Bernard Katz, as liquidating supervisor (the "Liquidating Supervisor") under a confirmed plan in this Chapter 11 case, is before the court on the Motion for Estimation of Thomas-Related Claims Pursuant to Provision 7.4 of the Plan filed in this case on January 29, 2004 (Doc. 1723). The motion asks the court to estimate, for purposes of distribution, the claims (the "Thomas Claims") asserted by the R. David Thomas Trust U/A Dated 8/10/1997 (the "David Thomas Trust"), the Estate of R. David Thomas (the "David Thomas Estate"), and the Estates of R. David Thomas and I. Lorraine Thomas (the "David and Lorraine Thomas Estates"). These claims are the same amounts and arise from the same transactions as the claims that these parties have asserted in the related case of Wallace G. Wilkinson ("Mr. Wilkinson"), Case No. 01-50281, in this court. The question here is whether this debtor is liable, on the basis of fraud, for these sums that it neither borrowed nor guaranteed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Thomas claimants' claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act is valueless and that any tort damages suffered by them may be allocated between and among them, the debtor, and third parties in accordance with the parties' relative fault. Accordingly, the scope of the evidentiary hearing scheduled for October 27, 2004 on the Motion for Estimation of Thomas-Related Claims Pursuant to Provision 7.4 of the Plan that Bernard Katz as liquidating supervisor filed in this case on January 29, 2004 is hereby limited to the Thomas claimants' claim for common law fraud and the liquidating supervisor's defenses thereto.
The hearing was conducted as scheduled, but the hearing consisted solely of argument in that neither party took advantage of the opportunity to cross-examine the opponent's witnesses.
The court has considered the admissible evidence and the briefs and arguments of counsel, and now estimates that the claims of the David Thomas Trust, the David Thomas Estate, and the David and Lorraine Thomas Estates (collectively, the "Thomas Claimants") for common law fraud have no value for the reasons set forth below.
At the outset, the court must address the set of Objections of Bernard Katz, Liquidating Supervisor for Wallace's Bookstores, Inc., to Thomas Claimants' Proposed Documentary Evidence and Deposition Testimony that was filed on October 18, 2004 (Doc. 1842). After reviewing the objections and the Thomas Claimants' responses thereto (Doc. 1849) and hearing the arguments of counsel, the court will sustain the objections in part and overrule them in part.
The bulk of the objections (nos. 2, 3, and 18) assert that portions of the affidavits and testimony of R.L. Richards ("Mr. Richards") should be excluded because they contain conclusions and unfounded speculation, rather than facts. Rule 43(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Rule 9017 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, provides: "When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions." Rule 43 does not prescribe the form of affidavits, but Rule 56(e) does and the court concludes that it is appropriate to apply the requirements of the latter provision because this claims estimation procedure is closely akin to a motion for summary judgment – particularly since neither party elected to present any "live" cross-examination of witnesses' whose testimony was presented by affidavit or deposition transcript.
Rule 56(e) provides: "Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein." An affidavit does not comply with the rule unless it is "comprised of something more than 'rumors, conclusory allegations and subjective beliefs.'" Chiles v. Cuyahoga Comm. College, 215 F.3d 1325 (Table), 2000 WL 687644,at *3 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 584-85 (6th Cir. 1992)); accord, e.g., Franks v. Ky. Sch. for the Deaf, 956 F. Supp. 741, 751 (E.D. Ky. 1996), aff'd, 142 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 1998). Likewise, speculative statements may not be considered on a motion for summary judgment. E.g., Stagman v. Ryan, 176 F.3d 986, 995 (7th Cir. 1999); Thornhill Pub. Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979).
The court will now turn to the specific statements that the Liquidating Supervisor challenges.
First Richards Affidavit Paragraph 4 (Doc. 1807, Part 2, p.2). The latter part of this paragraph states that Wallace's Bookstores, Inc. (the "Debtor") participated in a Ponzi scheme and that R. David Thomas ("Mr. Thomas") would not have made or guaranteed loans to or for Mr. Wilkinson had he known the Debtor's true financial condition. The extent of the Debtor's participation in Mr. Wilkinson's course of business (whether or not properly characterized as a Ponzi scheme) must be shown by evidence of specific acts, not conclusions, so these statements will be excluded. Mr. Richards's opinion regarding Mr. Thomas's reliance can be considered, Fed. R. Evid. 701, but will be viewed in light of Mr. Thomas's own testimony with respect to that issue. Mr. Richards's statement regarding his own reliance will be given greater weight, to the extent that his (as opposed to Mr. Thomas's) reliance is pertinent to this matter.
First Richards Affidavit Paragraph 5 (Doc. 1807, Part 2, p.2). This paragraph states that Mr. Wilkinson was speaking on behalf of the Debtor in making false representations to Mr. Thomas and Mr. Richards. Whether or not Mr. Wilkinson was acting within the scope of his agency must be shown by evidence of specific facts, not conclusions, so this statement will be excluded.
First Richards Affidavit Paragraph 6 (Doc. 1807, Part 2, p.3). In this paragraph, Mr. Richards states that "he believed and understood that Wallace Wilkinson was speaking on behalf of Wallace's Bookstores, Inc., in making [certain statements] to me." The court will admit this statement to the extent that Mr. Richards's belief and understanding is relevant to the matters before the court but not, as explained above, to show that Mr. Wilkinson was in fact acting as agent for the Debtor. Again, the statement set forth in this paragraph regarding reliance will be admitted, but may not be given significant weight due to Mr. Thomas's own testimony.
First Richards Affidavit Paragraph 7 (Doc. 1807, Part 2, pp. 3-4). Statements regarding reliance will be admitted and statements regarding Mr. Wilkinson making representations as agent for the Debtor will be excluded for the reasons set forth above.
First Richards Affidavit Paragraph 8 (Doc. 1807, Part 2, p. 4). Conclusions that the Debtor "assisted and conspired" in Mr. Wilkinson's course of business will be excluded for the reason set forth above.
First Richards Affidavit Paragraph 9 (Doc. 1807, Part 2, pp. 4-5). Mr. Richards's opinion that Mr. Thomas relied on financial statements will be admitted. Conclusions regarding Mr. Wilkinson acting as agent for the Debtor, that his knowledge was imputed to the Debtor as a matter of law, and that the Debtor participated in the transactions in question will be excluded.
Richards 2004 Transcript Pages 24-25 (Doc. 1843, Part 2, pp. 20-21). In this passage, Mr. Richards again stated his belief regarding Mr. Wilkinson speaking on behalf of the Debtor. Those statements will be admitted, to the extent that Mr. Richards's belief is relevant.
Richards 2004 Transcript Pages 37-38 (Doc. 1843, Part 2, pp. 32-33). In this passage, Mr. Richards stated his interpretation of Mr. Wilkinson answering the telephone in his office during business hours as an affirmative representation that statements made during the conversation are made in a business capacity. Again, to the extent that Mr. Richards's inference is relevant, it will be admitted.
Second Richards Affidavit Paragraph 12 (Doc. 1813, Part 2, p.3). Statements in this paragraph regarding Mr. Wilkinson acting as agent for the Debtor will be excluded.
Second Richards Affidavit Paragraph 13 (Doc. 1813, Part 2, p.3). The statement in this paragraph regarding Mr. Wilkinson acting as agent for the Debtor will be excluded. Conclusions that Mr. Wilkinson and the Debtor knew that certain representations were false and that both intended that Mr. Thomas, I. Lorraine Thomas ("Ms. Thomas"), and Mr. Richards rely on the statements will be excluded as speculation. Statements regarding reliance by Mr. Thomas and Ms. Thomas will be admitted.
Several other objections (nos. 7, 11, and 12) assert that certain deposition transcripts should be excluded because "[n]either WBI nor Katz had an opportunity to attend this deposition." This issue is governed by Rule 32(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable in bankruptcy contested matters by Rules 9014(c) and 7032 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Rule 32 permits the use of depositions at a trial or upon the hearing of a motion by certain parties for certain purposes but only "against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof." "The rule implies a principle of fairness requiring that the opposing party have the right or opportunity to be present at the deposition." Bobb v. Modern Prods., Inc., 648 F.2d 1051, 1055 (5th Cir. 1981). While it is true that the Liquidating Supervisor could compel the attendance of the witnesses at the hearing for cross-examination, "opportunity to observe demeanor is what in a large measure confers depth and meaning upon oath and cross-examination." Fed. R. Evid. 804 advisory committee's note. In any event, the rule allows of no exceptions. Accordingly, the transcripts of the depositions of Messrs. Cardin, Anderson, and Jeff Wilkinson and of Ms. Clarke will be excluded.
Several objections (nos. 4, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17) seek to exclude deposition transcripts, expert reports, and other exhibits "on the grounds of hearsay, lack of foundation, and the admission of the exhibit will deny Katz the right of cross examination of the author [or witness]." The objections will be overruled to the extent that they are based on the lack of a foundation, as "foundation" is a broad term and the Liquidating Supervisor does not explain what sort of foundation he contends should be laid. The objections will also be overruled to the extent that they are based on the denial of the right of cross-examination, because the Liquidating Supervisor could have compelled the individuals' attendance at the hearing to be cross-examined. However, with one exception, the documents are excluded by the hearsay rule.
The reports, letter, and memoranda constitute hearsay: they are written assertions not made at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(a)-(c). The documents are not prior statements by witnesses whose testimony has been offered by affidavit or deposition transcript, and the Thomas Claimants do not contend that the documents constitute admissions by party-opponents. Id. R. 801(d). Nor do the Thomas Claimants contend that any exception to the rule against hearsay is applicable. See id. R. 803, 804. Rather, they contend only that the court may take judicial notice of the documents because they have been filed with the court.
In this regard, the Thomas Claimants cite United States v. Doss, 563 F.2d 265, 269 n.2 (6th Cir. 1977). However, in Doss, the Court of Appeals took judicial notice of testimony found in the record of a related appeal. The reports, letter, and memoranda in issue here do not constitute testimony under oath, which would be admissible under the procedure outlined by the court for this summary claims estimation process. Lynch v. Leis, 382 F.3d 642, 647-48 n.5 (6th Cir. 2004), is also distinguishable because, there, judicial notice was taken of the court's own records, not a document merely filed with the court by a party. Likewise, Lyons v. Stovall, 188 F.3d 327, 332-33 n.3 (6th Cir. 1999), does not control here because judicial notice was taken of a brief solely for the purpose of determining whether the party had made a certain argument, and was not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted. It is simply not the law, as the Thomas Claimants contend, that any document filed in any court is admissible for any purpose.
All documentary evidence (including pleadings, discovery requests and responses, and other papers filed with the court) shall be authenticated by a paragraph of the joint stipulation or of an affidavit of a witness's direct testimony or by deposition testimony, and true and correct copies of all documents shall be attached to the joint stipulation, affidavit, or deposition transcript, as appropriate.
The Stratton and Kauffman reports, the Antoszyk letter, and the Gotlieb and Westcott memoranda will be excluded.
The Thomas Claimants assert, on the other hand, that the Ciancanelli report is an exhibit to the transcript of one of the depositions of Sharon Bromberg and that Ms. Bromberg relied on the report. However, the Ciancanelli report is not authenticated or adopted – or even mentioned – in the excerpts of the Bromberg transcripts that the Thomas Claimants designated for the court to consider in this matter, so this report must also be excluded.
The Liquidating Supervisor asserts a provisional objection (no. 1) to "all documentary evidence and deposition testimony designated by the Thomas Claimants on the grounds of relevancy and lack of foundation since it is impossible to determine at this time what testimony will be offered by the Thomas claimants in presentation of their case." The court will disregard all evidence that is not relevant to this matter.
The Liquidating Supervisor also objects (nos. 2 and 18) to statements in Mr. Richards's affidavits that relate to whether the activity in question took place via interstate telephone, interstate wire, or U.S. Mail. The court agrees that these statements are irrelevant in light of the court's previous ruling estimating the value of the Thomas Claimants' RICO claim at zero. In re Wallace's Bookstores, Inc., No. 01-50545, 2004 WL 2785274 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. July 23, 2004).
The Liquidating Supervisor also objects (no. 2) to Mr. Richards's reiteration of statements allegedly made by Mr. Wilkinson. In Paragraph 6 of the First Richards Affidavit (Doc. 1807, Part 2, p. 3), the affiant states: "Wallace Wilkinson told me that the $5,000,000 loan to him on January 2, 2001, was for use by Wallace's Bookstores, Inc. in connection with a book buy for Wallace's Bookstores, Inc., to establish a college bookstore at Middle Tennessee State College [sic]." This statement is not hearsay, because it is not offered to prove its truth, i.e., that the loan would be used in connection with a book buy, but merely to prove the fact that the statement was made. The declarant – the person whose credibility would be tested by cross-examination – is the affiant, not Mr. Wilkinson. E.g., United States v. Gibson, 690 F.2d 697, 700 (9th Cir. 1982); United States v. McDonnel, 550 F.2d 1010, 1012 (5th Cir. 1977) (citing Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 219-20, 94 S. Ct. 2253 (1974)). This objection will be overruled.
The Liquidating Supervisor also objects (no. 2) to Paragraph 9 of the First Richards Affidavit (Doc. 1807, Part 2, pp. 4-5) on the ground that its statements regarding reliance are "at odds with Thomas's own testimony." As indicated above, the statements are admissible but any inconsistency will be considered in adjudging the credibility of the statements and the weight to be given them.
On October 8, 1993 Mr. Thomas began his business dealings with Mr. Wilkinson by purchasing an interest in a $3.5 million promissory note that had been issued by Mr. Wilkinson in favor of L.D. Gorman, and that note was repaid on time. (Id. ¶ 3 (Doc. 1814, p. 2); First Richards Aff. ¶ 3 (Doc. 1807, Part 2, p. 1).) No investigation of Mr. Wilkinson was undertaken by or on behalf of Mr. Thomas in connection with that transaction. (Dep. of Richard L. Richards, at 71 (July 31, 2001) (Doc. 1843, Part 2, p. 81.) Over the next 6½ years, Mr. Thomas directly or indirectly made 38 loans, totaling approximately $78 million, to Mr. Wilkinson and all the loans were repaid in full. (First Richards Aff. ¶ 3 (Doc. 1807, Part 2, p.1).) No evidence has been offered that any of the Thomas Claimants ever loaned this debtor any funds.
He made a major point, the governor made a major point, regularly with us that the loans were general obligation loans.
The only time that he ever made a direct representation to me was when we made our last loan, where he said, he named a school and whatever, and they are going to do this and this.
You knew the activity was there before, but he always said, don't forget this is general activity loans. It was like a mantra.
Q. Did you ever develop any idea or any theory of your own why the governor had this, as you call it, a mantra or a speech about such loans being for general purposes and not tied to particular book buys?
Q. Did you wonder why he would make those comments?
A. A little bit, but he wanted to have the flexibility to be able to put it in the particular business that he wanted to put it in.
Whether it was the bookstores or one bookstore or the other bookstore or however he wanted to do it, he didn't want you to be in his way.
It was like you're trusting me; here's the money; I'm going to put it where it's best served.
I don't know if it was a confirmation of the reality that you were loaning the money to him and he would put it where he wants to, how he would do it, without collateral or with collateral, to give him the ability to grow the business the way he wanted to without interference. It was that, I believe, what would have been my understanding of that.
A. When he was giving me the value of Wallace's Bookstores, Inc., he was the majority shareholder, he was the chairman, he was the absolute monarch and king of Wallace's Bookstores, and he was telling me how much it was worth. I believe he was telling me as the chairman, the majority shareholder, and the chief. . . .
Q. Okay. He didn't say explicitly, "By the way, I am speaking for Wallace's Bookstores, Inc., and here is the situation"?
A. He didn't have to because he was the chairman, the majority shareholder, and the absolute monarch of that company over the years. So he did not every time we had a conversation, have to reintroduce himself and all his titles. There were no trumpets that blew when he told me -- redefining his role. Absolutely he was telling me as the operator of Wallace's Bookstores.
Q. . . . He didn't say, "I spoke for Wallace's Bookstores"; I think that is the assumption you made because of his position.
A. Absolutely, yes, that's correct.
On February 28, 2001, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, commencing this case. (Joint Stips. ¶ 23 (Doc. 1814, p. 4).) On March 18, 2002 the Debtor filed an objection to the allowance of the Thomas Claims. There are three Thomas Claims: in proof of claim no. 2711, the David Thomas Trust asserts a claim in the amount of $29,009,730.27, representing the principal and interest owing by Mr. Wilkinson on promissory notes issued to the claimant or its assignors; in proof of claim no. 2712, the David Thomas Estate asserts a claim in the amount of $8,053,242.54, representing the principal and interest owing by Mr. Wilkinson on promissory notes issued to the claimant's assignor; and, in proof of claim no. 2713 (as amended), the David and Lorraine Thomas Estates assert a claim in the amount of $16,000,000.00, representing the amount paid by the claimants in satisfaction of their obligations under a guaranty of an indebtedness of Mr. Wilkinson to a third party lender, The United Company. The proofs of claim limit interest to the amounts that accrued prior to the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Mr. Wilkinson. They do not take into account any payments received on the debts in question from other sources (such as Mr. Wilkinson's bankruptcy estate), but do not include legal expenses incurred in attempting to enforce those indebtednesses.
On May 20, 2002 the court confirmed the Plan that had been proposed by the creditors' committee on March 21, 2002. Section 7.4 of the Plan provides for the estimation of claims for distribution purposes.
In actually estimating the value of a claim, many courts have taken a binary approach; all or nothing. The party that carries its argument by a preponderance generally receives either a claim value of zero if the debtor prevails, or the full value of the claim if the claimant prevails. While such approach may be appropriate for a finder of fact, we do not believe that it is appropriate for a claim estimation proceeding. A trier of fact first determines which version is most probable and proceeds from there to determine an award in a fixed amount. An estimator of claims must take into account the likelihood that each party's version might or might not be accepted by a trier of fact. The estimated value of a claim is then the amount of the claim diminished by probability that it may be sustainable only in part or not at all.
In re Windsor Plumbing Supply Co., 170 B.R. at 521 (citations omitted). The court as "estimator of claims" in this case can determine with some certainty "the likelihood that each party's version might or might not be accepted by a trier of fact," since the court would serve as trier of fact were the Liquidating Supervisor's objection to the Thomas Claims to be fully litigated. Accordingly, again, the estimation of the Thomas Claims is, under the circumstances of this case, closely akin to a summary judgment procedure – particularly in light of the parties' decision to forgo the opportunity to present "live" cross-examination at the hearing on this matter.
In a Kentucky action for fraud, the party claiming harm must establish six elements of fraud by clear and convincing evidence as follows: a) material representation b) which is false c) known to be false or made recklessly d) made with inducement to be acted upon e) acted in reliance thereon and f) causing injury.
United Parcel Serv. Co. v. Rickert, 996 S.W.2d 464, 468 (Ky. 1999) (citation omitted); accord, e.g., Anderson v. Wade, 33 Fed. Appx. 750, 756 (6th Cir. 2002). "Fraud may be established by evidence which is wholly circumstantial." Rickert, 996 S.W.2d at 468 (citations omitted).
