text:
1 Thursday, 22 March 2007
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, can I invite you to shine some light on
6 the way forward.
7 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I was hoping that you would shine some
8 light for me. I don't know best how to proceed. I do know that I've
9 tried to make some inquiries regarding what would happen if the 98 bis
10 motion were stayed for a while and we got some kind of positive decision
11 or positive feedback from the US about General Clark, how soon he could
12 physically be here if other hurdles were eliminated. I don't have a firm
13 answer for that, Your Honour. It could be -- from the information I have,
14 it appears it wouldn't be a matter of days, it would be more a matter of
15 weeks or maybe even into May in terms of availability. I think I should
16 let you know that, because that may have an impact on how you choose to
17 proceed.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Has there been discussion among counsel to see
19 if --
20 MR. HANNIS: No, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. So you're no further forward than you
22 were yesterday. You believe that you can close your case, have the 98 bis
23 hearing, and then apply to re-open it?
24 MR. HANNIS: Yes. I don't know if I could succeed in that case --
25 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, but that's on the argument of -- I think
1 the wording in fact of the principle might be evidence not available to
2 you at the time.
3 MR. HANNIS: Depends on the definition of "availability," Your
4 Honour.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, it's as simple as that.
6 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: And in the past, it's really been a question of
8 whether the evidence existed or was known about. This is a rather
9 different -- I'm not suggesting --
10 MR. HANNIS: Yes, yes.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm not saying it doesn't fall within that idea. I
12 at the moment don't know. But -- we seem to be on the same wave --
13 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: -- length as to what the problem is.
15 MR. HANNIS: Yes. It certainly doesn't fall in the traditional --
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah.
17 MR. HANNIS: -- way that it's been interpreted but I see an
18 argument that we can a make.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. And you're going to take -- your
20 position is you're prepared to take a chance on the success of that
21 argument?
22 MR. HANNIS: Well, because of the history in connection with this
23 particular matter, I just don't feel that I'm on firm ground to ask you to
24 wait for a while for some indefinite possibility that may or may not
25 happen --
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but --
2 MR. HANNIS: -- when we've all worked so hard and have had a
3 strong interest in getting this case completed as soon as possible.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Don't feel hidebound by technical issues such as
5 the fact that there is an order that your case should close on the 23rd of
6 March. You're in a different situation from the one you were in when you
7 said you would close it on the 23rd of March, slightly different.
8 MR. HANNIS: Yes, yes.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: So I hope it's not that that's stopping you and
10 that you're looking at a much broader picture and the reality rather than
11 the technicality of the situation.
12 MR. HANNIS: No. It's -- it's a reluctance, Your Honour, to put
13 us all on hold for some sort of uncertain future. If I knew for sure that
14 we succeeded that everything -- all obstacles would be removed and that
15 General Clark could come here and testify within a reasonably short
16 time-frame, then I would say, Yes, Judge, I'm requesting that let's delay
17 the 98 bis until that can happen. But because I don't feel firm about
18 when that might be, that's my hesitation.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
20 Mr. O'Sullivan.
21 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, our position is subject to what you just
22 said that you ordered this case to close the 23rd of this month. We're
23 prepared to proceed to 98 bis submissions Monday morning and that's where
24 we stand. The Prosecution could have called its witnesses any time since
25 the case opened in July; that's an important factor.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Only if we allowed them.
2 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, they were on notice of May, Your Honour, of
3 last year about these Rule 70s and Rule 70s are complicated by their very
4 nature and one could ask why would you wait until the last week of a trial
5 when you know that you have a high-ranking US general with all the
6 circumstances that surround Rule 70, but we'll leave it with Your Honour.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I understand that, but what we would at all
8 costs want to avoid is creating complications that we don't require. So
9 it would be very easy for us just to say, Well, we'll postpone the 98 bis
10 and make sure it takes place after all the Prosecution evidence has been
11 led rather than get into deep water over technical issues. I mean, it is
12 attractive to do it next week, but there are attractions about not doing
14 I think we will require to adjourn to consider this. Before we
15 do, there's a couple of things I think I can deal with.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: A motion was presented on behalf of Mr. Lukic for
18 judicial notice of facts affecting the evidence of the witness Protic, a
19 very succinct and, if we may say so, precise statement of the clear legal
20 basis for refusing this application is set out in Mr. Hannis's response.
21 I'm taking this one home to frame it, Mr. Hannis.
22 And in the circumstances, since the motion doesn't satisfy either
23 branch of the test under Rule 94, we deny the motion.
24 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sepenuk, we can probably save you and
1 Mr. Hannis and the planet the use of unnecessary paper for filing by
2 regarding the joint Defence and Prosecution submission for admission of
3 P924, 936, 930, 934, and 937 as made orally and dealt with orally. So we
4 grant admission to these documents. You don't need to do anything
5 further.
6 MR. SEPENUK: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. O'Sullivan.
8 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Just one last matter. Yesterday I informed you
9 that we had agreed with the Prosecution on certain documents as well.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
11 MR. O'SULLIVAN: And you asked me whether the stipulations were by
12 all accused.
14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: They all agreed. I have the document in my hand
15 which just needs signing. I think it's probably more efficient to
16 actually file this because there's a long list, but it's agreed by all
17 parties and it just needs to be signed this morning and filed.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, could you give me a copy of that just now,
19 please.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: This one I think is best dealt with the way you
22 suggest, Mr. O'Sullivan. I'm interested, though, in other connections
23 with the widespread reference to Vojska. These are all examples of
24 publication in Serbo-Croat and then English translation following on that,
25 are they?
1 MR. O'SULLIVAN: That's correct, CLSS translations.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
3 Well, I can return that to you to deal with through the filing
4 process.
5 I want to ask you another question. Applications have been made
6 for provisional release. There's an issue over the appropriate stage of
7 dealing with the applications, assuming time runs and they're responded to
8 in the usual way. If we postpone consideration of the 98 bis motion - if,
9 I say, we postpone it - do you accept that it wouldn't be appropriate to
10 deal with these applications until we had dealt with 98 bis? Or do you
11 want us to consider them in advance of that?
12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I think you'll see that the obvious timing of
13 these motions is that it would be the close of the Prosecution's case. I
14 don't think the postponement of 98 bis would affect that situation. I
15 think that if Your Honours want to allow the Prosecution the normal
16 time-frame to respond, that's fine; if you want to expedite it, we have no
17 objection to that either. I think the matter can be dealt with in the
18 normal course. I don't see a connection between the 98 bis and our
19 application. The connection we saw was the close of the case or the close
20 of the evidence, so I think it can be dealt with forthwith.
22 Mr. Fila.
23 MR. FILA: [Microphone not activated] -- [Interpretation]
24 Submission that was precisely linked to a 98 bis. I thought that I was
25 supposed to write it afterwards and that's why I didn't submit it so far.
1 So you'll probably receive the same submissions from other Defence teams.
2 THE INTERPRETER: The beginning of this intervention was not heard
3 because the microphone was not activated.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I have copies of three. Well, the Chamber
5 will adjourn and consider the question of when it's appropriate to hear
6 the 98 bis submissions, and we'll resume as soon as we've decided what to
7 do. Let's set 10.00 as the time, and if it's later, a message will be
8 conveyed to you.
9 --- Recess taken at 9.19 a.m.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, this is the simplest question I think I
12 could possibly ask you: Do you rest your case now?
13 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I guess with the provision that --
14 I should tell you there's one additional matter I need to bring to your
15 attention concerning General Vasiljevic. You'll recall in his testimony
16 about a Joint Command meeting on June the 1st. He indicated that he had
17 an entry in his diary which he did not have with him. We have since
18 received that entry. It's being translated and I do want to submit that
19 when it's translated.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I make it clear that resting your case will be
21 subject to the disposal of any currently pending matters, which will be
22 resolved by tomorrow, and if it's a translation issue of that nature we,
23 would permit you to file the untranslated document marked for
24 identification and allow you to have it taken into account in the 98 bis
25 submission as long as you were able to present to us at least a draft in
1 English.
2 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Your Honour, and I'm sorry to appear to
3 be vacillating at this point, but during the break I thought about
4 everything that was discussed earlier. We would like to be able to
5 present General Byrnes to you -- I mean, Mr. Byrnes and General Clark to
6 you and Mr. Lilic, but we haven't been able to do that. If we had a
7 recess of 30 days I don't know if we would be able to get some or all of
8 them in. I would like to do that. That's my hesitation in saying: Yes,
9 I rest now.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: So we take it your position is now different from
11 yesterday and indeed from this morning earlier?
12 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, having considered all the remarks
13 that were made and thinking -- trying to weigh the pros and cons, yes.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: And what's the effect of the expiry of a recess of
15 30 days combined with a successful appeal and the non-availability of any
16 other witness by that date, including General Clark?
17 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, then, if I understand your question, at
18 that time if we are not able to produce any of those individuals, then we
19 would rest.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. O'Sullivan, your comments on this new
21 situation.
22 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, it's certainly a new situation. I go back
23 to the order you made that the Prosecution would close. I see that you're
24 maybe inclined to be re-considering that.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I was anxious -- we're all anxious to be sure
1 that this wasn't seen as something imposed by the Trial Chamber. That
2 order was simply a reflection of what the Prosecution said they would do
3 on more than one occasion. We weren't in an adversarial situation making
4 a determination that there would be a completion of the Prosecution case
5 by then; on the other hand, when we left the bench a short while ago we
6 did think the simple answer to the question I had just asked would be yes,
7 but it's not. So before we decide what to do, you have an opportunity to
8 address us.
9 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, this is a very important matter and there
10 are six of us on this side, and --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: So we're off again.
12 The -- one other thing that's developed here, though, is a
13 time-frame that's at least manageable, whereas earlier this morning we
14 were faced with an uncertain time-scale with an indication of a
15 possibility of being in the month of May before we heard the evidence,
