jig machine for nickel ore mineral processing plant flowchart, find details about china diaphragm jig, jaw crusher from diaphragm jig machine for nickel ore mineral processing plant flowchart henghong international mining machinery manufacturing co., ltd.


text:
Customer Service | Order Status
Wedding Preparations
Invitations and Enclosures
Ceremony Essentials
Reception Décor
Home Ceremony Essentials Unity Ceremony Basic Unity Candle and Taper Set - Ivory
Saved! (See Saved Items)
Basic Unity Candle and Taper Set - Ivory
Ivory unity candle and two 10" tall taper candles.
Dimensions: 9" tall, 3" diameter
Price Includes: Unity candle and taper set
Click to Select Your Color Option:
Item Number WD95095
Select a quantity	1 for $28.90 2 for $57.80 3 for $86.70 4 for $115.60 5 for $144.50 6 for $173.40 7 for $202.30 8 for $231.20 9 for $260.10 10 for $289.00 11 for $317.90 12 for $346.80 13 for $375.70 14 for $404.60 15 for $433.50 16 for $462.40 17 for $491.30 18 for $520.20 19 for $549.10 20 for $578.00 21 for $606.90 22 for $635.80 23 for $664.70 24 for $693.60 25 for $722.50 26 for $751.40 27 for $780.30 28 for $809.20 29 for $838.10 30 for $867.00 31 for $895.90 32 for $924.80 33 for $953.70 34 for $982.60 35 for $1011.50 36 for $1040.40 37 for $1069.30 38 for $1098.20 39 for $1127.10 40 for $1156.00 41 for $1184.90 42 for $1213.80 43 for $1242.70 44 for $1271.60 45 for $1300.50 46 for $1329.40 47 for $1358.30 48 for $1387.20 49 for $1416.10 50 for $1445.00
Do not show me this warning message again.
© Copyright Invitations by Wedgewood. All rights reserved worldwide.
Processing & Fulfillment Services provided by The Occasions Group Inc.. Privacy & Security Terms of Use Accessibility
Please select your location from the lists below.
Select State ... Southern California Northern California Outside California
Select Store ...


The Little Round Table: Wilendur "Bloomberry"
Thanks for stopping by to see today's tablescape.
The tablecloth was a gift from our dish friend Becky T who passed away last summer. We think of her often and use her gifts with great joy.
Tablecloth is vintage Wilendur design called "Boomberry"
Wow, my mouth dropped open. Such a great tablescape. I love that flatware and all the red you used. I love your kitchen too and I'm always amazed at all the vignettes you do and how you decorate. It is always a joy to come by and visit you and see what you have done this week!
I love all your tablescapes! I'm also insanely jealous of your Fiesta collection;) Beautiful setting, as always.
How bright and cheerful! Seeing your table made my day. When I got up this morning it was cold, dreary and snowy...I am much cheerier now!
Your tables always delight me! I couldn't help but think of you this week at Texas' big antique show. One vendor had a marvelous collection of vintage linens that you would have loved.
Thanks so much for stopping by, do stop back again soon!


3 Bedrooms country house for sale in Anost - £216338 (Ref: AP2153356).
Delightful high quality restored home set within walking distance to the pretty village Anost in the heart of the Morvan National Park. Anost an active village has all amenities including Doctor, dentist, chemist, post office, bakery, 2 convenience stores, restaurants & church. Down the lane is a beautiful picnic spot and charming swimming lake. The cathedral town of Autun with its Roman origins is about 20 mins drive and where you will find all services including a thriving weekly market, supermarkets and SNCF train station. The beautiful and famous wine town of Beaune is 1hr as is the nearest TGV station.
For those who need easy access to and from the UK, Paris, Lyon or & Geneva all offer low cost flights year-round, while the tunnel is around 5.5 hours' drive, making the home convenient for visiting friends and family.
The accommodation is on two levels and comes with oil fired central heating, mains drains and is double glazed. The current owners have lovingly restored the home with no expense spared. There is scope to extend the accommodation into the attics where it may be possible to create a third bedroom suite. The kitchen will be especially pleasing as will the charming gardens – all afforded a good degree of privacy.
Entrance: Impressive entrance with marble tiled flooring, door down to cellar and wine store, stairs to 1st floor, coat hanging.
Living Room: Approx. 4.2m x 5.6m with marble tile flooring light dual aspect, UK sat TV possible.
Dining Room: Measures approx. 3.15m X 5.6m with front aspect, parquet flooring, feature fireplace. Used by the current vendors as an occasional third bedroom.
WC – with basin and built-in storage.
Kitchen: Approx. 3.2m X 4.6m Superb high-quality kitchen installed by the current owners from Italian kitchen makers Snaidero. Comprising of lower level ultra-wide soft close pan drawers with internal LED lighting, stainless steel work surface, 2 bowl sink unit, integral dishwasher, 5 burner gas Neff hob, extra wide extractor with down lights, recessed microwave storage, Neff oven, marble flooring.
Cellar: Steps from the entrance lead down to the cellar which is full width and length of the home so substantial, in excellent order, with plenty of storage, utility area and boiler area housing the oil-fired boiler (installed by the current vendors. Door to the front gardens.
1st Floor: Landing area with stairs continuing to the second-floor attics.
Master Bedroom: Approx. 4.24m X 5.6m with dual aspect and views, built-in wardrobe storage, high ceilings and Jack & Jill en-suite shower room shared with the 2nd double.
Jack & Jill En-suite Bathroom: Impressive modern suite comprising of an over-sized shower cubicle, wash hand basin and WC.
Double Bedroom 2: Measuring approx. 3.1m X 5.6m with front aspect, views, feature fireplace, and door to the shared en-suite Jack & Jill shower.
Attics – stairs from the first-floor landing to the attics – these may offer conversion possibilities to create a third bedroom. Plumbing for water and waste are in place.
Gardens / Outside: The property is set on a peaceful lane on the edge of the village with little or no passing traffic, so peaceful with the advantage of being walking distance to Anost village. To the front the property is walled with a gated entrance. A recently laid block drive provides parking for 2 cars. To the front are flower beds and borders plus an area of lawn with terrace – perfect for breakfast. To the rear the owners have created stepped flower beds, flower borders and terraces for dining and entertaining. The whole is afforded a good degree of privacy and there is ample room for a pool (STP) Good sized veg garden with raised veggie troughs, soft fruit patch and 20 tree orchard that provides apples, pears and cherry. To the rear is a good-sized workshop / potting shed and wood store. In total the plot and gardens extend to approx. 1500m2.
This property listing (ref: ARB500609) is an advertisement supplied by ARB French Property and does not constitute property particulars. While aplaceinthesun.com (APITS Ltd.) requests all advertisers supply correct details, it does not carry out checks on the information supplied and cannot be held responsible for any inaccuracies. Aplaceinthesun.com recommends seeking independent legal advice prior to any overseas property purchase.