[W]hen parties deal at arm's length, when there is no relation of trust or confidence between them, and no representation or statement that would have a tendency to deceive or mislead, and there are no special circumstances imposing a duty to speak, mere silence or nondisclosure of facts within the superior knowledge of one of the parties will not amount to such fraud as would authorize a rescission of the contract, or justify a denial of relief thereon.
Addison v. Wilson, 37 S.W.2d 7, 12 (Ky. 1931). The Thomas Claimants have cited no Kentucky case holding that a guarantor-principal obligor relationship is one of "trust or confidence" giving rise to a duty to speak, and the court is aware of none. Second, Mr. Thomas was a guarantor for Mr. Wilkinson, not the Debtor, so any fiduciary obligations resulting from the principal-guarantor relationship would be owed by Mr. Wilkinson, not the Debtor. Moreover, the claims in question were not incurred by Mr. Thomas in his capacity as a shareholder in the Debtor.
The Thomas Claimants assert that the Debtor made misrepresentations in the form of false audited and unaudited financial statements for 1998-2000 indicating that the debtor was a "growing, profitable and successful business." It does appear that the Debtor did issue the financial statements and that they were inaccurate in numerous material respects. The audited statements were prepared by independent accountants, but were disseminated by the Debtor and were based on information provided by the Debtor, and the unaudited statements were prepared by the Debtor (albeit based in part on the erroneous and otherwise improper audited statements). In addition, the financial statements were issued and disseminated knowingly.
However, the financial statements were sent to Mr. Thomas (directly or through his representatives) in his capacity as a shareholder, not as a prospective lender, and there is no evidence that Mr. Wilkinson, acting as agent for the Debtor, incorporated or referred to the financial statements in connection with the loans or guaranty. The financials may have been intended to induce Mr. Thomas to retain his stock or forbear from taking action against the Debtor's management and thus may support a securities fraud claim or derivative suit, but there is no evidence that they were intended to induce extensions of credit. Put another way, Mr. Thomas qua shareholder cannot recover for injury suffered by Mr. Thomas qua lender. See Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 501 (5th Cir. 2000) (individual could not assert fraud claim in his capacity as option holder for misrepresentations made to him as member of board of directors); see also Walker v. Choate, 14 S.W.2d 406, 407 (Ky. 1929) (representations made to plaintiff in capacity as agent do not support claim of fraud by plaintiff in individual capacity). To the extent that Mr. Wilkinson provided the Debtor's financial statements to Mr. Thomas as an inducement to obtain credit or made reference to the financials in that regard (see Richards 2004 Tr., at 34 (Doc. 1843, Part 2, p. 29)), it was Mr. Wilkinson – not the Debtor – that used the financial statements to induce the loans to Mr. Wilkinson and the guaranty of Mr. Wilkinson's debt to The United Company. By providing the financials to Mr. Thomas as shareholder, there simply is no evidence that the Debtor intended to induce reliance by him as lender; and to the extent that the financial statements were used to induce the extensions of credit, they constitute representations by Mr. Wilkinson, not the Debtor.
Dave's method of investing was knowing the person who he was investing with. The numbers were well down the line. It was wanting to know and trust the person he was investing with.
[H]e liked the activity and investing and being in business with his friends. He enjoyed that as much as anything. He wanted to make money doing that, but it was the enjoyment he got from doing business with people that he knew and trusted.
Q. Did you ever do any investigation to see if Mr. Wilkinson was telling you the truth?
A. Had no reason to do that. And the reason why -- let me tell you one reason, was that people that had been around him for a long time, and I have to use Jim McGlothlin, Bryant, Milo Bryant, L.D. Gorman, who are the people, you know, who have been friends of his, known him for a long time, had no reservations about him.
Said he was honest. Been the former governor of Kentucky. Because he was a democrat there was nothing held against him. But the people -- the bottom line was that people around him like him. And probably the ones that -- there is probably some in Kentucky that didn't like him, but I don't think he wasn't a big majority, but he was -- he was liked.
Q. And that is the reason you didn't do any further investigation of his financial affairs; is that right?
A. Right. Because I thought that these people knew what they was doing . . . .
(Dep. of R. David Thomas, at 113-14 (taken Oct. 9, 2001) (Doc. 1843, Part 6, pp. 91-92).) The lack of reliance is further demonstrated by the fact that the financial statements purport to reflect the condition of one company in which Mr. Wilkinson held stock, while Mr. Thomas neither requested nor received any information about other aspects of Mr. Wilkinson's financial affairs (other assets, liabilities, cash flow, etc.); although Kentucky courts generally do not require that reliance be "reasonable," to make a decision regarding the extension of many millions of dollars of credit to a borrower based solely on the value of one of his investments would be so unreasonable as to undermine Mr. Richards's conclusory affidavits on the issue.
The Thomas Claimants have failed to carry their burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the Debtor issued the false financial statements with intent to induce reliance thereon by the Thomas Lenders in their capacity as prospective lenders, and that they did in fact rely on the financial statements in deciding to extend credit to Mr. Wilkinson. Accordingly, the Thomas Claims are valueless to the extent they are based on the false financial statements.
The Thomas Claimants also assert that representations were made orally by Mr. Wilkinson, in his corporate capacity on behalf of the Debtor, to the effect that (a) the proceeds of the $5 million loan made on January 2, 2001, would be used to establish a book store operation at Middle Tennessee State University or another Tennessee college, (b) all loan proceeds would be used by the debtor to purchase new and used books, and (c) the debtor was highly solvent and prosperous. Even assuming that the Thomas Claimants can carry their burden of proving that Mr. Wilkinson did in fact make these statements, there is no evidence in the record that he did so within the scope of his agency for the Debtor. Mr. Thomas made the loans and other extensions of credit to Mr. Wilkinson, not the Debtor. While Mr. Wilkinson may have made representations about the Debtor to Mr. Thomas or his representatives, there is no evidence – notwithstanding Mr. Richards's testimony that he believed Mr. Wilkinson was speaking on behalf of the corporation – that Mr. Wilkinson made the representations on the Debtor's behalf rather than on behalf of himself as the prospective borrower.
The mere fact that Mr. Wilkinson was a director and officer of the Debtor's is not sufficient. A corporation can act only through its agents, e.g., Caretenders, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 821 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Ky. 1991). A corporation is liable for fraud only if "the agent or servant at the time of the commission of the felony or fraud was acting within the scope of his employment, and that the misconduct naturally connects itself with the service or duty being performed for or in the name of the master or employer." Ray's Adm'rs v. Bank of Kentucky, 73 Ky. (10 Bush) 344, 1874 WL 7224, at *5 (1874). Although some or all of the loans received by Mr. Wilkinson may have found their way into the coffers of the Debtor, the funds were lent to Mr. Wilkinson, not the Debtor, so it may be presumed that all representations were made by Mr. Wilkinson individually for the purpose of inducing extensions of credit to him. The Thomas Claimants have offered no evidence to rebut that presumption. See Pippenger v. McQuik's Oilube, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 1411, 1422 (S.D. Ind. 1994) (corporation is not liable for securities fraud committed by majority shareholder to induce minority shareholder to sell stock to majority shareholder). The Thomas Lenders chose to make loans to Mr. Wilkinson in his individual capacity, and may not now be heard to contend that representations made by Mr. Wilkinson to induce the loans were not made by him in his individual capacity.
[F]or a misrepresentation to be fraudulent, it must relate to a present or a pre-existing fact; a promise or statement of future intent is, as a general rule, not actionable. However, if the statement of intent or promise of future action is made with no intention to perform in order to induce another to perform, a cause of action for fraud may be maintained.
Joseph v. Shamrock Coal Co., 125 F.3d 855 (Table), 1997 WL 618797, at **3 (6th Cir. 1997) (citing Brooks v. Williams, 268 S.W.2d 650, 652 (Ky. 1954); Schroerlucke v. Hall, 249 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Ky. 1952); Evola Realty Co. v. Westerfield, 251 S.W.2d 298, 300-01 (Ky. 1952)); accord, e.g., Moore, Owen, Thomas & Co. v. Coffey, 992 F.2d 1439, 1448 (6th Cir. 1993). The Thomas Claimants have presented no evidence that Mr. Wilkinson, at the time he made promises regarding the use of the loan proceeds, intended to use the funds other than as promised. Thus, the statements regarding the use of the funds would not give rise to liability even if the Thomas Claimants had carried their burden of proving that the statements were made on behalf of the Debtor. See Beneficial Fin. Co. v. Lambert (In re Lambert), 21 B.R. 23, 27-28 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1980) (court concluded that borrower's statement that he would use portion of loan proceeds to satisfy another indebtedness did not constitute representation in absence of evidence that borrower did not intend to pay debt from advance at time promise was made).
The Thomas Claimants have failed to carry their burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the Debtor made any oral misrepresentations. It follows that the Debtor could not have made such statements knowingly or recklessly or with intent to induce reliance and that the Thomas Lenders could not have relied on any representations by the Debtor in extending credit to Mr. Wilkinson. Accordingly, the Thomas Claims are valueless to the extent they are based on Mr. Wilkinson's oral representations.
Since the court has determined that the probability of the Thomas Claimants' success in establishing the Debtor's liability for fraud is zero, the court need not determine the amount of damages or apply the probability of liability thereto: zero percent of any amount of damages is zero. Nevertheless, the court concludes that the Thomas Claimants have not satisfied their burden of proving the extent of their injury.
"One induced by fraudulent representations to enter into a contract is entitled to recover as damages, not only what he actually parted with, but benefits of the bargain." Investors Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Colson, 717 S.W.2d 840, 841 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986) (citing Dempsey v. Marshall, 344 S.W.2d 606 (Ky. 1961)). The measure of damages for fraudulent inducement of a loan is (1) principal and interest, less (2) the present value of the loan at time of trial, less (3) payments already received on the loan. FDIC v. W.R. Grace & Co., 877 F.2d 614, 623 (7th Cir. 1989); see First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding Corp., 27 F.3d 763, 768 (2d Cir. 1994) (payments on fraudulently induced loan must be deducted in determining damages). But see City Bank v. Ramage, 72 Cal. Rptr. 273, 286 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968) (citations omitted) ("There is authority that, in an action for fraud and deceit, the payee of a note may recover judgment for the full amount of the loan from one not the maker of the note, whose fraud has induced the making of the loan without attempting to recover on the note and without regard to what might possibly have been recoverable on the note.").
The Thomas Claimants have presented their computations of the principal and interest on the loans and the payment made on the guaranty, but these figures are insufficient because the Thomas Claimants received distributions in Mr. Wilkinson's bankruptcy case and could conceivably receive additional distributions in that case. The Thomas Claimants assert that the total amount of the distributions is exceeded by the attorney's fees (the notes including "attorney's fee" provisions), but do not offer any specifics regarding the distributions or the attorney's fees (including a breakdown of the collections received and attorney's fees incurred by each claimant on account of each debt). Accordingly, even if there was some probability that the Thomas Claimants could prove liability for fraud, they have not carried their burden of proving the amount of damages resulting from the fraud.
Again, since the court has determined that the probability of the Thomas Claimants' success in establishing that the Debtor is liable for fraud is zero, the court need not determine the extent to which the fault for any loss resulting from the fraud is attributable to persons other than the Debtor. Nevertheless, the court concludes that the Debtor's allocable share of the fault would be minimal.
Under Kentucky's comparative fault statute, the court must determine "the percentage of the total fault . . . that is allocated to each claimant," considering "both the nature of the conduct of each party at fault and the extent of the causal relation between the conduct and the damages claimed." K.R.S. § 411.182(1)(b), (2). The percentage of fault allocated to the claimant is then deducted from the damages to arrive at the amount of the judgment. Id. § 411.182(1)(b), (3). Here, Mr. Thomas was at least as much at fault as the Debtor. Indeed, the combined fault of Mr. Thomas, Mr. Wilkinson, and the outside auditors who prepared the financial statements would certainly exceed the fault that would be allocable to the Debtor had the Thomas Claimants proven that the financial statements were issued to induce extensions of credit or that oral misrepresentations were made by Mr. Wilkinson on behalf of the Debtor rather than on his own behalf.
The Thomas Lenders' fault arises from facts including (i) their failure to investigate Mr. Wilkinson's financial condition, (ii) their failure to include loan document provisions specifying the use of the funds, (iii) their failure to require a guaranty by the Debtor, (iv) their failure to require the Debtor to pledge collateral for the loans and guaranty, and (v) their failure to "police" the use of the loan proceeds. The Thomas Claimants say they were defrauded because they relied on misrepresentations as to the Debtor's financial condition, yet they did not take any action to put the Debtor or its assets "on the hook," electing to take Mr. Wilkinson's word that he would put the funds into the Debtor (or other entities) and use them to buy books. The Thomas Claimants' loss resulted, more than anything, from Mr. Thomas's way of doing business, lending huge sums of money based primarily on his personal relationships with the borrowers. The decision to conduct business in that manner has consequences and, under the comparative fault statute, Mr. Thomas may not be relieved of those consequences.
Mr. Thomas trusted Mr. Wilkinson and others who "liked" Mr. Wilkinson. As a result, Mr. Thomas caused the Thomas Lenders to extend many millions of dollars to Mr. Wilkinson individually, with the expectation – perhaps resulting from Mr. Wilkinson's promises and representations – that the funds would be prudently expended in one of Mr. Wilkinson's book ventures and in hopes of reaping a high rate of return. The Thomas Lenders did not investigate the financial condition of their borrower and took no steps to assure that the funds would be used as promised. To the extent that they relied on the financial condition of one of Mr. Wilkinson's enterprises, as represented by him and/or in the Debtor's financial statements that had come into Mr. Thomas's hands as a shareholder in the Debtor, the Thomas Lenders took no action to make the Debtor or its assets legally answerable for the repayment of the credit. It is only after their trust in Mr. Wilkinson proved to be unfounded that the Thomas Claimants undertook to devise a theory for seeking to recover their loss from the Debtor, as well as Mr. Wilkinson. Clearly, the claimants have valid claims against the Wilkinson estate for the sums loaned to and guaranteed for Mr. Wilkinson, but they have not proven valid claims against this Debtor. For the reasons set forth above, their theory for holding the Debtor liable for Mr. Wilkinson's debts lacks merit.
Accordingly, the court will enter a separate order effecting the evidentiary rulings set forth in Part II of this opinion and estimating the value of the Thomas Claims at zero.
References to "Doc. ___" are references to the document number in the court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system. When a filing is divided into parts, the reference to the document number will be followed by a reference to the part number ("Part ___").
The Revised Second Amended Joint Consolidated Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation [etc.] confirmed in this case on May 20, 2002 (the "Plan") authorized the court, after estimating a claim, to treat the estimated value as either the allowed amount of the claim or a maximum limitation on the claim. In light of the court's determination that the Thomas Claims have no value, it is not necessary to make an election regarding the treatment of the claims.
The Thomas Claimants did not object to any evidence offered by the Liquidating Supervisor.
These objections challenge the admissibility of Paragraphs 4-9 of the Affidavit of R. L. Richards that was filed on August 16, 2004 (Thomas Ex. 1) (Doc. 1807, Part 2, pp. 2-5) (the "First Richards Affidavit"), Pages 24-25 and 37-38 of the transcript of the Rule 2004 examination of Mr. Richards taken on July 30, 2003 (Thomas Ex. 2) (Doc. 1843, Part 2, pp. 20-21, 32-33) (the "Richards 2004 Transcript"), and Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Affidavit of R. L. Richards that was filed on October 5, 2004 (Doc. 1813, Part 2, p. 3) (the "Second Richards Affidavit").
These objections challenge the admissibility of the transcripts of the depositions of Gary Cardin (Thomas Ex. 16) (Doc. 1843, Part 17, p.15 - Part 18, p. 2), Lois Clarke (Thomas Exs. 17, 18) (Doc. 1843, Part 18, pp. 3-27, Part 18, p. 28 - Part 19, p. 6), Roger Anderson (Thomas Ex. 22) (Doc. 1843, Part 21, p. 46 - Part 22, p. 7), and Jeff Wilkinson (Thomas Ex. 23) (Doc. 1843, Part 22, pp. 8-14). The objections (nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10) to the admission of the transcripts of the depositions of L.S. Conner, Wayne Bell, and Dawn Taylor were withdrawn in open court.
These objections challenge the admissibility of the reports of Jane Ciancanelli (Thomas Ex. 11) (Doc. 1843, Part 5, p. 21 - Part 6, p. 80), R. Wayne Stratton (Thomas Ex. 27) (Doc. 1843, Part 23, pp. 6-12), and James Kauffman (Thomas Ex. 28) (Doc. 1843, Part 23, pp.13-23), a letter from attorney Peter Antoszyk (Thomas Ex. 30) (Doc. 1843, Part 23, pp. 34-38), and memoranda by Kathy Gotlieb (Thomas Ex. 31) (Doc. 1843, Part 23, pp. 39-40) and Jennifer Westcott (Thomas Ex. 32) (Doc. 1843, Part 23, pp. 41-43). The objections (nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10) to the admission of the transcripts of the depositions of L.S. Conner, Wayne Bell, and Dawn Taylor were withdrawn in open court. Because the transcripts have been excluded for the reasons stated in Part II.C. of this opinion, the court will not consider these objections as they relate to the Cardin, Clarke, Anderson, and Jeff Wilkinson deposition transcripts.
By analogy to a summary judgment proceeding, the only papers properly considered in this matter in lieu of direct testimony would be pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). None of the documents in question was attached to or authenticated by an affidavit and, with one exception, none was part of a deposition transcript.
These objections challenge the admissibility of Paragraphs 6 and 9 of the First Richards Affidavit (Doc. 1807, Part 2, pp. 3, 4-5) and Paragraphs 13, 17, and 18 of the Second Richards Affidavit (Doc. 1813, Part 2, pp. 3-4, 5).
The record does indicate that financial statements were provided to The United Company and were prepared, in general, to provide to creditors, but does not support a finding that financials were furnished to the Thomas Lenders in any capacity other than Mr. Thomas's capacity as a shareholder.
There is at least one Kentucky intermediate appellate court decision holding that the reliance must be "justified . . . in the exercise of common prudence and diligence," Selke v. Stewart, 86 S.W.2d 83, 87 (Ky. Ct. App. 1935), and a panel of the Sixth Circuit has followed this holding in an unreported decision, Wells v. Huish Detergents, Inc., 19 Fed. Appx. 168, 177 (6th Cir. 2001).
The court in Lambert also pointed out that the lender could have protected itself by disbursing the funds directly to the other creditor, In re Lambert, 21 B.R. at 28, just as the Thomas Lenders could have protected themselves by including restrictions on the use of the funds in the loan documents or instituting controls on the disbursement and use of the loan proceeds.
The statute expressly requires the consideration of fault allocated to persons who have been released from liability. K.R.S. § 411.182(1)(b), (4).