16 never mind proceeded to 98 bis. So at least this is a firmer indication.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we think it appropriate to give you some time
19 to consider your position. How long do you wish?
20 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, no more.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's make it quarter to 11.00.
22 The reason for asking that question was that whatever way the
23 matter was decided on the strength of the earlier position taken by
24 Mr. Hannis, it's possible to see legal issues further down the line. And
25 I hope you'll excuse us for trying to foresee what is going to be the
1 simplest way forward in the long run. That's what we had been trying to
2 work out. We are very sympathetic to the idea of closing the case today
3 and having the 98 bis hearing. And we can see certain legal issues down
4 the line if we do that, but equally if we don't hear it immediately, we
5 can see perhaps fewer legal issues but other practical issues down the
6 line. And we are trying to simplify the future for the Trial Chamber and
7 for the parties as best we can.
8 So we'll give you the time you ask.
9 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Just perhaps you can clarify this for us before
10 we go back and discuss it. What is unclear, to me at least, is the timing
11 of the appeal against the Clark ruling. There's no -- I don't think
12 there's any indication or any way of knowing --
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. I've actually had an indication, but I don't
14 know if I can share that with you because it was very informal and I don't
15 know how firm it is. I'm happy to make inquiry just now to see if
16 something definite can be projected, and if I can, I'll have that
17 information given to you. I was purely curious and got a very, very
18 informal indication, which I couldn't rely on at this stage.
19 We'll resume at quarter to.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, our lives aren't long enough for us to ask
23 Mr. Hannis again about this matter, so I'll go straight to Mr. O'Sullivan.
24 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour was
25 quite right yesterday when you said the one saga in the trial had ended.
1 We submit that you should put an end to this second saga. We oppose the
2 request by the Prosecution, which we all have received in the last
3 half-hour, to allow the case to remain open for the period of 30 days
4 following an Appeals Chamber decision on the Clark certification and in
5 that time to seek to call three witnesses, Clark, Byrnes, and Lilic. And
6 here are the reasons why we oppose that.
7 Yesterday, and I'm referring to page 12096 of the transcript, the
8 Prosecutor was quite clear. He said that the Prosecution rested. He said
9 on that same page that we could proceed with the 98 bis submissions on
10 Monday. And when asked: "What happens if someone has been acquitted by
11 then?" Meaning after the appeal. The answer was: "Well, that's the
12 Prosecution's loss."
13 The Prosecution was prepared to close its case. Now, before I
14 turn to Clark let me address the submission that the Prosecution has made
15 in relation to Byrnes and Lilic. There's absolutely no connection between
16 the pending appeal on the Clark decision and Byrnes and Lilic. The
17 Prosecution cannot use the serendipity of the Clark appeal to attempt to
18 keep its case open to call other witnesses. In other words, if this
19 Chamber had not certified the Clark decision, Byrnes and Lilic would be
20 out, the case would be closed. Articles 20 and 21 of the Statute provide
21 that the accused must receive a fair and expeditious trial. Byrnes and
22 Clark are out -- Byrnes and Lilic are out. Thank you. Now -- that's it.
23 In regards to General Clark we say that the Prosecution's position
24 was made clear, that if an appeal succeeds they would move to re-open its
25 case. Now, again we say that there are issues of fundamental fairness and
1 due diligence on the one hand and issues regarding the timing of
2 disclosure which is still pending, and I'll deal with both. Your Honour
3 put the Prosecution on notice last May of -- in relation to every Rule 70
4 witness, telling the provider to make up its mind. And we've been in this
5 courtroom now since July of last year, and if the Prosecution ran the risk
6 of waiting until the 11th hour to bring a major Rule 70 witness, I say the
7 Prosecution has to live with the consequences of having been told as early
8 as May of last year that this could happen.
9 Now, in relation to disclosure, I wish -- I think to assist --
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that doesn't tell me anything,
11 Mr. O'Sullivan. What are you saying are the consequences of that, bearing
12 in mind that it's in the hands of the Appeals Chamber now?
13 MR. O'SULLIVAN: The consequences of that are precisely what the
14 Prosecution said yesterday: We proceed with 98 bis Monday. If the
15 Chamber's decision is reversed, it applies to re-open and if someone's
16 acquitted, that's his loss.
17 I have in hard copy, which I think may assist the Chamber and the
18 parties, and I could ask the usher to distribute a copy to the Bench and
19 one to the Prosecution. And while that's being distributed, Your Honour,
20 this is a filing made on behalf of General Ojdanic, and I'm going to speak
21 in connection with the pending disclosure in relation to General Clark,
22 should he be a witness. You have before you General Ojdanic's opposition
23 to motion to call General Wesley Clark as a Prosecution witness and it's
24 dated 28 December 2006. And I would direct you to page 9497, that's the
25 stamp number at the top right-hand corner of the page, 9497.
1 My submission here is that on the assumption that the Appeals
2 Chamber reverses your decision and Wesley Clark can be called as a
3 witness, there is still pending from the Rule 70 provider disclosure. And
4 you'll see the letter that I've referred you to at 9497. It's from the US
5 Embassy to General Ojdanic's counsel. And you can see that the US
6 government has taken the position that it's premature under Rule 70 to
7 provide materials to the Defence until and unless there's an order from
8 the Chamber granting certain protective measures for the testimony of
9 General Clark.
10 Now, this raises a number of issues, we say --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, let me read this. The page I'm looking at
12 doesn't say that.
13 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, it should be -- it's page -- at the bottom
14 it's page 12. It's a letter dated 12 December 2006 from the Embassy of
15 the United States to Mr. Peter Robinson.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: It doesn't say anything about the Chamber granting
17 protective measures, does it?
18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, it's the last sentence of the first
19 paragraph.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, the first paragraph.
21 MR. O'SULLIVAN: It says -- it begins: "I'm writing to inform you
22 that the United States Government has conditionally authorised General
23 Clark. The authorisation is contingent on the Prosecution securing a
24 court order granting certain protective measures."
25 JUDGE BONOMY: But they don't go on to say, do they, that dealing
1 with the inquiries needs to be delayed?
2 MR. O'SULLIVAN: No. I believe the letter in the second paragraph
3 uses the word "it's premature to disclose the materials as requested under
4 Rule 70." In other words, the American position is that until there's an
5 order from this Chamber granting the protection sought, there is no
6 disclosure, and I can represent to you that the Ojdanic Defence has not
7 received any disclosure.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: But read the whole thing, Mr. O'Sullivan. "We
9 believed these requests were premature. At the time it was not clear
10 whether General Clark would be authorised to testify. Consequently, it
11 was not evident which subject areas would fall within the scope of
12 cross-examination. Now that we have conditionally authorised testimony on
13 specific areas, we believe it would be appropriate to re-visit this
14 issue."
15 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Right.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: So I assume there's been ongoing communication for
17 the last three months between the Ojdanic team and the American
18 government.
19 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I can perhaps leave it to Mr. Visnjic who is much
20 more --
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.
22 MR. O'SULLIVAN: And perhaps it might be appropriate for him to
23 respond to your question.
25 Mr. Visnjic.
1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, according to the
2 documentation that we have at our disposal here, we have had a certain
3 correspondence with the US government. No material has been received from
4 them. Moreover, not knowing about how things would turn out today we
5 wrote and filed today a letter that should have been sent through the
6 Registry, and I believe Mr. O'Sullivan has a copy on his desk and it would
7 be a good idea if a copy of that document could be made available to you
8 and the Prosecution so that you can see for yourselves at what stage of
9 disclosure we are currently with the US government and with NATO. To
10 date, we have not received a single document from them --
11 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry to interrupt, Your Honour, but it's come to
12 my attention that these letters, because they're discussing Rule 70
13 matters, may actually be confidential matters and that shouldn't be part
14 of the public proceedings at this point.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: It's not necessary for the detailed terms of these
16 to be discussed at the moment. We've got the documents and can look at
17 them.
18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let me just give you
19 some additional information. We had planned to file this letter today,
20 thinking that a decision would be made today about 98 bis, and we wanted
21 to remove from our shoulders a possible problem of undue delay on the part
22 of the Defence. What I want to say, and Mr. O'Sullivan has already raised
23 this issue, when and whether these documents are going to be disclosed may
24 affect the testimony and the evidence by General Clark; and depending on
25 that, we may take further legal action that may lead to further delay of
1 Mr. Clark's evidence, even beyond what the Prosecutor has told us about.
2 So that there is -- there are more problems than mentioned previously with
3 that evidence.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, what's been happening since the 12th
5 of December?
6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, from 12th December
7 until today, according to the information I have here, there has been a
8 certain communication. They asked us to specify our request and include
9 more details, but I don't have all that communication here. If you give
10 me some time, I'll come up with it.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: It sounds like a matter which will have to be
12 addressed as and when and if it arises.
13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour. I just
14 wanted -- in fact, all of us wanted to emphasise the complexity of this
15 issue and the consequences that setting a precise date for General Clark's
16 testimony may cause. We believe that everything is too uncertain at this
17 moment for us to be able to state our position any more precisely, which
18 in its turn makes it incumbent upon us to decide to what extent this make
19 effect an efficient and fair trial.
21 Have you something else to say, Mr. O'Sullivan?
22 MR. O'SULLIVAN: No. Just to sum up then: We say that we should
23 proceed with 98 bis Monday. Let the Appeals Chamber deal with the Clark
24 decision as it sees fit. The Prosecution can take its position
25 thereafter, and we should -- the case should close and we proceed to 98
1 bis Monday. And just parenthetically, not to deviate at all from what I
2 have been saying, is that keeping this case lingering as it is - and of
3 course we would also say Byrnes and Lilic are out - but keeping this case
4 lingering as it does may very well have an impact on the fairness of our
5 preparation time during the Defence case. And we should not be punished,
6 the Defence should not be punished for any lack of due diligence on the
7 Prosecution's part for not calling its witnesses in a timely fashion and
8 dealing with all the issues that would arise particularly in relation to a
9 Rule 70. Those are my submissions.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: It's not immediately obvious why preparations for
11 Defence cannot continue in the interim.
12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, that's quite correct, but, Your Honour, the
13 accused need to know when the Prosecution case closes against them. They
14 need to know -- there has to be some closure and some certainty, and
15 that's only fair. That's only fair to us.
17 Mr. Hannis.
18 MR. HANNIS: I don't disagree with that, Your Honour, but if you
19 grant our request, there will be certainty as to when that date will be.
20 It will be no later than 30 days after the appellant decision on the
21 pending matter regarding General Clark. And to the extent that we are