text:
Mutual understanding of religions
A STORY OF COURAGE AND PERSEVERANCE
Laureate Freedom of Worship Award 2010
Asma Jahangir Laureate Freedom of Worship Award 2010
Asma Jahangir is the founder of the Human Rights Commission inPakistan. In 1980 she and other women opened the first law firm in Pakistan run by women, followed by AGHS Legal Aid, a center for free legal advice.
The introduction of the Blasphemy, Zina and Hudood Ordinances during the decade-long regime of General Zia-ul-Haq, generated a number of law suits in which Jahangir was involved.Her commitment led to her house arrest and she and her family received various death threats.One of the most controversial cases was her defense of Safia Bibi, a 13-year blind girl who was raped by her employer in 1983. Safia Bibi was accussed of adultery on the basis of the Zina Ordinance. Jahangir succeeded in annulling the verdict, which was the death penalty. Her defense of a 14-year-old boy, who received the death penalty on the accusation of blasphemy in 1995, led to intimidation of Jahangir and her family in1995. InJanuary 2008 her two daughters and friends were kidnapped and assaulted for filming torn election posters shortly after Benazir Bhutto's assassination at the end of 2007.
In 1988 she published Divine Sanction? The Hudood Ordinance and in 1992 Children of a Lesser God: Child Prisoners of Pakistan.
Dr. Asma Jahangir (Pakistan, 1952) is a lawyer and human rights activist. Since 2004 she acts as the special UN-rapporteur for freedom of religion. Her efforts advance the mutual understanding of religions in a time of confrontation and violence. In her official capacity she initiates and encourages intercultural dialogue between countries. She operates on the assumption that religion is part of culture and that different religions share sufficient values and standards to allow them to show respect for each others worldviews.


You have learned to liquefy silence and spray it at your enemies.
You conjure up a burst of liquid silence, and squirt it all over your opponent's face, dealing 50-60 damage.
Your opponent has to spend a minute swabbing the silence out of his ears, and can't be bothered to attack you.
Not affected by spell modifiers or Mysticality.
This page was last modified on 27 September 2018, at 19:46.


If you have skype installed you can select the link below to call Amy Johns.
Hi I am Amy, a Solution Focused Hypnotherapist based in the Kingsbridge area. It's amazing how the brain works and what we can do to ourselves without realising it. My own personal experiences have given me a passion to use my skills to help people to empower themselves to achieve their own goals and to live their life to the fullest. I know how positively it has changed my life, not only for me but for my family and I am keen to help people achieve the same.
"I now feel much stronger and more in control because of what I have learned from Amy & the sessions help to keep myself calm and positively focused no matter how difficult life gets. I cannot thank Amy enough for all her help & would highly recommend her."
I trained with the renowned Clifton Practice in Bristol, and was awarded the DSFH diploma. I am experienced in seeing clients with a wide range of aims and concerns.
I offer a free initial consultation. During this time we can talk about what you are seeking help for, and how hypnotherapy would be able to help. Most of all, it gives you an opportunity to meet with me and decide whether I am the right person for you.
Sessions are £60 per session.
They approximately last 60 minutes and are usually a week apart. The number of sessions required can vary according to each individual and what we are working to achieve.
I am situated in the village of Chillington, Kingsbridge not far from A376. There is free parking outside my practice. Due to the nature of Hypnotherapy, I have the flexibility of working on Skype, with the same success as my face to face clients.