So the start of term has come and gone and I wanted to share a lesson plan which I used with both my B1 and B2 classes to start the year. I often find those first-day classes difficult to plan for – you don't always know how many people will turn up, what will their level be like compared to the supposed level of the class and, in my case this year as I was teaching in a new centre, what the classroom environment will be like. I also find that with younger learners, you can easily while away the hour on getting to know you activities and revision games; however, I think as soon as possible we should be getting into "work" and certainly adults are more interested in seeing what a real class will be like than spending too long on icebreakers.
The following lesson plan is suitable for B1 and B2 and involves a task aimed at learners preparing for the Trinity ISE exams, though paraphrasing is also a skill in the Cambridge exams.
I'm good at being organised and getting up early.
I worry about not arriving on time.
This year, I'm really looking forward to going to Florida at Christmas.
In the future, I'd love to have my own language school.
Explain to the learners that of these five sentences about you, four are true and one is false. Put them into pairs and give them some time to think of questions they could ask you about the sentences to discover which is false. Monitor and help with question structures.
In WGFB, nominate learners to ask you questions and then invite learners to guess which is the false sentence.
Underline the structures in each sentence and ask learners to identify what comes next: infinitive (with or without to), verb+ing or a noun? Identify which have more than one option. Write the following phrases on the board and tell learners to identify what follows.
As paraphrasing is an important skill for the Reading into Writing task in the ISE exams, I try to find a moment to practise it in every lesson. There is also an element of paraphrasing in the Cambridge exams, though this is much more structured.
Tell learners to re-write the sentences below using the phrases above (including your original five statements), without changing the meaning of the sentence.
I would rather travel by car than by train.
I find documentaries about nature very interesting.
I'm excited because I've got fun plans for the weekend.
Finding my way around new places is easy for me.
Learners can compare their sentences and also discuss if these statements are true for them.
Learners can now personalise the original task by writing five statements about themselves, four of which are true.
Quite a few years ago, I had a change of environment and started working in a state school which had blackboards – prompting me to suggest a new title for the blog. Well, it's happened again…but now I'm faced with a scarily expensive smartboard! Annoyingly, there is also a whiteboard in the room…at the other end of it and whilst I love using the whiteboard, I feel it's a little inconsistent to ask my class to turn their chairs/desks around every other day.
So, at the moment I'm going PowerPoint-crazy, prepping my lessons like the billy-o. However, I will ask someone at the centre to help me out with using the smartboard as a board, rather than just projecting everything.
Another area of excitement with this new environment is that I have been given the highest level group…which means I have a range of levels from pre-B1 to post-B2, with some who have even prepared for a C1 exam. I'm going to look into how I can effectively differentiate in the classroom, bearing in mind that the centre is materials-light (so no wonderful photocopying of various level reading texts) and also has a no-phones policy (so no wonderful differentiated listening tasks on BYOD). It's a new adventure!
So, I've been thinking a lot about questions recently and in my adolescent B1 group yesterday the grammar point was indirect questions. The book we're using this year, Gold Experience, is strong on controlled practice activities (which unfortunately aren't particularly challenging for my group) but I find that the language the book covers, both grammatical and lexical, needs much more dynamic and personalised activities to make it enjoyable and memorable.
They had to draw themselves on the top left and a classmate on the bottom right (there was also a space to put names in case the drawings weren't clear!). They had to think of a question to ask each person in the class – nothing too personal or rude, but something interesting that they would like to know. There's a wonderful vibe in this group so I wasn't worried about them asking anything impolite or distasteful – but it's worth laying out the ground rules just in case.
We then put all the papers in a pile on the table and then did a mingle: each person took a card and had to approach the person drawn on the bottom right and ask the question indirectly, then write their answer in the speech bubble.
Jaime, Nacho would like to know why you only come to class once a year.
Belén, Inma wants to know what your boyfriend's name is.
They were really enjoying the mingle and the end of the lesson crept up on us, but the next logical stage will be to do a quick review of reported speech and feedback.
I started a new class yesterday – an A2 group, many of whom studied English many years ago at school or in the government-run language school. I wanted to do some kind of a mingle as a getting-to-know-you activity and thought about doing a 'Find someone who…' activity. However, when I was thinking about the actual development of the activity, I felt the mingle stage would be too heavily preluded by a stage on adapting the statements to questions and question formation, which led to doubts about whether we would get bogged down by different tenses and the use of auxiliaries and modals. I was trying to think of a way in which I could adapt the activity so that learners would still get the communicative element of questioning different classmates, without the heavy grammatical focus beforehand.