22 successful in persuading you and actually being able to get General Clark
23 and/or Mr. Byrnes and/or Mr. Lilic here to testify and if they actually do
24 testify, I certainly think it would be fair to the Defence -- if it took
25 three weeks for that to happen and it included a week of preparation time
1 for cross-examination of those witnesses, it would not be unfair for Your
2 Honours to give them an additional four weeks for preparation of their
3 Defence case to make allowance for the additional work that they've had to
4 do in connection with the Prosecution case, but I may be getting ahead of
5 ourselves a bit here, but I did want to make that remark.
7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. O'Sullivan has raised a legal issue in relation
10 to the commitment to rest the case which we consider we have to give
11 further thought to and we will adjourn to do that and resume at 1.15.
12 --- Recess taken at 12.37 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 1.11 p.m.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: The Chamber has determined that yesterday the
15 Prosecution did not close its case. An indication to the effect that the
16 Prosecution rested was given. That was then questioned by the Trial
17 Chamber in light of the outstanding appeal filed in the course of
18 yesterday. The Prosecution reconsidered their position, as invited by the
19 Chamber, and now proposes that closure of the case should be stayed for 30
20 days -- until 30 days after the appeal is determined.
21 What we have decided to do is this: We have decided that we will
22 stay closure of the Prosecution case until at least the 16th of April, and
23 in order to give effect to that, we will vacate that part of our order of
24 the 5th of March which specified the 23rd as the deadline.
25 On the 16th, if the appeal has failed and the Prosecution has
1 available either Byrnes or Lilic, then we would expect these witnesses to
2 be led then, there and then, and in their absence to proceed straight to
3 hear the 98 bis submissions. If the appeal succeeds, we would expect to
4 be told precisely when Wesley Clark would give evidence. We regard the
5 Prosecution motion as a clear statement that they would not request that
6 he give evidence so that they are at dates which would prevent closure of
7 the Prosecution case within 30 days of the determination of the appeal.
8 Beyond that - and I'm thinking of the possibility of Byrnes and
9 Lilic or either of them being available at some stage - we would require
10 to address that as a separate issue on the 16th of April if they were not
11 available on that date to give evidence.
12 I want now to deal very briefly with the remainder of orders that
13 are required leading to the commencement of the Defence case. We do not
14 see this as having a significant impact on -- or such a significant impact
15 on preparation of the Defence case as to require alteration of the order
16 we've already made in respect of the 65 ter lists. The lists have to be
17 compiled and they can be modified, if necessary, in the light of evidence
18 made, but the list will be the list and available for that purpose.
19 That's how we see it at the moment, and we find it difficult to think that
20 this will change it but I will hear submissions on that in a moment.
21 In connection with that, we would also like to hear further that
22 the Defence believe that being given a significant period of time between
23 now and the start of the Defence case will result in a shortening of that
24 case; in other words, that what's happened since that indication was
25 previously given confirms that that indication was an accurate one.
1 Mr. Ackerman, I think we would like to hear from you on that
2 point.
3 MR. ACKERMAN: You want to hear from me on that now, I take it?
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
5 MR. ACKERMAN: If I don't misunderstand, Your Honour, you're
6 saying has anything happened since you -- since we last had communication
7 about that to indicate that our position that we can shorten up the
8 Defence case by this use of time is a correct one.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. The indications you've been given so far are
10 that the gap between the Prosecution and the Defence case or the
11 substantial -- the bulk of the Prosecution -- the vast bulk of it and the
12 commencement of the Defence case is far longer than has been given in any
13 other case to date in the Tribunal. And we want to be sure before we
14 finalise the arrangements for the commencement of the Defence case that
15 you're confidence that this period will profitably result in a shortening
16 of the Defence case has not been dented by anything that's occurred in the
17 intervening period.
18 MR. ACKERMAN: I think it is not, Your Honour. I think if -- at
19 least I can only really speak mostly from the Pavkovic Defence standpoint,
20 because I haven't been in touch with the other teams regarding their
21 preparation to this point, but I can tell you that everything's that's
22 happened since then in terms of our preparation along that line gives me
23 solid reason to believe that we are going to winnow things down over time
24 and shorten our Defence presentation as a result. I think it's pretty
25 clear to me that that is going to happen.
1 As long as I'm on my feet, with regard to the 65 ter.
3 MR. ACKERMAN: It seems to me that the period of time that we
4 spend back in this courtroom after the 16th of April, whatever that period
5 of time is, is time we would have been meeting with witnesses and putting
6 together our Rule 65 ter materials. So whatever amount of time is taken
7 away from us by additional time in this courtroom is time we've lost in
8 that process. And assuming that your June 15th date was reasonable - and
9 I have no argument that it wasn't - then it's also reasonable to extend it
10 by whatever amount of time is taken away from us by additional time in the
11 court. Because those days after the 16th of April would have been spent
12 working on 65 ter and not in here cross-examining witnesses.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I wonder if -- I wonder if we maybe
14 misunderstand each other on that. There was a view which was not given
15 effect to in that decision that there's really no reason why a 65 ter list
16 shouldn't be available very shortly after the end of the Prosecution
17 case. And the real issue is when you demand the start of the Defence
18 case, because it's preparation that's involved, whereas the list should be
19 capable of production and the real work you should be doing would be on
20 preparing in light of that list, which can be cut down as you get to the
21 stage or expanded, for that matter, as you get closer to the trial. So we
22 eventually fixed a date that we were all comfortable with as giving --
23 having heard your submissions that you did want a later rather than an
24 earlier date.
25 MR. ACKERMAN: Mm-hmm.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: And that's why we're not so impressed by the idea
2 of altering that date but have yet to make a final decision on the date
3 when the Defence case will commence.
4 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, if there is -- if there is a great deal of
5 flexibility with regard to alteration of the 65 ter list after the 15th,
6 then I see no problem.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Well -- but there is -- you've seen what we've done
8 with the Prosecution --
9 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: -- we could hardly do less in relation to the
11 Defence, and I see Mr. Hannis nodding his head indicative of a reasonable
12 approach. So unless there's anything else, then I would propose to hear
13 what Mr. Lukic has to say because he looks somewhat more exercised on the
14 subject.
15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour, and basically you know that
16 even from the beginning we disagreed with my learned friend Ackerman on
17 the time-frame we need for our Defences. Obviously, it would be different
18 time we need for our Defence than Mr. Ackerman needs for his Defence.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Was I wrong in thinking, though, that you were
20 getting rather concerned about the idea that the 15th of June would remain
21 the date for the 65 ter lists?
22 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, the problem we have is the lawyers from
23 this team haven't spoken to our witnesses yet. We haven't -- we didn't
24 have time to speak to a single witness. The truth is that our
25 investigators did -- had contacts with our witnesses, but we haven't. So
1 we have to go through -- because your instruction is that this 65 ter
2 motion should be very precise, and we have to include the summaries of
3 their statements. We don't have a single one -- and documents that should
4 be introduced with those witnesses. So that's why I'm concerned. I can
5 give you a bunch of documents and a bunch of witnesses, but we have to
6 combine it and to give you the summaries of their statements, and we don't
7 have it.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I'm not going to qualify the demands we
9 made. We do expect that you'll do your best to achieve the results that
10 we've invited you to produce, but you are going to be the last, I
11 anticipate, to present a Defence case, albeit that also hasn't been
12 finally decided. But I suspect that's the way it will work, and therefore
13 you've got more time to give notice of changes that occur after the 15th
14 of June than anyone else has.
15 MR. LUKIC: Then -- thank you, Your Honour, then we are fine.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Okay.
17 Anyone else wish to speak on this subject?
19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I assume that what I
20 will say now may be premature in relation to some dates Your Honours have
21 already set, but I wish to draw attention to the following: Should the
22 scenario occur where all three witnesses testify, not only would this
23 shorten our time, as Mr. Ackerman said, for preparing our Defence because
24 of the time spending in court, but also because of the time we have to
25 spend preparing for those witnesses. And disclosure, as I'm reminded by
1 Mr. Zecevic. Not only will we spend time in court but also we will spend
2 time preparing to cross-examine those witnesses.
3 What I wish to say now is that this will affect the time we have
4 planned to talk to our witnesses, and in the nature of things it should
5 lead not automatically but to a reasonable argument for our arguments to
6 extend the deadlines. So this is not now a motion; it is just a general
7 expression of concern. Thank you.
9 Any other comment? Well, we'll just briefly confer.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: What we are prepared to do -- and there will be a
12 written order dealing with this aspect of the case. We've actively
13 considered this in light of what's been going on this morning, and we are
14 prepared to move the judicial recess so that it is included in the time
15 between now and the re-start of the trial -- or at least the start of the
16 Defence case. The effect of that would be to delay the start of the
17 Defence case until the 30th of July, but if we do that, then there will be
18 Judges missing during the month of June -- sorry -- the month of July,
19 which means that the date for the 65 ter lists really has to remain where
20 it is. And we would propose then having a pre-trial conference a week
21 after that, on the 22nd of June.
22 Pre-trial conference doesn't need to involve more than one counsel
23 from each accused, and it's a matter for counsel and their clients, but so
24 far as the pre-trial conference is concerned, if you decide to nominate
25 somebody to represent your interests, then we will have no real difficulty
1 with that, but it would have to be somebody fully instructed and you may
2 find that it is necessary for one from each party to attend.
3 Now, we hope that that is a sufficient period to enable the case
4 to get started, bearing in mind that, apart from Mr. O'Sullivan, you will
5 all have a bit longer than that. Of course, he might surprise us, and
6 more than he will need to be ready, but if he does present a Defence case
7 then that's going to give more time to everyone else to prepare theirs.
8 It will be soon enough at the pre-Defence conference to debate opening
9 statements and other issues of that nature and the order in which you will
10 present your cases, if there's any question of that being other than the
11 order of the indictment, and any other issues. Indeed, you'll be asked to
12 contribute to an agenda before we have that meeting.
13 Now, are there any matters arising from that that anyone wishes to
14 raise at this stage? Well, these details will be confirmed in a written
15 order, and that will be issued no later than tomorrow.
16 We shall now adjourn until the 16th - is that at 9.00 or is there
17 a court available?
18 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
19 JUDGE BONOMY: We shall need to notify the time to you, because
20 there is at the moment on the schedule another case at 9.00 that day, but
21 hopefully we will be here at 9.00 on the 16th; failing that, some other
22 time on the 16th either here or in another courtroom.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.31 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Monday, the 16th day of