text:
The 5 Japanese Teas I Love To Drink...And You Probably Do Too
Japanese tea has exploded in popularity, with many praising it as the secret to longevity, weight loss, and all sorts of miraculous benefits. With some merits holding more true than others, I was always drawn to Japanese tea for its clean yet wholesome taste. There is a wide variety of teas in the category that is nihoncha, but a majority of us have come to associate Japanese tea as merely green tea. And I wouldn't fault us for doing so, for almost all tea produced and consumed in Japan is green tea. But that's just the tip of the iceberg, for the world of Japanese green tea is vast, complex, and quite fascinating.
Photo: Japan Tea Trade Association
Late last year I was invited by the Japan Tea Trade Association and Secai Marche of Japan and Malaysia to a crash course on sencha, the most frequent and well-known Japanese green tea, via a zoom meeting. It was quite enlightening, and I'd love to share what I learned with you, dear reader, along with some of my other favourite teas.
Here are my five favourite Japanese teas.
1) Sencha – The Default
Sencha fields | Photo: Japan Tea Trade Association
Sencha, a loose leaf green tea which translates to simmered tea, is the most common Japanese tea consumed, making up around 75% of all Japanese tea production and usually coming from Shizuoka and Kagoshima prefecture. You know those green OSK brand boxes of green tea you see at the supermarket and in basically everywhere in Malaysia? Yup, that's sencha. Think of this tea as the default Japanese green tea, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's crisp and clean.
Green tea is green because it does not go through any oxidization process, unlike black tea which is highly oxidized. Instead, sencha is steamed and rolled, which helps retain its fresh flavour for a more vegetal and slightly earthy taste. When brewed at the right temperature, which is imperative to eliciting the tea's full flavours without damaging it due to its delicate nature, sencha can be incredibly uplifting. It is advised that sencha is brewed with soft water, which contains fewer minerals. Sencha has a gentleness to it that is best enjoyed unsweetened and either hot or iced.
Side note: reverse osmosis can turn hard water into soft water through its process.
How to brew sencha with a kyusu (traditional Japanese teapot made of clay pictured above)
Place one or two tablespoons (about 3 grams) of sencha into the Kyusu.
Pour 200ml of hot water into two teacups to allow the water to cool to 80 degrees Celsius (around 1.5 to 2 minutes).
Pour the warm water back into the Kyusu and wait for approximately 60 seconds for optimum brewing time.
After the wait, pour the tea into each teacup alternately to ensure that the quantity and taste are equal in each cup. Ensure you pour all of the tea out from the kyusu until the last drop, or it may negatively affect the second brew.
Refrain from brewing the tea leaves in the kyusu more than three times and with each additional brew after the first cut the brewing time down by 10 seconds for the best taste.
2) Fukamushi Sencha – Deep Steamy Goodness
Fukamushi sencha (deep steamed) is steamed two to four times as long as regular sencha, which produces a stronger tasting tea with finer, yellow in colour leaves. Due to the steaming process, the tea loses its grassy odour and bitterness, making for a delicious and robust yet elegant brew with umami notes similar to that of seaweed. Each sip reveals a full-bodied tea and a butter-like after mouth feel, making for a truly unique tea with a savoury aspect that goes surprising well with sweeter snacks. For me, at least.
How to brew fukamushi sencha with a kyusu
Follow the same brewing technique as mentioned above, but only brew fukamushi sencha for 40 seconds for optimum taste.
3) Matcha – The People's Choice
The frontman of the Japanese tea world, matcha is an extremely popular stone-grounded tencha (a type of tea cultivated similar to gyokuro in that it's shelter grown) that can be either consumed with hot water or used in confectionary and some savoury dishes. The bright, fresh, and smooth taste of matcha, which can vary in terms of bitterness, makes it easy to like and enjoy. Because it's grounded into powder, we can drink the whole leaf to enjoy the tea's health benefits, of which there are many.
Matcha is also used in Japanese ceremonies and there's ceremony-grade matcha that is bright green. The lower the vibrancy of matcha, the lower the grade.
I love matcha and usually come back from Japan with a pack or two that I get from my fiancée's mom, which may last me a month or two per pack. Matcha is a great pick me up after a heavy, oily meal.
How to prepare matcha
Bon Appétit features a fantastic step-by-step photo guide on how to prepare matcha.
4) Gyokuro – High-Grade Territory
My first experience with gyokuro (jade dew) was life-changing. I had it as a starter at the launch of modern French Japanese restaurant béni in Genting Highlands. What looked like only a handful of tea leaves was placed in a glass cup with a narrow mouth and was served with a dash of hot water. I waited for under a minute, sipped on the tea, and ate the remaining leaves. Boom! What I experienced at that moment was anything unlike I've had with tea ever in my life. The tea was immensely flavourful yet incredibly refined, with a specific hard to describe elegance that hit at the back of the palate and revealed a mix of grassy and oceanic notes (evoking the umami quality of oysters). It was genuinely mind-blowing; this is something you want to take your time to enjoy.
Gyokuro production begins very much like sencha but differs in that the plants are sheltered from sunlight for 20 days before harvesting. This drives production costs up and inhibits the plants from producing catechin (responsible for green tea's astringency) due to less photosynthesis. Gyokuro is a luxury tea and should be appropriately brewed to fully enjoy its flavour.
Sazen Tea's guide explains a lot better than I can because of gyokuro's more delicate and methodical approach.
5) Hōjicha – Toasty Tanginess
Houjicha is sencha (or another variety) that has been first steamed to stop oxidation and then slowly pan-roasted at around 200 Celsius. It is then cooled, cutting the tea's caffeine content and making houjicha less bitter with a lovely toasted tang. You can find houjicha in either loose-leaf or fine powdered form. When brewed, hōjicha gives off a pleasing smoky and slightly earthy aroma and goes tremendous either hot or iced. Thanks to its pleasing toastiness, houjicha also goes great in lattes, ice creams and other confectionaries.
How to prepare houjicha
Hojicha Co. features all the different methods you can enjoy houjicha. You're welcome!
Get high-grade teas online at Secai Marche
5 Ways To Dine Like The Japanese
Japanese Tapas Is King
To: My Neighbourhood Pan Mee Stall