Reliable:One of the major ingredients of our limo service is reliability. We are known for providing convenient options for our customers. We know time is of utmost importance for you because we understand you may have a plane to catch or a meeting to attend on time. We have employed highly professional drivers to provide you with the best travel experience. Our drivers know which route will be comfortable, short, and smooth for your needs.
Flexible:We are quite flexible when it comes to following the pickup and drop off time. We are a customer-centered company and we always follow the date and time communicated to us by our customers. Our cars can accommodate 4 to 6 people at a time.
Luxurious Comfort:When you travel with us, you actually experience the utmost luxury you can ever have in a car. Our limo service is a blend of luxury, style, entertainment, climate control, drinking water. On the other hand, our spacious cars can accommodate plenty of luggage.
Value for Money:You are going to have the best value for your money if you choose us. Please note that you get different services in standard limo than a deluxe limo. Moreover, both types of limos have different pricing plans. A luxury limo costs more than a normal cab but it offers a lot more in return. A cab does not have enough space to accommodate 4 to 6 people along with their luggage. On the contrary, a spacious limo cannot only accommodate 4 to 6 people, but the passengers will be able to take a huge amount of luggage with them.
Safe and Secure:All of our drivers go through background check and we only hire those who have a clean record. So you need not worry about any mishap if you travel with us.
You have read the top five benefits of a good limo service. If you want to hire a limo, you may need more details about our limo service. So feel free to get in touch with us anytime to ask anything. Pick your phone, dial our number and consult for free. You can also contact through our online form.