text:
The Lad's take on the gas station pump
This is the story of how a gas station in Melbourne's inner west became the source of a major controversy.
It's been dubbed "The Kangaroo", after the koala which was killed there in 2016.
In the early hours of the morning, an unidentified man walked up to the pump, took a look and found gas.
It was a gas pump and the only way to get gas was to fill it.
The story is a classic of a gas-stopped gas station story, and in a way it's no different to the story the gas company told to the media, which described the incident as a "robbery" and that the man who stole gas was a "dangerous individual".
The story was a classic, said Matthew Beattie, who wrote a book on gas stations in Victoria called The Gas Station Stories.
It wasn't until two years later, he said, that gas company executives told a Senate inquiry that the incident was "a simple misunderstanding" by the gas worker.
"The gas station worker was trying to fill a tank," he said.
"When he tried to fill the tank, the gas pump started to shake."
But that wasn't the only time the pump had been shaken.
In December 2016, a man walked into a gas supply station in Bendigo and stole gas.
He was charged with burglary and armed robbery and pleaded guilty.
But when police searched the man's home, they found two bags of gas that were empty and a note in the mans house saying he had used up his gas supply.
The case was referred to the Federal Court, and the gas was returned.
Gas stations were a major source of controversy in Victoria in the 1970s and 80s.
The gas stations were considered unsafe, and gas was only sold to licensed businesses and the state government.
"They were supposed to be a gas company," said Mr Beattis.
"You could't sell to a gas shop.
They'd sell gas to gas stations."
Gas stations have always been a major tourist attraction, with thousands of people visiting every year.
The stories of gas station robberies and gas theft were a constant theme in local newspapers, and they were often repeated to visitors.
But some gas stations did a better job of keeping the public safe than others.
"We had a couple of gas stations where we had some very aggressive security measures, where the gas pumps would turn on their security lights and the pump would stop working," said Peter Raby, who was manager of gas at Bendigo Gas Station until 2014.
"But those stations had a lot of good security measures."'
It was like a scene out of a movie'The gas pump that was stolen in 2016 was the only gas pump in Bendigos gas station.
The man who took gas that night had not been there for two years, and was not a licensed gas dealer.
Gas was pumped from a container inside the pumps, and Mr Raby and his colleagues had to check that it was safe.
But he said the gas wasn't always safe.
"I think a lot would have done well to check the tank," Mr Rabies said.
He and his colleague checked the gas on a few occasions, and said that a few days later, they noticed a gas cylinder sticking out of the pump.
"It was quite a lot, it looked like it was about the size of a golf ball," he recalled.
"That's when we called it a pump scare."
He said he and his team could only make one guess as to why the man took the gas: it was a robbery.
"He'd stolen gas, he was just trying to take it," Mr Ryads said.
The theft of gas was just one of many thefts at Bendigocgas station, which was the most common form of theft at the time.
Gas theft was also common in other parts of Victoria.
A number of gas pumps had been broken into, and some gas had been stolen from an underground storage tank.
In October 2007, gas was stolen from a gas storage tank in North Geelong.
Two years later a man stole gas from a car in the suburb of Wodonga.
Gas thefts were a common crime in Victoria, and thefts from gas stations became even more common in the 1990s.
A gas pump was stolen at least four times between 1994 and 2007, and a gas tanker was broken into in May 2015.
In 2015, thieves broke into a car and stole a gas tank at an underground station in Geelong, but no one was ever charged.
In 2007, thieves stole gas cans from a storage tank at a gas depot in Gecko, and there were two gas theft incidents in that same year.
Gas thieves are often armed and dangerous, and security cameras are installed in gas stations, but gas theft is rarer than gas theft.
"A gas station is a big tourist attraction," Mr Beatts said. "It's the
OUR SERVICESbucees gas station gas station pump heb gas station kangaroo gas station
'I'm going to be a hero': Trump says he'll 'stand with the American people' in VA hospital shooting
How to get the most out of the Cenex gift card