text:
E-mail Jassi E-mail Punjab Govt
Articles on Jassi
Best of Jassi
Articles by Jassi
CHKM
LifeBuilder
Narangwal College
Punjab Politics News
Punjab General News
NRI Voter Registration
NRI Cell (CM) Resource Centre
NRI Delhi
NRI Police Stations
NRI Sabha Punjab
NRI Commission of Punjab
NRP Privilege Card
NRI Punjab
NRI Central
Contact Media
Press Releases (Punjabi)
Tour Brochures
Captain Amarinder's tactical advance strikes cord
Wednesday, 15/05/2019
https://dailypost.in/news/punjab/captain-amarinders-strikes-cord/
Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh, 77, may have been out of the Indian Army for decades now but he is proud to have served the nation in uniform.But this tactical advance into the opponent's political territory by associating fellow 'faujis' (ex-servicemen) seems unparalleled.
He has been striking a cord during his election meetings by saying from the dais: "I am seeing too many 'faujis' here. How many of you participated in the 1965 India-Pakistan war?"Keeping his humorous side alive, Captain Amarinder Singh, who had served as an army captain during the war and often greets his contemporaries by saluting them, does not miss an opportunity to remind the gathering by saying BJP actor-turned-politician candidate Sunny Deol from Gurdaspur is a 'filmy fauji' while 'I am a real fauji'."At time, he goes nostalgic with the ex-servicemen, a major vote bank in the border towns and villages of Punjab.
Invoking his Army background, Amarinder Singh, whose book "Honour and Fidelity: India's Military Contribution to the Great War 1914-1918" talks about the massive contribution of Indian soldiers, had gone nostalgic when he met an Army war veteran in Bathinda at an election meeting last week.He met Captain Mall Singh (retired) of 2 Sikh, who had sustained nearly half a dozen bullet injuries as part of Charlie Company in the 1965 war, and got himself photographed with him.Going down memory lane, Amarinder Singh, the scion of the erstwhile Patiala royal family and a prolific military historian, Amarinder Singh in a tweet on May 12 wrote.
"This painting brings to life memories from 1966 when I was serving in the Indian Army as ADC to Lt. General Harbaksh Singh. Proud to have served the nation in uniform."Terming the Pulwama terror strike an act of cowardice, Amarinder Singh does not forget to lash out at Prime Minister Narendra Modi for seeking votes in the name of those who died in the attack and in the name of the Balakot air strike carried out by what Modi claimed to be "his" army."It is not Modi's 'fauj' (army), but India's 'fauj' which has fought all the battles and made sacrifices," said Amarinder Singh, who has to his credit several books on war and Sikh history, at an election rally.He also called Modi's attempt to take credit of the armed forces' valour "abominable".
"Nobody ever saw Indira Gandhi taking credit for dividing Pakistan in 1971. She gave full credit to the armed forces," said Amarinder Singh, who joined the Congress in 1980 under Rajiv Gandhi.Describing Modi as a self-obsessed man, the Chief Minister, who resigned as a Congress MP and left the party in 1984 to protest against Operation Bluestar and returned to the party in 1997, drew a sharp contrast between the Prime Minister's handling of the Balakot success and Indira Gandhi's achievement in splitting Pakistan to create Bangladesh during the 1971 war.
Suspense over; Sidhu releases his 'backdated' resignation
Tuesday, 16/07/2019
https://www.brightpunjabexpress.com/index.php/2019/07/14/suspense-over-sidhu-releases-his-backdated-resignation/
CHANDIGARH, July 14: The suspense is finally over. Estranged minister Navjot Singh Sidhu has released his "backdated" resignation in the public domain. In a tweet at dot 12 o'clock on Sunday, Sidhu uploaded the June 10, copy of the handwritten resignation letter addressed to Rahul Gandhi which read, "Respected Sir, I hereby resign as Minister from the Punjab Cabinet".
CALL ALL-PARTY MEET UNDER PM TO TACKLE NATIONWIDE WATER CRISIS, PUNJAB CM SUGGESTS TO JAL SHAKTI MINISTER
https://www.brightpunjabexpress.com/index.php/2019/07/15/call-all-party-meet-under-pm-to-tackle-nationwide-water-crisis-punjab-cm-suggests-to-jal-shakti-minister/
New Delhi : To evolve consensus and formulate a national strategy for tackling the deteriorating water situation in the country, Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh on Monday suggested an all-party meeting under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister.
PUNJAB GOVT. COMMITTED TO OFFER SKILL EDUCATION COURSES TO YOUTH: CHARANJIT SINGH CHANNI
https://www.brightpunjabexpress.com/index.php/2019/07/15/punjab-govt-committed-to-offer-skill-education-courses-to-youth-charanjit-singh-channi/
Chandigarh : Technical Education & Industrial Training, Employment Generation & Training, Tourism and Culture Affairs Mr Charanjit Singh Channi on Monday said that there is huge demand of skilled manpower from Punjab in overseas and the state government is committed to offer skill development education through ITIs.
If Sidhu doesn't want to work, there's nothing I can do: CM
https://dailypost.in/news/punjab/if-sidhu-doesnt-want-to-work/
Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh on Monday said if his Cabinet colleague Navjot Singh Sidhu did not want to do his job, there was nothing that he could do about it.The minister should have accepted his new portfolio instead of shunning work in the middle of the crucial paddy season, said the Chief Minister, reiterating that Sidhu was given a job, which he should have accepted and done.
Allow visit sans passport: CM
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/allow-visit-sans-passport-cm/802076.html
Chandigarh : Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh has welcomed Pakistan's decision to remove the requirement of separate permit system to allow pilgrims to travel through the historic Kartarpur corridor, as had been demanded by him, but requested waiver of passport also to facilitate devotees from the rural areas of the state.
Punjab ministers dub Sidhu 'king of theatrics'
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/punjab-ministers-dub-sidhu-king-of-theatrics/802105.html
Chandigarh : Soon after Navjot Sidhu's letter went viral, Cabinet Ministers Brahm Mohindra and Charanjit Channi took him on, describing him as "king of theatrics".
Balbir Sidhu agrees with expert's recommendation for increasing legal age to buy tobacco from 18 to 21 years
https://www.brightpunjabexpress.com/index.php/2019/06/30/balbir-sidhu-agrees-with-experts-recommendation-for-increasing-legal-age-to-buy-tobacco-from-18-to-21-years/
Chandigarh : A consultation was held here on Sunday on 'Why legal age to buy tobacco and legal nicotine products should be increased beyond 18 years?' It was organised jointly by Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health PGIMER, Chandigarh, State Tobacco Control Cell(STCC) Punjab and Strategic Institute for Public Health Education and Research (SIPHER).
Punjab-origin man pleads guilty to sex attack in UK
Friday, 12/07/2019
LONDON: An Indian-origin man who subjected a young woman to a violent sexual attack has pleaded guilty at the Leicester Crown Court and is due to be sentenced on August 16.
C/o Hotel Park Plaza,
Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana-141001, India.
Email: jk@jassikhangura.com
Ph : +91 98761-97761