text:
Анто́н Андрі́йович Бацько — лейтенант Збройних сил України.

З життєпису
19 липня 2014-го лейтенанти Антон Бацько та Юрій Воронін при звільненні міста Ясинувата рухалися в колоні у БТРі та потрапили під вогонь терористів. БТР був підбитий, військовики із нього продовжували вестри обстріл терористів та підбили ворожий БТР і ліквідували живу силу, що надало змогу зайняти певний рубіж й виконати бойове завдання.

Станом на березень 2017-го — офіцер відділення БСП, в/ч 3005, з дружиною Кароліною проживають у місті Харків.

Нагороди
За особисту мужність і героїзм, виявлені у захисті державного суверенітету та територіальної цілісності України, вірність військовій присязі під час російсько-української війни
 нагороджений орденом «За мужність» III ступеня (26.2.2015).

Джерела

 Президент нагородив учасників АТО
 Декларації

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
California Lakes >
Information on Trinity Lake houseboat rental vacation packages with competition wakeboard and ski boat rental. About Trinity Lake which was previously called Clair Engle Lake, is a on the Trinity River formed by the Trinity Dam and located in Trinity County, California. The lake has a capacity of 2,447,650 acre-feet, making it one of the largest reservoirs in California. The lake's surface is at an elevation of 2370 feet. Trinity Lake captures and stores water for the Central Valley Project, which provides the Central Valley with water for irrigation and produces hydroelectric power. This lake is known for its many small arms which is great for wakeboarders and surfers, glassy inlets, and great water skiing conditions.
Fun fact about Trinity Lake; after the death in office of California United States Senator Clair Engle in 1964, the lake was renamed in his honor, but this name never received wide currency, particularly with local residents, and the name eventually was officially reverted to the widely-used original one. Asking a local resident for directions to "Clair Engle Lake" may result in a prank, in which the unsuspecting individual is sent to the local sewage treatment facility.
The lake is serviced by three marinas,Trinity Alps Marina located on the southern end in view of the Dam. Cedar Stock marina on the Stuart Fork arm on the West end of the lake, and Trinity Center marina at the Northern end of the main arm of the lake. Most of the marinas rent houseboats to vacationers year round. Invert Sport offers watercraft rentals and guided boat charters to customer who are staying several day doing water sport activities.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Nigerian army averts Boko Haram attacks on Maiduguri
The Nigerian Military have swiftly averted the intended attack by Boko Haram fighters on Maiduguri on Saturday.TVC News gathered that suspected members of Boko Haram attacked Maiduguri from Bale Shuwa, a community 3 km to the Government House as it's residents in their hundreds are moving away from Jiddari Polo axis of the town.
The insurgents group had been active recently, Abubakar Shekau, the leader of Jama'atu Ahlil Sunnah Lil Da'awatu Wal Jihad, a faction of the Boko Haram terrorist group, yesterday released two videos, the group's embattled leader featured in one.
In the second video, fighters are seen in a firefight with the Nigerian Army in 'Kumshe, Borno state, last Sunday,' said the terror group.
The military in a statement on Saturday said it's men are now in full control of the situation and residents are moving back to.their homes.
"The city of Maiduguri is for now is quite as normalcy is being restored by the swift response of the military to Bale shuwa community", the military said.
California's fire death toll jumps to 23, Paradise in ruins
Abuja-Kaduna Train derails in Kubwa, passengers taken to safety
Several train passengers were on Friday left stranded after a Kaduna-Abuja train derailed off its its tracks.
Benue APC on life support after Appeal Court's ruling – PDP
The Benue State Chapter of the People's Democratic Party (PDP) has said that the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Benue...


Dimensions: 4-5/8" x 3-3/8" x 5/8"
Pop Up Gift Card boxes are a wonderful way to give a gift. There are many different stock patterns available, 50 to the case. These can also be hot stamped with your logo. Please call us at 800-426-5708 for any questions about custom options. You are helping the environment by using these boxes as they are made from recycled board.
Minimum order is 1 case of 50 boxes.


For about a decade, ELTIM's TWARON® Angel Hair was since 2008 a unique damping material for loudspeakers and other sound absorbing processes. Per september 2017 we suddenly needed to order hundreds of tonns/year. This huge amount is way out of the audio community league, so we decided to stop production immediatelly.
In the MUNDORF Angel Hair products listed below, we offer an alternative product today, also based on Twaron fibers, yet undergoing less processes. Due to this it is also not self expending like ours was.
alternative for former ELTIM Angel Hair (since 2008), beeing n.l.a.


Most college students want to believe that their college campus is a safe, secure environment where they are free to learn and have fun without the threat of serious danger. Unfortunately, crime on college campuses is a reality that far too many students have to contend with. The Office of Postsecondary Education of the U.S. Department of Education collects annual information on a variety of crimes that occur on college campuses each year. While these reports include all alleged crimes, the statistics are shocking in some respects.
At public, 4-year (or more) institutions with 10,000+ students, the most commonly reported criminal offense in recent years was burglary, with 6,712 burglaries reported in 2011, down from 7,241 the year before. These ratings are for on-campus events only, so these numbers do not reflect burglaries or alleged burglaries that take place in off campus student housing, like apartment complexes.
A far distant second to burglaries, motor vehicle theft is the second most reported criminal offense on college campuses of the above-mentioned size, with 1,349 reported motor vehicle thefts in 2011, up from 1,336 in 2010.
Finally, the third most commonly-reported criminal offense on college campuses is forced sexual assault, with 1,153 reported in 2011, which is a slight increase from 1,038 in 2010.
Depending on the offense at hand, crimes that occur on college campuses can be dealt with in a number of ways. For more serious criminal offenses like those listed above, non-campus law enforcement is often involved, and most of the individuals accused of these crimes will need to secure the assistance of a criminal lawyer to defend them.
However, for some smaller offenses, individuals may not need to secure outside legal representation, as the matter may be dealt with on-campus. Many large universities have student courts that deal with on-campus offenses, and for some offenses, students will simply represent themselves in front of this organization if charged with an offense.
Some crimes on campus are more severe and require higher authority. Campus police and courts can only handle cases to an extent.If your case needs more attention, you or your peer may need to speak with a lawyer about your legal options and the upcoming steps to seek out compensation. A criminal attorney from your state may be able to answer any questions that may arise from your situation. Seeking out the legal guidance for these type of situations may be helpful.


text:
Q: Spotipy: How to read more than 100 tracks from a playlist I'm trying to pull all tracks in a certain playlist using the Spotipy library for python.
The user_playlist_tracks function is limited to 100 tracks, regardless of the parameter limit. The Spotipy documentation describes it as:

user_playlist_tracks(user, playlist_id=None, fields=None, limit=100,
  offset=0, market=None)
Get full details of the tracks of a playlist
  owned by a user.
Parameters:

*

*user

*the id of the user playlist_id

*the id of the playlist fields

*which fields to return limit

*the maximum number of tracks to return offset

*the index of the first track to return market

*an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code.

After authenticating with Spotify, I'm currently using something like this:
username = xxxx
playlist = #fromspotipy
sp_playlist = sp.user_playlist_tracks(username, playlist_id=playlist)
tracks = sp_playlist['items']
print tracks

Is there a way to return more than 100 tracks? I've tried setting the limit=None in the function parameters, but it returns an error.