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: in sql, calculating date parts versus date lookup table in group queries many queries are by week, month or quarter when the base table date is either date or timestamp.
in general, in group by queries, does it matter whether using
 - functions on the date
 - a day table that has extraction pre-calculated
note: similar question as DATE lookup table (1990/01/01:2041/12/31)
for example, in postgresql
create table sale(
  tran_id   serial       primary key,
  tran_dt   date         not null default current_date,
  sale_amt  decimal(8,2) not null,
  ...
);

create table days(
  day       date      primary key,
  week      date      not null,
  month     date      not null,
  quarter   date      non null
);

-- week query 1: group using funcs
select
  date_trunc('week',tran_dt)::date - 1 as week,
  count(1) as sale_ct,
  sum(sale_amt) as sale_amt
from sale
where date_trunc('week',tran_dt)::date - 1 between '2012-1-1' and '2011-12-31'
group by date_trunc('week',tran_dt)::date - 1
order by 1;

-- query 2: group using days
select
  days.week,
  count(1) as sale_ct,
  sum(sale_amt) as sale_amt
from sale
join days on( days.day = sale.tran_dt )
where week between '2011-1-1'::date and '2011-12-31'::date
group by week
order by week;

to me, whereas the date_trunc() function seems more organic, the the days table is easier to use.
is there anything here more than a matter of taste?

A: -- query 3: group using instant "immediate" calendar table
WITH calender AS (
        SELECT  ser::date AS dd
        , date_trunc('week', ser)::date AS wk
        -- , date_trunc('month', ser)::date AS mon
        -- , date_trunc('quarter', ser)::date AS qq
        FROM generate_series( '2012-1-1' , '2012-12-31', '1 day'::interval) ser
        )
SELECT
  cal.wk
  , count(1) as sale_ct
  , sum(sa.sale_amt) as sale_amt
FROM sale sa
JOIN calender cal ON cal.dd = sa.tran_dt
-- WHERE week between '2012-1-1' and '2011-12-31'
GROUP BY cal.wk
ORDER BY cal.wk
        ;

Note: I fixed an apparent typo in the BETWEEN range.
UPDATE: I used Erwin's recursive CTE to squeeze out the duplicated date_trunc(). Nested CTE galore:
WITH calendar AS (
        WITH RECURSIVE montag AS (
        SELECT '2011-01-01'::date  AS dd
        UNION ALL
        SELECT dd + 1 AS dd
        FROM   montag
        WHERE  dd < '2012-1-1'::date
        )
    SELECT mo.dd, date_trunc('week', mo.dd + 1)::date AS wk
    FROM montag mo
    )
SELECT
  cal.wk
  , count(1) as sale_ct
  , sum(sa.sale_amt) as sale_amt
FROM sale sa
JOIN calendar cal ON cal.dd = sa.tran_dt
-- WHERE week between '2012-1-1' and '2011-12-31'
GROUP BY cal.wk
ORDER BY cal.wk
        ;

A: Yes, it is more than a matter of taste.  The performance of the query depends on the method.
As a first approximation, the functions should be faster.  They don't require joins, doing the read in a single table scan.
However, a good optimizer could make effective use of a lookup table.  It would know the distribution of the target values.  And, an in memory join could be quite fast.
As a database design, I think having a calendar table is very useful.  Some information such as holidays just isn't going to work as a function.  However, for most ad hoc queries the date functions are fine.