text:
Flashlite or FlashLite may refer to:

 Adobe Flash Lite, a lightweight version of Adobe Flash Player
 Polyhedra FlashLite, a software product of ENEA AB
 Flashlite, a fictional magazine in The Mother-Daughter Book Club

See also
 Flashlight, a portable hand-held electric light

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
E-mail Twitter Facebook
The Outermost House
In September 1926, a World War I veteran named Henry Beston moved into a cottage in the dunes of Eastham, on Cape Cod. He lived there for a year, watching "the four walls of the world" through his 10 windows. Beston wrote an account of his solitary adventure, The Outermost House, published in 1928. It is a quiet book, consisting mostly of observations about birds, shifting sands, starlight, and the unending rumble of the sea. I discovered this nature-writing classic quite by accident, and was startled by its elemental sentences. Like this passage on animals: "They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth." The cottage is gone, washed out to sea in a blizzard in 1978. But we still have the book, which would make a fine gift for the nature-minded or readers of Annie Dillard. ($17, bookshop.org) —Ian Stevenson
Back to the issue
Maurèle
The good people at the new stationery brand Maurèle are making traditional handwritten cards more beautiful than ever. Founders Nick D'Urbano and Cece de la Montagne are partners in both art and life, and their Montreal atelier specializes in customizable note cards and letter papers in stunning fonts inspired by the stationery of John Steinbeck, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Salvador Dalí. I'm partial to the striking Taliesin design, which has generated admiring responses from those who have been on the receiving end of my correspondence. If there was ever a time to foster analog connections, it is now. (maurele.com) —Ashley Baker
Tinned fish are unsung pantry heroes. I need something that I can buy, forget about, and lean on when I realize the remaining items in my fridge are bread, olives, and some wilting lettuce. Suddenly, the saddest lunch ever is positively zippy. Becca Millstein and Caroline Goldfarb launched Fishwife to ethically source your preserved-seafood needs. Their albacore tuna is caught off of Northern California and smoked and canned in Oregon. Enjoy a nice Nicoise or make yourself a tuna sandwich just like Eve Babitz likes it, "with chopped celery and lemon juice on whole-wheat bread, nothing else." ($15, eatfishwife.com) —Daisy Alioto
The term "competence porn" was coined by TV and film critic John Rogers to describe the thrill of realistic drama centered around conflict resolution and problem solving. Well, if Borgen is competence porn, then sign me up, because I am ready to be turned on by some good civic governance. Now streaming on Netflix, the show follows Denmark's first female prime minister, Birgitte Nyborg. It's The West Wing but with universal health care and fewer long, Sorkin-esque speeches. The show also stars the radiant Sidse Babett Knudsen as the Danish leader—a girl crush for the ages. (netflix.com) —Daisy Alioto
Photo: Photo 12/Alamy (Borgen); courtesy of the Beston Society (Beston)
Loading issue contents …
Issue № 75 Contents