A: Many of the spotipy methods return paginated results, so you will have to scroll through them to view more than just the max limit. I've encountered this most often when collecting a playlist's full track listing and consequently created a custom method to handle this:
def get_playlist_tracks(username,playlist_id):
    results = sp.user_playlist_tracks(username,playlist_id)
    tracks = results['items']
    while results['next']:
        results = sp.next(results)
        tracks.extend(results['items'])
    return tracks

A: I wrote a function that can output Panda's DataFrame where it pulls all the metadata (not all of it because I didn't want to, but you can make some space for that) for playlists over 100 songs. I do it by iterating over every song, finding the metadata for each, saving the metadata to a dictionary, and then concatenating the dictionary to the DataFrame. It takes your username and the Playlist ID as input.
# Function to extract MetaData from a playlist thats longer than 100 songs
def get_playlist_tracks_more_than_100_songs(username, playlist_id):
    results = sp.user_playlist_tracks(username,playlist_id)
    tracks = results['items']
    while results['next']:
        results = sp.next(results)
        tracks.extend(results['items'])
    results = tracks

    playlist_tracks_id = []
    playlist_tracks_titles = []
    playlist_tracks_artists = []
    playlist_tracks_first_artists = []
    playlist_tracks_first_release_date = []
    playlist_tracks_popularity = []

    for i in range(len(results)):
        print(i) # Counter
        if i == 0:
            playlist_tracks_id = results[i]['track']['id']
            playlist_tracks_titles = results[i]['track']['name']
            playlist_tracks_first_release_date = results[i]['track']['album']['release_date']
            playlist_tracks_popularity = results[i]['track']['popularity']

            artist_list = []
            for artist in results[i]['track']['artists']:
                artist_list= artist['name']
            playlist_tracks_artists = artist_list

            features = sp.audio_features(playlist_tracks_id)
            features_df = pd.DataFrame(data=features, columns=features[0].keys())
            features_df['title'] = playlist_tracks_titles
            features_df['all_artists'] = playlist_tracks_artists
            features_df['popularity'] = playlist_tracks_popularity
            features_df['release_date'] = playlist_tracks_first_release_date
            features_df = features_df[['id', 'title', 'all_artists', 'popularity', 'release_date',
                                       'danceability', 'energy', 'key', 'loudness',
                                       'mode', 'acousticness', 'instrumentalness',
                                       'liveness', 'valence', 'tempo',
                                       'duration_ms', 'time_signature']]
            continue
        else:
            try:
                playlist_tracks_id = results[i]['track']['id']
                playlist_tracks_titles = results[i]['track']['name']
                playlist_tracks_first_release_date = results[i]['track']['album']['release_date']
                playlist_tracks_popularity = results[i]['track']['popularity']
                artist_list = []
                for artist in results[i]['track']['artists']:
                    artist_list= artist['name']
                playlist_tracks_artists = artist_list
                features = sp.audio_features(playlist_tracks_id)
                new_row = {'id':[playlist_tracks_id],
               'title':[playlist_tracks_titles],
               'all_artists':[playlist_tracks_artists],
               'popularity':[playlist_tracks_popularity],
               'release_date':[playlist_tracks_first_release_date],
               'danceability':[features[0]['danceability']],
               'energy':[features[0]['energy']],
               'key':[features[0]['key']],
               'loudness':[features[0]['loudness']],
               'mode':[features[0]['mode']],
               'acousticness':[features[0]['acousticness']],
               'instrumentalness':[features[0]['instrumentalness']],
               'liveness':[features[0]['liveness']],
               'valence':[features[0]['valence']],
               'tempo':[features[0]['tempo']],
               'duration_ms':[features[0]['duration_ms']],
               'time_signature':[features[0]['time_signature']]
               }

                dfs = [features_df, pd.DataFrame(new_row)]
                features_df = pd.concat(dfs, ignore_index = True)
            except:
                continue

    return features_df

A: Another way around it would be to write a for loop and do:
offset +=100

then you could concatenate the tracks at the end, or put them in a data frame.
Function Ref:
playlist_tracks(playlist_id, fields=None, limit=100, offset=0, market=None)

Reference: https://spotipy.readthedocs.io/en/2.7.0/#spotipy.client.Spotify.playlist_tracks

A: Below is the user_playlist_tracks module used in spotipy.  (notice it defaults to 100 limit).
Try setting the limit to 200.
def user_playlist_tracks(self, user, playlist_id = None,   fields=None,
    limit=100, offset=0):
    ''' Get full details of the tracks of a playlist owned by a user.

        Parameters:
            - user - the id of the user
            - playlist_id - the id of the playlist
            - fields - which fields to return
            - limit - the maximum number of tracks to return
            - offset - the index of the first track to return
    '''
    plid = self._get_id('playlist', playlist_id)
    return self._get("users/%s/playlists/%s/tracks" % (user, plid),
                limit=limit, offset=offset, fields=fields)

A: When trying the above solutions I got key error messages. I eventually figured it out. Here is my solution. This is only for displaying tracks/artists on the next pages.
id = "5lrkIjzukk65X4ksulpA0H?si=9db60a70278a4fd6"

results = sp.playlist_items(id)
tracks = results['tracks']
next_pages = 14
track_list = []

for i in range(next_pages):
    tracks = sp.next(tracks)
    for y in range(0,100):
        try:
            track = tracks['items'][y]['track']['name']
            artist = tracks['items'][y]['track']['artists'][0]['name']
            track_list.append(artist)
        except:
            continue

print(track_list)

A: It's unfortunate SpotiPy makes their API Access to complicated. Try using SpotifyR in r, and you can accomplish this in a few lines of code. No loops, lists, extra variables, or appending required. Then just pop it back into python if you'd like.
library(spotifyr)
df <- get_playlist_audio_features('playlist_owner_username', 'playlist_uri')

And boom, you're done. I'm not sure what the max is, but I know it's over 300 songs because I have pulled that in.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
<法規>
<法規性質>命令</法規性質>
<英文法規名稱>Regulation Governing Permission to Undertake the Marine Scientific Research in the Exclusive Economic Zone or on the Continental Shelf of the Republic of China</英文法規名稱>
<中文法規名稱>在中華民國專屬經濟海域或大陸礁層從事海洋科學研究許可辦法</中文法規名稱>
<法規網址>https://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=H0160038</法規網址>
<最新英文異動日期>20190708</最新英文異動日期>
<廢止註記>
</廢止註記>
<附件 />
<沿革內容><![CDATA[1.Announced Date:2000-08-16
2.Amended Date:2015-05-15
3.Amended Date:2019-07-08]]></沿革內容>
<前言><![CDATA[]]></前言>
<法規內容>
  <條文>
    <條號>Article 1</條號>
    <條文內容><![CDATA[This regulation is adopted in accordance with paragraph 3 of article 9 of the Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf of the Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "the Law").]]></條文內容>
  </條文>
  <條文>
    <條號>Article 2</條號>
    <條文內容><![CDATA[The competent authority of this regulation is the Ocean Affairs Council.]]></條文內容>
  </條文>
  <條文>
    <條號>Article 3</條號>
    <條文內容><![CDATA[Those intending to undertake marine scientific research in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf of Republic of China shall fill out an application form and enclose the proposal to apply for permission in accordance with the following rules:
1. Natural persons, private juristic persons, or private organizations or institutions of the Taiwan Area intending to undertake marine scientific research independently shall apply for permission from the competent authority not less than four months prior to the expected starting date of the marine scientific research project.
2. Universities/colleges or academic institutions of the Mainland Area intending to conduct marine scientific research, in cooperation with universities/colleges, or academic institutions of Taiwan Area, shall apply for permission from the competent authority through the cooperating universities/colleges or academic institutions of the Taiwan Area not less than six months prior to the expected starting date of the marine scientific research project.
3. Researchers of foreign universities/colleges, academic institutions or international organizations intending to undertake marine scientific research, independently or in cooperation with researchers of universities/colleges or academic institutions in the Taiwan Area, shall apply for permission from the competent authority, through the Republic of China's embassies or consular missions, representative offices, or offices, not less than six months prior to the expected starting date of the marine scientific research project. In case the foreigners' national State has embassies or consular missions, representative offices, offices, or other institutions authorized by the government of the said State in the Republic of China, applications may be submitted through such institutions.
Application beyond the deadline and without legitimate reasons will be turned down.
The contents and format of the application form and proposal referred to paragraph 1 shall be prescribed by the competent authority.]]></條文內容>
  </條文>
  <條文>
    <條號>Article 4</條號>
    <條文內容><![CDATA[After receiving an application submitted in accordance with paragraph 1 of the preceding article, the competent authority shall examine whether the proposed project complies with paragraph 2 of article 9 in the Law and other related acts or regulations, and make a decision within four months after the date of receipt of such application, except for the ones needing correction. It shall notify the applicant of the decision in writing, and send copies of the notification to the relevant agencies. For application, which need to be modified or provide additional information, the authority shall inform the applicant to resubmit within 42 days, which do not include the review period.
Application without resubmitting by regulated time period in the preceding paragraph will be dismissed.
In reviewing the applications submitted in accordance with paragraph 1 of the previous Article, with the exception of those submitted in accordance with subparagraph 1, the competent authority shall establish review committees composed of relevant agencies and experts. Applications submitted in accordance with subparagraph 1 may be reviewed on paper.]]></條文內容>
  </條文>
  <條文>
    <條號>Article 5</條號>
    <條文內容><![CDATA[The necessary condition referred in paragraph 1 of article 9 in the Law includes the following situations:
1. The research activities are not being conducted in accordance with the proposal.
2. The research activities are in violation of a provision prescribed in paragraph 2 of article 9.
3. Other situations decided by the competent authority.]]></條文內容>
  </條文>
  <條文>
    <條號>Article 6</條號>
    <條文內容><![CDATA[This regulation shall enter into force on the date of promulgation.]]></條文內容>
  </條文>
</法規內容>
</法規>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Professor Yarbro Collins joined YDS in 2000 after teaching at the University of Chicago Divinity School for nine years. Prior to that, she was a professor in the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. Her first teaching position was at McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago. She was president of the Society for New Testament Studies in 2010-2011 and president of the New England Region of the Society of Biblical Literature in 2004-2005. She was awarded honorary doctorates in theology by the University of Oslo, Norway, in 1994 and by the University of Zurich in 2015. She was granted a Fellowship for University Teachers by the National Endowment for the Humanities for 1995–96. Her most recent books are New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation (editor; 2017), King and Messiah as Son of God, coauthored with John J. Collins (2009), and Mark: A Commentary in the Hermeneia commentary series, published in 2007. Among her other publications are Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism; The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context; Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse; The Apocalypse (New Testament Message series); and The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation. She served as editor of the Society of Biblical Literature's Monograph Series from 1985 to 1990. She currently serves on the editorial board of the Hermeneia commentary series. Professor Yarbro Collins is a fellow of Trumbull College. B.A. Pomona College; M.A., Ph.D. Harvard University.
Read more about Prof. Adela Collins.