A: 1. Your expression:

... between '2012-1-1' and '2011-12-31'

doesn't work. Basic BETWEEN requires the left argument to be less than or equal to the right argument. Would have to be:
... BETWEEN SYMMETRIC '2012-1-1' and '2011-12-31'

Or it's just a typo and you mean something like:
... BETWEEN '2011-1-1' and '2011-12-31'

It's unclear to me, what your queries are supposed to retrieve. I'll assume you want all weeks (Monday to Sunday) that start in 2011 for the rest of this answer. This expression generates exactly that in less than a microsecond on modern hardware (works for any year):
SELECT generate_series(
        date_trunc('week','2010-12-31'::date) + interval '7d'
       ,date_trunc('week','2011-12-31'::date) + interval '6d'
       , '1d')::date

*Note that the ISO 8601 definition of the "first week of a year is slightly different.
2. Your second query does not work at all. No GROUP BY?
3. The question you link to did not deal with PostgreSQL, which has outstanding date / timestamp support. And it has generate_series() which can obviate the need for a separate "days" table in most cases - as demonstrated above. Your query would look like this:
In the meantime @wildplasser provided an example query that was supposed to go here.
By popular* demand, a recursive CTE version - which is actually not that far from being a serious alternative!
* and by "popular" I mean @wildplasser's very serious request.
WITH RECURSIVE days AS (
    SELECT '2011-01-01'::date  AS dd
          ,date_trunc('week', '2011-01-01'::date )::date AS wk

    UNION ALL
    SELECT dd + 1
          ,date_trunc('week', dd + 1)::date AS wk
    FROM   days
    WHERE  dd < '2011-12-31'::date
    )
SELECT d.wk
      ,count(*) AS sale_ct
      ,sum(s.sale_amt) AS sale_amt
FROM days d
JOIN sale s ON s.tran_dt = d.dd
-- WHERE d.wk between '2011-01-01' and '2011-12-31'
GROUP BY 1
ORDER BY 1;

Could also be written as (compare to @wildplasser's version):
WITH RECURSIVE d AS (
    SELECT '2011-01-01'::date AS dd
    UNION ALL
    SELECT dd + 1 FROM d WHERE dd < '2011-12-31'::date
    ), days AS (
    SELECT dd, date_trunc('week', dd + 1)::date AS wk
    FROM d
    )
SELECT ...

4. If performance is of the essence, just make sure, that you do not apply functions or calculations to the values of your table. This prohibits the use of indexes and is generally very slow, because every row has to be processed. That's why your first query is going to suck with big table. When ever possible, apply calculations to the values you filter with, instead.
Indexes on expressions are one way around this. If you had an index like
CREATE INDEX sale_tran_dt_week_idx ON sale (date_trunc('week', tran_dt)::date);