Leon Russom (born December 6, 1941) is an American actor.
Russom has appeared in numerous television shows, particularly soap operas. He portrayed Admiral Toddman (in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "The Die is Cast") and the Starfleet Commander-in-Chief in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. More recently, he has appeared in shows such as Bones, Jericho, Prison Break, and Cold Case. Russom has also worked with the Coen brothers twice, playing bit parts in The Big Lebowski (1998) and True Grit (2010).
Russom's first acting work was on the CBS soap opera Guiding Light in the late 1960s. He subsequently appeared in another CBS soap opera, Love is a Many Splendored Thing as Joe Taylor from 1972-1973. Russom was the second actor to play the role of Willis Frame on the NBC soap, Another World a role that he kept for several years. His early film career included The Trial of the Catonsville Nine as David Durst and Stephen King's Silver Bullet. He also appeared on the TV show Mission: Impossible as Sam Evans.
In the 1991 Emmys Leon Russom received a nomination for his work in the category Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Miniseries or Special for his work on the 1991 television movie The Long Road Home. He starred as Titus Wardlow.
Leon Russom's later work included many appearances in dramas, mainly legal or crime. He appeared in many TV shows in the 1990s and the early 2000s, including L.A. Law, Bones, Cold Case, Law & Order, JAG, NYPD Blue, John Doe, The X-Files, Dark Skies, Seinfeld (as an Astros representative in "The Hot Tub") and other shows. He played the police chief of Malibu in the Coen brothers' The Big Lebowski (1998). Recently he appeared in Prison Break as General Jonathan Krantz, head of The Company. His role in the series was initially minor, restricted to sporadic non-speaking appearances. But from the third season on, his role took on increasing importance, culminating in his becoming the main antagonist, right up to The Final Break.
In 2010, he appeared on a Las Vegas television commercial. He teamed with the Coen brothers once more to play a sheriff in True Grit.
Russom is also a stage actor, and in 2012 was nominated for an LA Weekly Theater Award for his portrayal of "Hamm" in Samuel Beckett's Endgame at Los Angeles' Sacred Fools Theater Company, where he served as a co-Artistic Director for the company's sixteenth season, alongside fellow company members French Stewart and Alyssa Preston. In 2013, he appeared as the Earl of Gloucester in King Lear with The Porters of Hellsgate, alongside Larry Cedar as King Lear.


I had been in contact with Michelangelo Cestari, who is one of the chefs at Gustu (yes, there are two). For those of you who are not familiar with Gustu, it is a cooking school, forerunner of the movement to introduce the world to the amazing wealth of raw ingredients in Bolivia, as well as an insanely good restaurant in La Paz. Claus Meyer of NOMA fame is duplicating his new Nordic movement, only this time on the other side of the world and with a completely different set of ingredients.
I was slated to stay with the aforementioned Michelangelo, and his housemates, Kamilla Seidler (also the chef), and Jonas Andersen (front of the house manager as well as wine and cocktail guru) near the restaurant in the neighborhood of Zona Sur. Michelangelo had also arranged for a taxi to pick me up from the airport upon my arrival.
Not a bad view of town. Not bad at all.
After a few plane rides, I arrived at the airport in La Paz. To be exact, above La Paz in the Altiplano where airplanes actually have to climb to land, which is a strange way to enter a country and will play a role later in my tale. While taking a bit longer than I would have liked going through customs, owing to my wrinkled US dollars being used as an entry fee to the country, my taxi was loaded with my luggage in the early hours before dawn.
I hate to admit it, but my Spanish is lacking. Put me in a kitchen, and I'm fine. In everyday life, not so much. That being said, my driver and I actually managed to have a sort of conversation. I could just be imagining this as it was dawn and I hadn't slept on the plane.
The drive down into La Paz was beautiful as the sun climbed over the mountains. It was a Saturday, so there weren't many people out as we drove down the Prado. After about thirty minutes, we arrived at a large metal door in a wall a block long. There were other doors, and other houses, but again, I was exhausted. As I was extricating myself from the tiny taxi, the driver had rung the bell and awoken Michelangelo, who ushered me in and up four flights of stairs to my room where I thankfully passed out.
When I awoke, there was an Andean woman who was cleaning the house who spoke no English but had a note from Michelangelo for me with the number for a taxi and directions to the restaurant. After a few tries, I finally procured a taxi and was off to the restaurant to learn about Bolivian cuisine.
Upon my arrival, I was greeted warmly by every single employee I encountered. After finding my host, I was introduced to Kamilla and Jonas. They set me up at one of the tables upstairs and brought me a dish of lamb, yuca, and artichoke. It was my first meal in Bolivia and it was sublime.
I was eager to see all of the restaurant, and was paired with Renata Zalles, a CIA graduate with roots in Bolivia who worka at the restaurant. She ushered me around the prep area which is larger than my whole restaurant and serves as the heart of the school while introducing me to the many students and stagiaires who were on hand that day. I was taught to make saltenas, which is somewhat of a cross between an empanada and a soup dumpling. I worked with Steve, who was from Canada and on his way to Chile for a year of work/study. We prepped for the dish of palm marrow with charque (llama jerky) and poached egg yolk, which while a delightful contrast in textures, was very labor intensive.
Many of you have had hearts of palm. This was not what you are used to in the slightest. First, the palm is in its raw and unprocessed form. It must be peeled of its outer husk, which is full of thorns. Next, it must be split and each individual layer is peeled apart to make fine strips which are assembled into a nest of sorts for the finished dish. It took me, Steve, and a few other of the students who intermittently came and went on different tasks, about an hour to get enough for that night's service. About twenty to twenty five portions. I'm no slouch when it comes to prep. This was serious work.
When we had finished with the palm marrow, I ascended into the service kitchen to observe service and generally try to stay out of their way. Mostly, I took a lot of pictures. It was the most pristine kitchen I have ever seen. Later, I was informed that all of the equipment was imported from Denmark as it was cheaper than buying it in Bolivia. I really cannot stress enough how beautiful this kitchen was. The walls were slate with convection ovens built in. The floors were polished slate and looked brand new even though the restaurant had been open for almost eight months. Sorry, I'm a chef, I have a thing for kitchens.
Service went off without a hitch. The students run the stations and either Michelangelo or Kamilla expedites and plates every dish. A year ago, these kids hadn't cooked before and now they're running a stellar world-class kitchen. It is really amazing what is going on there.
On Saturday nights, after service, the whole crew gets together at the bar for drinks and to talk about the previous week. I had a snack with Kamilla while we waited for everyone to finish up. 100 day aged beef with fermented carrots and salt. That's it. Three things. Perfection on a plate. The thing is, most Bolivians don't get it. They don't age their beef in Bolivia. Kamilla does, and it's delightful.
After everyone joined us and I had a few drinks, I caught a cab back to the house with Kamilla. Remember that little snippet about the altitude? It threw me for a loop. At the house, I slept like a baby. I needed it. Sunday was going to be a big day.