Paul Toprac is the Associate Director and Senior Lecturer, Game and Mobile Media Applications (GAMMA) Program, at The University of Texas at Austin. Previously, Toprac was at the Southern Methodist University and before then, the Executive Director of the Austin Technology Council. He has written numerous articles and book chapters on how to use digital games to promote motivation and affect emotions. Toprac has more than the twenty years of experience in the software industry, in roles ranging from CEO to product manager to consultant. During this time, Toprac has hired, or been part of the hiring process, dozens of people and has helped hundreds get jobs. He holds a Bachelor's of Science in Chemical Engineering, a Master's of Business Administration, and a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from The University of Texas at Austin.


Just a quick note to see if there is any interest in joining a star wars RPG night fortnightly or monthly at the club?
I will be having a crack at being a GM for it and think there is interest off myself and Nick so far.
It will based roughly around a group of mercs (you guys) and more starfighter focused, though there will be foot battles as well.
Yeah I would be interested, but not until next year. I haven't ever really got my head around this rpg lark, so I could do with a jump in point.
I'm still new to it myself but really enjoying the one i have been doing.
Yes please. What rules are you using? I have recently got hold of some as my youngest is into StarWars and role playing games.
It will be using all the fantasy flight books, so age of rebellion etc. Are they old enough to attend club and wanting to play?
I have got to tie up with the guys and see who else is interested, but if you two are in as well i think we will have enough. When would you be free for it in the new year Gaz?
I have a general idea for how i want it to go plot wise, will finish up writing it up and drop something on the forum.
(30-11-2015, 11:22 PM)manrogue Wrote: It will be using all the fantasy flight books, so age of rebellion etc. Are they old enough to attend club and wanting to play?
Adam is 10 - we could give it a go if we are playing once a month his mum might say OK!
Nick said you were doing this the other day. I would love to take part. Was itching to write another long and complex character back story that makes very little sense.
Would you be running Edge or Age?
Coolio, looking good for numbers then.
Probably mainly off age as that is the hardback i have ordered in the sales and waiting till January gives it enough time to arrive.
Shall we aim for the first session in January as the start point?
(02-12-2015, 08:40 AM)manrogue Wrote: Coolio, looking good for numbers then.


Crunch.io is an innovative analytics company in the market research industry. We offer a survey data analysis platform that allows market researchers, analysts, and marketers to collaborate in a secure, cloud-based environment, using an intuitive drag-and-drop interface. Crunch users can quickly gain insights from their data and communicate them to their clients.
We are hiring a Python Software Systems Engineer to help develop and deploy our platform. We are inviting you to join our small, fully remote team of developers and operators helping make our platform faster, more secure, and more reliable. You would help us deliver new features and build the future for how we deploy our products faster and safer while increasing the availability and reliability of our systems. You will explore different ways of problem solving and discover, explain, and defend your choices in implementation. You will be self-motivated and disciplined in order to work with our fully distributed team.
We are looking for someone who is a quick study, who is eager to learn and grow with us, and who has experience in DevOps or Agile cultures. At Crunch, we believe in learning together: we recognize that we don't have all the answers, and we try to ask each other the right questions. Some of the ways that we accomplish that include paired programming to tackle a hard problem, transparent code reviews, and discussions about design and architecture. Since Crunch's employees are completely distributed, it's crucial that you can work well independently, and keep yourself motivated and focused. We move fast but carefully, with a deep commitment to not breaking things… well, not too much.


text:
Dutch Law Proposes a Wholesale Jettisoning of Human Rights Considerations in Copyright Enforcement
By Cory Doctorow
With the passage of last year's Copyright Directive, the EU demanded that member states pass laws that reduce copyright infringement by internet users while also requiring that they safeguard the fundamental rights of users (such as the right to free expression) and also the limitations to copyright. These safeguards must include protections for the new EU-wide exemption for commentary and criticism. Meanwhile states are also required to uphold the GDPR, which safeguards users against mass, indiscriminate surveillance, while somehow monitoring everything every user posts to decide whether it infringes copyright.
Serving these goals means that when EU member states turn the Directive into their national laws (the "transposition" process), their governments will have to decide to give more weight to some parts of the Directive, and that courts would have to figure out whether the resulting laws passed constitutional muster while satisfying the requirement of EU members to follow its rules.
The initial forays into transposition were catastrophic. First came France's disastrous proposal, which "balanced" copyright enforcement with Europeans' fundamental rights to fairness, free expression, and privacy by simply ignoring those public rights.
Now, the Dutch Parliament has landed in the same untenable legislative cul-de-sac as their French counterparts, proposing a Made-in-Holland version of the Copyright Directive that omits:
Legally sufficient protections for users unjustly censored due to false accusations of copyright infringement;
Legally sufficient protection for users whose work makes use of the mandatory, statutory exemptions for parody and criticism;
A ban on "general monitoring"— that is, continuous, mass surveillance;
Legally sufficient protection for "legitimate uses" of copyright works.
These are not optional elements of the Copyright Directive. These protections were enshrined in the Directive as part of the bargain meant to balance the fundamental rights of Europeans against the commercial interests of entertainment corporations. The Dutch Parliament's willingness to pay mere lip-service to these human rights-preserving measures as legislative inconveniences is a grim harbinger of other EU nations' pending lawmaking, and an indictment of the Dutch Parliament's commitment to human rights.
EFF was pleased to lead a coalition of libraries, human rights NGOs, and users' rights organizations in an open letter to the EU Commission asking them to monitor national implementations that respect human rights.
In April, we followed this letter with a note to the EC's Copyright Stakeholder Dialogue Team, setting out the impossibility of squaring the Copyright Directive with the GDPR's rules protecting Europeans from "general monitoring," and calling on them to direct member-states to create test suites that can evaluate whether companies' responses to their laws live up to their human rights obligations.
Today, we renew these and other demands, and we ask that Dutch Parliamentarians do their job in transposing the Copyright Directive, with the understanding that the provisions that protect Europeans' rights are not mere ornaments, and any law that fails to uphold those provisions is on a collision course with years of painful, costly litigation.
EU Policy
Content Blocking
Deeplinks Blog by Cory Doctorow | December 20, 2022
Here's How Apple Could Open Its App Store Without Really Opening Its App Store
And what we can do about it.With this year's passage of the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA), very large online platforms - those with EU revenues of €75 billion or more and at least 45 million EU users - will have to open up their devices to rival app...
Deeplinks Blog by Gennie Gebhart | December 9, 2022
A Promising New GDPR Ruling Against Targeted Ads
Targeted advertising's days may be numbered. The Wall Street Journal and Reuters report that the European Data Protection Board has ruled that Meta cannot continue targeting ads based on user's online activity without affirmative, opt-in consent. This ruling is based on the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation...
Deeplinks Blog by Christoph Schmon, Mitch Stoltz | September 29, 2022
Google Loses Appeal Against EU's Record Antitrust Fine, But Will Big Tech Ever Change?
The EU continues to crack down on big tech companies with its full arsenal of antitrust rules. This month, Google lost its appeal against a record fine, now slightly trimmed to €4.13 billion, for abusing its dominant position through the tactics it used to keep traffic on Android devices...
Press Release | July 5, 2022
EFF Statement on EU Parliament's Adoption of Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act
SAN FRANCISCO–The European Union reached another milestone by approving the "Digital Services Act package" this week. The Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act are intended to create a safer and more competitive digital space.By setting out new responsibilities for online platforms, the Digital Services Act (DSA) was supposed...
Deeplinks Blog by Christoph Schmon, Filip Lukáš, Corynne McSherry | May 4, 2022
The EU's Copyright Directive Is Still About Filters, But EU's Top Court Limits Its Use
The Court of Justice of the European Union has issued a long-awaited judgment on the compatibility of the EU Copyright Directive's filtering requirements with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The ruling recognizes the tension between copyright filters and the right to freedom of expression, but falls...
Deeplinks Blog by Mitch Stoltz, Andrew Crocker, Christoph Schmon | May 2, 2022
The EU Digital Markets Act's Interoperability Rule Addresses An Important Need, But Raises Difficult Security Problems for Encrypted Messaging
The European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA) allows new messaging services to demand interoperability (the ability to exchange messages) from the internet's largest messaging services (like WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and iMessage). Interoperability is an important tool to promote competition and prevent monopolists from shutting down user-empowering innovation. But...
Deeplinks Blog by Corynne McSherry, Konstantinos Komaitis | March 3, 2022
Wartime Is a Bad Time To Mess With the Internet
Like most people, we at EFF are horrified by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Also like most people, we are not experts on military strategy or international diplomacy. But we do have some expertise with the internet and civil liberties, which is why we are deeply concerned that governments around the...
Deeplinks Blog by Konstantinos Komaitis, Katitza Rodriguez, Christoph Schmon | February 18, 2022
Enforcement Overreach Could Turn Out To Be A Real Problem in the EU's Digital Services Act
Democracies are in many ways like the internet. In both cases, it may take a thousand cuts to demolish their foundation, yet each cut contributes significantly to their erosion. One such cut exists in the Digital Services Act (DSA) in the form of drastic and overbroad government enforcement powers. But...
Deeplinks Blog by Alexis Hancock, Jon Callas | February 9, 2022
What the Duck? Why an EU Proposal to Require "QWACs" Will Hurt Internet Security
It's become easier over the years for websites to improve their security, thanks to tools that allow more people to automate and easily set-up secure measures for web applications and the services they provide. A proposed amendment to Article 45 in the EU's Digital Identity Framework...
Deeplinks Blog by Christoph Schmon | December 14, 2021
Digital Services Act: EU Parliament's Key Committee Rejects a Filternet But Concerns Remain
Fix What is Broken vs Break What Works: Oscillating Between Policy ChoicesThe European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) is a big deal. It's the most significant reform of Europe's internet platform legislation in twenty years and the EU Commission has proposed multiple new rules to address the challenges brought...


text:
Q: Can be fuses be replaced by PPTCs as the main overcurrent protection for AC Power Supplies inputs? I'm thinking about replacing input fuses for switch-mode and linear power supplies by PPTCs.
PPTCs are more desirable because it's ability to recover itself after being tripped by overcurrent.
There are some high voltages (up to 250VAC) PPTCs out there: Mouser listing for high voltage PPTCs.
Can I do that? Are there any shortcomings in doing that?