.. your first query could be very fast again - at some cost for write operations for index maintenance.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
SOCIALIST HEALTH ASSOCIATION
Promoting health and well-being through the application of socialist principles
/ SHA Country and Branch organisation
/ Socialist Health Association Scotland
/ Socialist Health Association Wales
/ Who Are We?
/ Socialist Societies
/ Socialist Health Association Constitution
/ Legal & Political Note
/ Socialism – Our Definition
/ Feasible Socialism
/ Medicine and Labour
/ Members
/ Distinguished members
/ Policies
/ SHA POLICY ON SOCIAL CARE AND CARERS
/ SOCIALIST HEALTH ASSOCIATION (SHA) – Prevention and Public Health policy
/ SOCIALIST HEALTH ASSOCIATION (SHA) POLICY ON MATERNITY CARE:
/ Labour Health Policy
/ SHA Debate
/ Covid
/ Inequality
/ Health Divides – Where you live can kill you
/ The Black Report 1980
/ The Inverse Care Law
/ Beveridge Report 1942
/ Discrimination and Equality
/ Health/Social Care
/ NHS
/ Economics of Healthcare
/ Mental Health
/ Private business and the NHS
/ Democracy Involvement and Accountability
/ Regulation and enquries
/ Hospitals in the NHS
/ Primary Care
/ Reform of the NHS Chronology
/ UK National Health Service law
/ Public Health and Wellbeing
/ Social and Residential Care
/ History of healthcare
/ Socialist Medical Association & the NHS
/ History of the NHS in pictures
/ Aneurin Bevan
/ Reform of the NHS
/ History of health and care funding reform in England
/ Health and Social Services Glossary of Acronyms
/ Events
/ Past Events
/ Past Annual General Meetings
/ Meetings of Central Council
/ My Bookings
/ Campaigns
A socialist plan for health 2011
This is our contribution to What Next for Labour/ edited by Tom Scholes-Fogg and Hisham Hamid.
The NHS needs to change to meet rising expectations, demographic pressures of an aging population and advances in technology. It is vulnerable to the tremors running through our failed social care system. It needs to adapt a culture based on reacting to illness into one based on actively keeping people well; from cure to prevention; from care in hospitals to care nearer home. It relies too much, and spends too much, on care delivered in institutions, mostly hospitals, and not enough on prevention, community and primary care. We have to break down the institutional and cultural barriers which prevent care being delivered around the needs of patients; and remove the barriers between "health" and "social" care.
The founding principles of our NHS make it free at the point of need and that is seldom challenged. That it is also universal, comprehensive and paid for out of general taxation is still fundamental to our view but are no longer quite so certain. But change is necessary and all agree change is difficult.
The way ahead is not through reorganisation of structures or making health care into a regulated market. What is needed to improve the quality and efficiency of the NHS is not, primarily, organisational change, but changes in clinical behaviour. The answers are not found just through competition and innovation through the private sector. We set out the key themes for an alternative which can be achieved through incremental change – not another radical reform.
Our views are our own but informed by widespread discussion with clinicians, campaigners, and party members.
Public Health – Prevention and Education
We need to begin our thinking at the point where we could have the greatest impact in the long term, with public health. Clearing the slums, putting in clean water and sewers did a lot for our health, and better road design has reduced mortality as much as better surgery. In recent years the smoking ban was probably the most important single policy as far as effects on health are concerned. People who take enough exercise, eat enough fruit and vegetables, don't smoke, and drink in moderation live on average 14 years longer than people who don't. These are not things over which the NHS has much influence. The pricing and marketing of food, drink, and cigarettes are not susceptible to local action. They need intervention at a national level.
Top down legislation needs to be met by bottom up measures which try and educate or nudge changes. A major shift in thinking is required to put public health professionals into the key places where decisions are taken and to establish the function where it can be most influential. Responsibility for all of our wellbeing, including health, should be within local authorities so the links to environmental and social issues can be made. Moving responsibility for public health into local government will give elected representatives the opportunity to make a real difference to the health of their communities.
Active Care – Involvement
Involving people in their own health has a beneficial effect. The NHS has not been good at involving people as patients or in decisions at a local or a national level, and this is an area where there are gains to be made in both health and politics.
We need to move to active care – active in the sense that as patients we feel more confident to look after ourselves and share decisions with clinicians. Decision makers should embrace a proactive approach to public accountability, co-production and community development. Active communities must guide the development of local services. Clinicians should actively respond to needs and offer proactive care to people with long term conditions. We should be using well established mechanisms to predict whose health is most at risk and reach out to them, not wait for them to become ill.
Organizations which provide our care need to be active too; working in collaboration across organizational boundaries (not in competition) to share best practice; working with patients and commissioners to develop the services required. The best should help those trying to raise standards, not wait for them to fail. Active regulation should ensure problems are identified early, support is provided where needed but firm action is taken if that is not enough. We need regulation which does more than set up enquiries after the damage has been done.
Integration of Care
The boundaries between health and social care make little sense to anyone who needs both. Many are shocked to find that when they need social care they are subject to means testing. We need a National care service as much as we need a National health service. In time personal social care should be free at the point of need, as with health and for the same reasons, but the taxpayers are not yet ready to take this step in one go.
There is a wall between health and social care with different cultures, managed in radically different ways, and totally different accountability structures – not to mention health being national and free whilst social care is local and means tested. The failures of integration seen in bed blocking and unnecessary admissions cost money which could be better spent on improving care.
There should be an integrated assessment of need which is recognised across the country; recognising the needs of carers in the process; an assessment which is portable. The criteria used for the financial part of the assessment should be the same as for benefits entitlement and should be simple logical and consistent – including a single method for treatment of capital.
It remains the job of local government to decide how social care needs are to be met, reflecting local circumstances. There need to be incentives to ensure that measures which reduce the need for services – which often require a long term investment – are encouraged. This is not just about social services. It is also about housing, planning, education, transport and other policies under the control of national and local government.
Top down integration can be driven by making local authorities responsible for the overall wellbeing strategy for the area which will include health care requirements. Some services such as those for children or people with learning disabilities could be commissioned by them. Bottom up integration can be fostered by joint appointments, joint staff training and development, shared budgets, shared services and collocation. These have all been possible and have been used by the best but much stronger leadership is necessary and this has to come from elected representatives not from health bureaucrats!!
Shared Responsibility and Coproduction
We must all be encouraged, educated and supported to take more shared responsibility for our own wellbeing and the professions must be better trained in how to bring this about. The many barriers which face those most likely to suffer poor health need to be addressed in ways which encourage involvement and improve access for disadvantaged groups. The principles of co-production, where care professionals and patients work together, must feature more in medical training and professional development. The model of care which leaves the patient a passive object of the clinician's attention is expensive and ineffective. Clinicians, especially Royal Colleges, must ensure that the idea of co-production is central to medical education.
Changing the Emphasis
Whilst we need more emphasis on prevention and less on cure we also have to shift where care is delivered. NHS culture is dominated by large hospitals and their large costs. Other systems work well with more care being delivered outside institutions, in more local settings and in the home, and medical and technological advances make this easier. If the appropriate infrastructure was in place outside hospitals then we could envisage perhaps a third of them closing and releasing resources back to fund local care.
Closing hospitals or even bits of hospitals raises local anxieties but the clinical model for concentration of high quality care in fewer centres of excellence combined with the ability to deliver a lot more care in more local settings has to be acknowledged and worked through. Effective engagement with clinical and community leadership is vital. Major investment in primary care is essential as is investment in public health, and that may imply less investment in PFI hospitals!
Raising the capital to invest in building up community facilities remains a major issue. New sources of funding might be necessary such as allowing the issue of local "Health Bonds".
Choice and Information
Evidence shows that greater involvement of patients in their care improves outcomes. More patients want choice about how they are treated than about which organization they are treated by. But choice and involvement must be, and can only be, built on better access to simple, officially sanctioned, information about care and treatment options and care pathways; entitlement and rights. This kind of information is not available for either health or social care and nobody has responsibility for its provisions – this should be local authorities.
It also requires us to have access to our own records both health and other care. For the less able, such as the frail elderly or children, support and agency must be offered to assist with provision of information and so to enhance choice and involvement. The NHS has been slow to embrace the Internet. Portable electronic patient records, with access controlled by the patients, will not only drive process efficiencies but offer other avenues to personalise care and make it independent of organizational boundaries.
Communities need a greater say in local services, especially when changes to local services or closures are planned. This should be based on engagement rather than one off artificial consultations – but the trade-off is that harder decisions can be made in the wider interest. An alliance between clinical leadership and local involvement is essential for extensive reconfiguration of services, such as closing an A&E or a birthing centre.
Commissioning and Rationing
Commissioning is the process where decisions are made about how public money is spent and on what priorities are set and what standards apply. It is also about how we get best value for our public spending. Across local and central government commissioning has been separated from providing so decisions are not unduly influenced (though they must be informed) by provider power or conflicts of interest. This is hard in health care as the only place much of the necessary knowledge and expertise can be found is within the providers, so a more collaborative style to plan and then procure services is needed.
In such a model the local authority does the needs analysis and sets out the overall wellbeing strategy, guided by advice from public health experts. Care professionals specify requirements and establish care pathways. Those with expertise in procurement and contracting identify the providers, and develop the market to ensure the services are secured and best value is achieved. These functions interact but some are best done at national level, some at regional level and some locally. For some service design many clinicians may be involved (though not on a full time basis), for others a simple national template could be enough. It depends and this flexibility mirrors other functions local authorities deal with but not how the NHS operates. Over time leadership and overall responsibility for commissioning has to move to local authorities, although they will no doubt delegate much of it.
Private or Public?
In both health and care services we have, and always have had, mixed economies with private as well as public providers of services, and we have seen scandalous failures in both sectors. In social care most is now privately provided. In health care there have been many recent attempts to increase the role for private sector providers and even for them to support commissioning.
Private providers can produce innovative and sometimes disruptive solutions which public providers do not often develop. There are additional risks in employing commercial providers because of the external pressures to which they may be subject and anyone procuring services needs to consider how these risks and benefits could be managed. Continuing with an established public provider will often be the least risk and that must be honestly reflected in decisions; best value meets preferred provider.
Similarly there is some (limited as yet) evidence that competition for services can improve quality, and for teeth and eyes we have had competition between providers for many years. It is not that competition has no part to play; it is that competition is not the best driving force for change in all services as the market evangelists try to argue. We do not need a proper "market" system, even if we do need some elements of market behavior for some services.
Use What Works
If we have openness and transparency and publicly accountable decision makers then they can be left to make decisions, as occurs with most public services – but not the NHS. There will be national quality standards which must be met and are regulated. But they should not need prescriptive guidance, sets of rules and regulations and imposition from performance management or an intrusive regulator. We need a quality regulator but not an economic regulator as well! We don't do that for education or social care so why do we do it for health?
Within this framework then using what works, locally if relevant, does make sense.
Patient centred care requires a major shift in resources from acute to primary care and a seamless joining up of social and health care into a single integrated system, but by evolving what works not by one off reorganisation – change coming from below where professionals learn to work together, more than from the top down. By evolving not revolving.
Recent SHA policies
Latest SHA polices:
SHA POLICY ON SOCIAL CARE AND CARERS
SOCIALIST HEALTH ASSOCIATION (SHA) POLICY ON MATERNITY CARE:
Prevention and Public Health – SHA policy 2019
Comprehensive policies:
2015 Policy summary
Proposed Amendments to Labour Policies June 2014
Proposals for Labour policy on the NHS 2014
Improving the Health of the Nation; a policy for the NHS and its partners 2012
Impossible Challenge – Where do we go with Labour Party Health Policy in 2012?
A Socialist Plan for Health Irwin Brown 2011
SHA Five Year Plan 2010
Coalition Health Policies resolution 2010
Response to the Coalition White Paper on Health
Public Health:
Towards a policy submission on Public Health 2014
Submission to the Health Committee enquiry into Public Health
Response to Public Health White Paper: Healthy Lives and Healthy People
Response to the National Wellbeing Debate
Health Inequalities Policy Statement
Evidence to the Health Committee enquiry into alcohol March 2009
Submission to Sustainable Communities Policy Commission February 2008
Unequal from the start February 2008
NHS:
Repeal and Replace Health Act 2012
The Future of the NHS in England
Statement on Foundation Hospitals 2010
Marketisation of the NHS
National Voices statement on hospitals, community care and patient involvment
Creating a locally democratically accountable and planned, not market driven, NHS
Whistle Blowing Submission to the Labour Party Policy Commission September 2009
Submission to the Prime Minister's Commission on Nursing and Midwifery August 2009
Whose NHS Is It Anyway? discussion paper October 2008
NHS Constitution – response to consultation October 2008
Topping up the NHS June 2008
Submission to the review of policy relating to patients who choose to pay privately for drugs not funded on the NHS
Free Market Stalinism February 2008
The Socialist Health Association is a campaigning membership organisation. We promote health and well-being and the eradication of inequalities through the application of socialist principles to society and government. We believe that these objectives can best be achieved through collective rather than individual action.
Contact Us or admin@sochealth.co.uk | Privacy Policy