Doesn't make my hair too thick or too greasy. Works very well and does exactly what I want it to!
Love the color! And how it feels on my lips! Isn't too thick and makes them look fabulous!
My daughter uses these! She loves them! They work so well and cures her chapped lips, especially in the winter!
Favorite lip moisturizer I've ever used! I once had an allergic reaction and my lips split and hurt so bad- this was the only thing that helped make them feel better and cured the cracks!
Love!! Keeps lips soft, and heals already chapped lips!!
Not only do I use it, but my husband and kids do as well. It's a must use chapstick!


text:
Dieter Leipold (* 18. Oktober 1937 in Ludwigsburg; †  31. August 2014 in Ostheim vor der Rhön) war ein deutscher Braumeister und Unternehmer. Er erfand das Erfrischungsgetränk Bionade.

Leben

Dieter Leipold verbrachte seine Kindheit und Jugend in Würzburg und erlernte den Beruf des Braumeisters. 1964 trat er eine Anstellung in der Brauerei Peter in Ostheim an, wo bis in die 1980er Jahre Bier hergestellt wurde. Als seine spätere Ehefrau Sigrid Kowalsky den Betrieb übernahm, suchte Leipold nach einer Alternative zum damals für kleine, mittelständische Brauereien wenig profitablen Geschäft mit Bier. In seinem Wohnhaus entwickelte er ein Brauverfahren, bei dem aus Malz in einem Gärungsprozess Gluconsäure anstelle von Alkohol entsteht. Gluconsäure wird auch von Bienen zur Haltbarmachung des Honigs benutzt. Das daraus entwickelte Erfrischungsgetränk Bionade wurde, nachdem die Brauerei durch die hohen Kosten für Entwicklung und Produktionsstart fast insolvent geworden war, später überregional erfolgreich. Leipold war Mitinhaber der Marke, welche 2009 und 2012 schrittweise an die Radeberger-Gruppe verkauft wurde.

Schon vor dem Verkauf hatte sich Leipold aus dem Tagesgeschäft zurückgezogen. Das Management des Betriebs und auch das Marketing lagen ihm weniger als das handwerkliche Brauen und die Entwicklung neuer Bionade-Rezepte. Kaufmännisch waren seine Stiefsöhne Stephan und Peter Kowalsky verantwortlich für das Unternehmen.

Leipold lebte in zweiter Ehe mit Sigrid Peter-Leipold und verstarb nach kurzer schwerer Krankheit in seiner Wahlheimat Ostheim vor der Rhön.

Auszeichnungen

Gemeinsam mit seiner Ehefrau wurde er mit der silbernen Jubiläumsmedaille der Stadt Ostheim geehrt.