A: The fuse is an integral part of a switched mode power supply in an installation. It's there to protect the wiring in the building's walls from melting and causing a fire should the SMPS develop a short circuit fault.
Fuses have to meet a high degree of reliability when they go open circuit and they can deal with voltages present on the AC line that a polyfuse won't i.e. a fuse won't bat an eyelid should a spike of 600V come along. A polyfuse might melt shut and therefore offer no further protection.
I'm sure there's a possibility that someone has made a range of polyfuses that work as reliably as a standard fuse so keep looking - none of those listed by mouser appear to fit the criteria required of a conventional fuse.

A: A good SMPS itslef has a current limiter when the output is overoalded. The main fuse is mounted to prevent fire when SMPS fails, so when SPMS goes bad the fuse will blow and you can throw everything into trash. In normal situation the fuse will never blow, so you don't need the recover feature.


Is it safer to use a tanning bed? No way! Tanning lamps can put out 10 times as much UV radiation as natural sunlight. Tanning bed users are 74 percent more likely to develop melanoma than those who have never used beds. Research has shown that melanoma incidence has increased six-fold in young adults over the last 40 years. Many experts believe this is partly due to the skyrocketing use of tanning beds. Tanning does give us natural endorphins and can improve appearance, but it is addictive and frequent use is dangerous.
Don't we need sun exposure for vitamin D? UV light converts cholesterol in the skin to vitamin D, which helps strengthen bones and can protect against various cancers and multiple sclerosis. A fair-skinned person in shorts and a tank top can get sufficient exposure for vitamin D in less than 10 minutes on a sunny day. Darker-skinned people may need up to an hour to get the same levels.
Wearing sunscreen reduces the skin's ability to create vitamin D; however, we can safely get it through many foods such as fish, liver, cheese and fortified cereals, and in multivitamins and supplements.


Sky Sports NZ commentator Jason Pine has revealed that a clause in Mark Rudan's Wellington Phoenix contract – inserted at the behest of the club – has come back to burn the 'Nix and enable Rudan's early departure.
While Rudan signed a two-year contract with the Phoenix in May 2018, this clause reportedly allows for termination at nine weeks' notice, meaning Wellington are unlikely to receive any compensation should Rudan – as the rumours suggest – become the inaugural manager of expansion outfit Western United.
"It's my understanding that the club were the ones who were keen on putting that clause in," Pine told Evenings on FNR.
"We all know they got burnt by Darije Kalezic last year. He really decimated the playing group and set the club back quite some distance.
"I think maybe club were a little bit cautious in recruiting an untried A-League coach. It's my understanding they were the ones who put that clause in.
Pine was keen to point out, however, that Rudan's departure was motivated by his family situation.
"It's not that Mark Rudan hates it in Wellington – he's become very fond of the place. He's grown emotionally very attached to his players, to the club, to the staff, to the fans.
"He's here without his family. His family are in Australia and from what I managed to gather a move to Wellington was just not something that could be made to happen.
"And while they're in Sydney and there's all that talk about him ending up in Melbourne, again my understanding is that a move from Sydney to Melbourne was a lot more palatable than a move from Sydney to Wellington was ever going to be.


Welcome, Author and Blogger, Julie Ryan!
Happy New Year! Pens, Paws, and Claws would like to welcome author and book blogger, Julie Ryan to the blog as our first guest of the new year.
I was born in a small mining village in South Yorkshire. Not venturing too far from home, I studied French Language and Literature at Hull University, where I also trained as a teacher. Then the wanderlust kicked in and I lived and worked in France, Poland, Thailand and Greece. I am a bookaholic with a one-click addiction much to my husband's dismay as we are running out of space. I will probably need to live to be 197 in order to read all the books on my shelves. When not writing or reading, I love amateur dramatics and this year I get to play the Soothsayer in Robin Hood.
My Greek Island Mystery series includes Jenna's Journey, Sophia's Secret and Pandora's Prophecy. Each can be read as a standalone. My latest book is Finding Rose, a story of three sisters, three time periods and three secrets.
At the moment we just have one cat, Smudgie, having lost our grumpy old man, Gizzie, over a year ago. Smudgie was a stray that my husband brought home from work. He was in a sorrowful state, covered in oil from the garage with an abscess on his neck. Now he is the most affectionate cat ever. His friendliness knows no bounds and one morning I woke up and looked out of the window to find him inside the pub opposite. He'd obviously stayed for a lock-in. There are always pets in my books, but none based on my own pets so far.
It wasn't intentional, but I think there is a cat in most of the books I've written. All my books are standalones, so the pets aren't recurring characters. In Jenna's Journey there is a cat with catitude ironically called Mr. Tickles, in Sophia's Secret there is a female cat called Elektra who is a bit of a diva, in Pandora's Prophecy there is a puppy for a change called Pickles, and in Callie's Christmas Countdown, Cleo the cat makes an appearance. My latest book, Finding Rose features a black furball called Blackie as well as a pet pig called Lady.
After reading a lot of Christmas books, I'm just about to get started on The Palace of Dreams by Charlotte Betts.
I'm trying to write a new trilogy set in Greece, but I seem to be working on two books at the same time. My head is also buzzing with a possible sequel to Finding Rose.
I have far too many to choose just one 'favourite,' but I love everything written by Victoria Hislop.
We got our first cat, Lucky, when I was about ten. I adored that black and white scamp and my lifelong love of cats stems from that time. We also had a budgie but unfortunately, he came to a sad end.
I was always a sensitive child and remember watching Lassie films where I would inevitably end up blubbling. I just can't bear cruelty to animals, so I seem to remember being distraught when Lassie was kidnapped by some baddies.
I don't think you suddenly become a writer. In my case I have always loved writing. I used to scribble short stories and even wrote a play for my best friend and me to act out for our parents when we were kids. However, I never thought of myself as a writer. Even now, with five novels under my belt, it still feels strange to call myself a writer, but I guess if you write, then you're a writer. I don't think you have to have a mega publishing contract; you just need to have the confidence to believe in yourself. Incidentally, I only started writing novels in my fifties so there is hope for everyone.
When I'm typing Smudgie likes to 'help' by lying across the keyboard. If I try to write in bed, he nudges my hand until I stroke him. I'm sure that without his help, my book would have been finished months ago!
Reading is my number one passion apart from writing and I'm also a blogger. I'm in the lovely position of writers and publishers sending me books to review. I manage to review about 100 books a year, but even I was shocked to discover I have nearly 2000 books on my Kindle aside from the physical books. It's getting to the stage that I no longer have a TBR pile so much as a TBR room. It's an addiction really as I can't resist books no matter where I am. I do buy books too and at the top of my TBR list is Heroes by Stephen Fry – I'm really looking forward to that one.
Develop a thick skin and resilience. Unless you are incredibly talented and amazingly lucky, you will be rejected at some point. There are also trolls who will do their best to bring you down. Believe in yourself and be persistent. Don't forget to enjoy the process though when you can, as to see your book in print is a feeling like no other.
Julie Ryan's roots are in a small mining village in South Yorkshire. After a degree in French Language and Literature, wanderlust kicked in and she lived and worked in France, Poland, Thailand and Greece. Her spirit enriched, her imagination fired, Julie started a series of mystery romances; thrillers set in the Greek Isles.
When not writing or reading or eating chocolate, she can be found treading the boards in the local amateur dramatic society – Oh yes, she can!
Julie, I've been to several Greek islands, so your books set there definitely intrigue me. Thanks for visiting.
I think of Greece as my spiritual home. If you love Greece, I think you'd enjoy my books.
Thanks so much for hosting me and Happy New Year. My resolution as always will be to make a dent in the TBR pile/room but I really don't hold out much hope.
Julie, welcome and happy New Year! I love that you have an entire TBR room! Happy reading!
Next Next post: Hello from Ed and Lonnie of Tracy Weber's Murder Likes It Hot!


text:
BlogThe Libertarian Movement
Watch: Why Are Libertarians Always Fighting? – Michael Munger on Destination vs. Direction Libertarians
by Chris SpangleMay 17, 20201 min read
In a speech to the Libertarian Party of Indiana in 2011, Michael Munger explains the "destination vs. direction" fight that exists in the libertarian movement. While most libertarians agree on 99% of things, there is a fundamental difference in approach and messaging. Should we deliver a bold end game message or layout a path to that end game?
Michael Munger is an economist, chair of the political science department at Duke University, and was the Libertarian candidate for Governor of North Carolina in 2008. Watch the full speech:
Chris Spangle
Chris Spangle is the publisher and editor of We Are Libertarians, a news site and podcast that covers national and Indiana politics from the libertarian perspective. Spangle previously worked in marketing for the Englehart Group on behalf of the Advocates for Self-Government. He also served as the Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Indiana and producer of the Abdul in the Morning Show. He now works as the web director of a nationally syndicated morning show.
Abolish the Electoral College? A Soho Forum Debate
"The Electoral College is the best means of electing a president compared to any others that might be devised." When Donald Trump won the...
Injustice for All: How Financial Incentives Corrupted and Can Fix the US Criminal Justice System
America's criminal justice system is more profoundly broken than most people realize. In their new book, "Injustice for All: How Financial...
BlogLibertarian PhilosophyWatch
Federalist Society: Occupational Regulations vs. Economic Liberty
On May 12, 2021, the Federalist Society's Austin, Dallas, and Houston lawyers chapters cohosted a webinar panel discussing "Occupational...