Weblinks

Lebenslauf und Nachruf in der Mainpost vom 2. September 2014 (abgerufen am 4. September 2014)

Einzelnachweise

Unternehmer (21. Jahrhundert)
Unternehmer (Bayern)
Brauer (Deutschland)
Deutscher
Geboren 1937
Gestorben 2014
Mann
Bier (Bayern)
Person (Ostheim vor der Rhön)


Thoreau, New Mexico, clean water being delivered by St. Bonaventure Indian Mission for a Navajo family. A third of the Navajo Nation lack a water supply in some places because past uranium mining has contaminated ground water. Relying on delivered water, these families use an average of 7-10 gallons a day, compared to 400 gallons for the typical American family of four.


ngs.ru was registered 1 decade 9 years ago. It has a alexa rank of #3,615 in the world. It is a domain having .ru extension. This site has a Google PageRank of 5/10. It is estimated worth of $ 2,442,960.00 and have a daily income of around $ 2,262.00. As no active threats were reported recently, ngs.ru is SAFE to browse.
Arcor - Ihr Internetportal. Free-Mail, Foto-Service und News zu Politik, Sport, Unterhaltung, Digital und weiteren Themen des täglichen Lebens!


text:
Q: shortest distance from moving point in parabola to point P is the moving point on the following parabola and Q is fixed point (-1,8) .calculate shortest distance between p and q
$2x=y^2$
$x=\frac{y^2}{2}$
$d= \sqrt{(y-8)^2 + (x+1)^2}$
$d^2= (y-8)^2 + (\frac{y^2}{2}+1)^2$
$d^2= 2y^2-16y+\frac{y^4}{4}+65$
$d`=4y-16+y^3=0$
$y=16$ or $y=\sqrt{12}$
$y^2=2x$
$16^2=2x$
$x=128$
$y^2+4=16$
$(128,16)$
$y^2=12$
$y=\sqrt{12}$
$(6,\sqrt{12})$
is this right?

A: No, it's wrong.
The equation $y^3+4y-16=0$ gives $y=2$.
My solution.
By your work and by AM-GM
$$d=\sqrt{(y-8)^2+\left(\frac{y^2}{2}+1\right)^2}=\sqrt{\frac{y^4}{4}+2y^2-16y+65}=$$
$$=\sqrt{\frac{y^4}{4}+2\cdot y^2+5\cdot4-16y+45}\geq\sqrt{8\sqrt[8]{\frac{y^4}{4}\cdot(y^2)^2\cdot4^5}-16y+45}=$$
$$=\sqrt{16|y|-16y+45}\geq\sqrt{45}=3\sqrt5.$$
The equality occurs for $y=2$, which says that $3\sqrt5$ is a minimal value.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Situated in Koksijde, this renovated Penthouse VI has 360 view via a sun terrace. Guests benefit from free WiFi and private parking available on site.
This apartment has a toaster, flat-screen TV and kitchenware.
Price indication: From €78,00 per night.


text:
Los Angeles County Requiring Masks at Outdoor Concerts and Festivals
The mask mandate, which begins this week, is in place regardless of vaccination status
The Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles, California, June 2014 (GAB Archive/Redferns)
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a new order today requiring attendees of any major outdoor event to wear masks due to an increase in COVID-19 cases, Variety reports. This includes concerts, outdoor festivals, and sporting events. The department, which previously instituted an indoor mask mandate in July, confirmed this new mandate is being implemented as the Delta variant of COVID-19 has become predominant in the county.
New York City officials recently announced that vaccinations will be required for anyone planning to attend concerts, films, Broadway shows, and more starting in September.
Revisit "What Does a Music Festival During a Pandemic Look Like? We're About to Find Out" on the Pitch.
TagsCoronavirus


text:
Gov. Newsom declares state of emergency over monkeypox
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday declared a state of emergency over monkeypox to help bolster the state's vaccination efforts.
"California is working urgently across all levels of government to slow the spread of monkeypox," Newsom said. "We'll continue to work with the federal government to secure more vaccines, raise awareness about reducing risk, and stand with the LGBTQ community fighting stigmatization."
California and New York are epicenters for the virus. New York has reported nearly 1,500 cases of the virus while California has reported nearly 800. New York declared a state of emergency over the weekend.
California public health leaders have asked the federal government to make more vaccine doses available to the state. California has distributed more than 25,000 vaccine doses and will make additional allocations in the coming days and weeks.
Friends of Oceano Dunes accuses Tribune of defamation, demands retraction
Firefighters extinguish four fires on the Cuesta Grade
giblets56
One can only hope and pray for some sanity in our government. It's a shame the people no longer have a say in who represents us. Reeks of Nazi Germany.
Why not just tell people to take a break from casual sex with strangers for a period of time… it won't kill ya….
Zoiebowie
Completely preventable. The government can't stop your poor choices.
Completely preventable agreed, just like Polio that's making a comeback because of anti vax idiots that don't care they are darwining themselves.
Vote Up-2Vote Down
How much is this costing California taxpayers?
Who is profiting from this declaration?
Jorge Estrada
With any luck, the vaccine will help with Donkey Pox too.
mullyman
The Donkey Pox virus exists now it's in all the Politicians.


Help me Identify This Pin!
Don't know what exactly you're looking at? Post a photo in here and let the community help you identify your pin!
Walt Disney Imagineering and other Disney Images!!!
So it seems PinPics has ousted inactive accounts. wanting/trading ratios revisions!
Because Tiana is in New orleans should i keep this pin then?
Im looking for a Pin Folder to hold my "Carded" Pins HELP.
2010 DPF Secret Santa Event is a GO!
Ever have your pins stolen?
What do you do with your Backer Cards?
Button Pins? What do you think?
Do you feel guilty saying no to a trade?
Can anyone pick these up for me??
Limited Edition in the parks?
Friends of iamdisneydan...PLEASE READ "and all others too"
I am very aggravated! Now what?
Off to work we go!
* falls over dead* SPLAT!