You can expect a lot from the 2019 Audi Q7. Audi prioritized comfort and style by including: front and rear reading lights, power front seats, a leather steering wheel, an automatic dimming rear-view mirror, automatic dimming door mirrors, power windows, and a blind spot monitoring system. Third row seats provide an even greater maximum passenger capacity. With high intensity discharge headlights illuminating your path, you'll always appreciate maximum visibility. For drivers who enjoy the natural environment, a power moon roof allows an infusion of fresh air. Audi also prioritized safety and security by including: dual front impact airbags with occupant sensing airbag, head curtain airbags, traction control, brake assist, a security system, an emergency communication system, and 4 wheel disc brakes with ABS. You'll never lose visibility with rain sensing wipers, which activate automatically when the drops start to fall. We know that you have high expectations, and we enjoy the challenge of meeting and exceeding them! Stop by our dealership or give us a call for more information.


Mai Kumagami is a linguist and an assistant professor of Nagasaki University, Japan. She was teaching Japanese while she still lived in NY. Now she visits the city once or twice a year and holds a language events, introducing Japanese culture.


text:
Close Welcome to Ronald McDonald House Charities of Southern California
Southern California Chapter
Unifying the efforts of our six houses, a camp, two family rooms and other programs, the Southern California Chapter of Ronald McDonald House Charities is committed to creating a community where children and their families embrace life and healing with a sense of hope, enthusiasm, courage and joy.
Visit the Chapter
Ronald McDonald Houses located throughout Southern California help families stay close to their child when they need treatment for a serious medical condition. Our Houses provide a home-like setting, close to the region's top hospitals, where families can stay free-of charge for as long as necessary.
Camp Ronald McDonald for Good Times
Camp Ronald McDonald for Good Times helps children with cancer and their families find hope, healing and a sense of normalcy at our year-round, medically supervised camp facility.
Our Family Rooms provide an oasis for parents and caregivers inside the hospital, giving them a chance to sleep, shower, and connect with other families just steps away from their child's hospital bed.
CHOC at Mission Viejo
CHOC at Orange
House Board of Trustees
Our Relationship with McDonald's
Pasadena House In the News
Friends of the House
Donate your Vehicle, Boat, Yacht, or RV
Donate Stocks, Bonds, Mutual Funds, or Other Securities
Currently there are no events. Please check back at a later time.
With your help, the 2019 SHINE Gala raised over $390,000!
The Pasadena Ronald McDonald House hosted their 2019 SHINE Gala to honor Los Angeles County S...
This holiday season give the gift of togetherness.
Your donation today can help offer comfort and support to all the brave children and families...
Annual Pasadena Ronald McDonald House Walk for Kids Raises $106,000 for Programs
Annual Pasadena Ronald McDonald House Walk for Kids Raises $106,000 for Programs. Hundr...
Refer a Family
Volunteer for the Pasadena Ronald McDonald House
Group Volunteers Information
Corporate Volunteer Information
Donate Your Services - i.e. car detailing, cleaning, landscaping, etc.
Donate Get Involved
The King-Torres FamilyPasadena
Ana Torres was a patient at the Children's Hospital, Los Angeles.
The Williams-Gilbert FamilyPasadena
Ariel Gilbert was just seven years old when she was diagnosed with an aggressive form of bone cancer that resulted in the amputation of her right leg.
The Zamora-Luna FamilyPasadena
Karla Zamora and Jesus Luna left their home and family in Sonora, Mexico in search of advanced medical treatment for his meningocele, a condition which limits the growth and usage of the leg, after doctors gave Jesus a poor prognosis for full recovery.
Marchelle SellersPasadena
Marchelle's son Reese weighed less than 2 pounds when he was born and spent the next four-and-a-half months under observation at Huntington Hospital. As a young parent, the experience was traumatic and exhausting. Marchelle and her husband were fortunate to live just five minutes away from the hospital and their new baby. Many others in their position weren't so lucky.
Sponsors of Pasadena Ronald McDonald House
Program Navigation
CHOC at Mission Viejo Family Room
CHOC at Orange Family Room
Ventura Family Room
West LA Family Room
Bakersfield House
Inland Empire House
Long Beach House
Los Angeles House
Orange County House
Pasadena House
Ronald McDonald House Charities of Southern California
4560 Fountain Avenue
Putting Your Donations to Good Use
In 2018, we spent $13,049,935 of our total budget directly in programs that help families in need. We take great pride in your commitment through volunteering, donating, and sponsorship. Learn more about our Financial Accountability.
Programs Administrative Fundraising
RMHCSC, a regional chapter of Ronald McDonald House Charities, is recognized as a public charity under Internal Revenue Code section 509(a) and has 501(c)(3) status. Donations to RMHCSC are deductible. Donors should consult their tax advisor for questions regarding deductibility. The RMHCSC EIN is 95-3167869. A copy of the RMHCSC determination letter is available upon request.
© 2020 RMHC. All rights reserved.


text:
New Hampshire News & Politics
New Hampshire legislators expected to reject abortion stats & licensing bills
Update: Romeike Family Given Indefinite Deferred Status, Supreme Court Declines Romeike v. Holder
Abortion,
abortion licensing,
abortion statistics,
The New Hampshire House will vote later this week on a committee recommendation to kill a bill calling for licensing of abortion facilities in the state. A bill to require the state to collect abortion statistics will likely be sent to study.
The proposed Women's Health Protection Act (HB 1501) has ten co-sponsors and was supported at its introductory hearing by seven doctors who submitted written testimony. Chief sponsor Rep. Kathleen Souza (R-Manchester) filed the bill after learning that the state of New Hampshire has no licensing or inspection requirements for abortion facilities since they are classified as "physician offices."
At the introductory hearing last month, representatives of abortion providers countered Souza's concerns with assurances to committee members that facilities are actually well-regulated. The executive director of a Greenland, N.H. abortion facility claimed that her clinic was subject to thirty-one separate inspections for various certifications. While she handed her list of inspections to committee members, the list was not made available to other people attending the hearing. She was not questioned about the discrepancy between her claim and Souza's finding that there is no required state-level licensing or inspection of abortion facilities.
Before the committee vote a few weeks later, committee member Rep. Barbara French (D-Henniker) said she was "insulted" by the bill, adding that abortion is "a highly regulated medical procedure." Fellow committee member Rep. Thomas Sherman (D-Rye), a physician, said he had looked up the peer-reviewed literature on abortion and consulted with abortion providers before concluding that the bill is unnecessary. There is no indication that he tried to reach the doctors who wrote to the committee in support of the bill. The committee ultimately voted 17-0 on an "inexpedient to legislate" motion, which goes to the House floor this week.
The same committee has recommended interim study for HB 1502, which would require the state Department of Health and Human Services to collect abortion statistics. New Hampshire is one of only three states that does not provide basic statistical information to the federal Centers for Disease Control about abortion. While interim-study motions are often equivalent to killing a bill, one committee member urges patience. Rep. Don LeBrun (R-Nashua) has written "the committee is committed to collect any meaningful public health data in an aggregated form."
Abortion is legal in New Hampshire throughout pregnancy. The only regulations in place are a parental notification law (with judicial bypass) and a ban on partial-birth abortion. A bill to criminalize silent prayer within 25 feet of abortion facilities has passed the state Senate and will have a House committee hearing within a few weeks. A bill to recognize that life begins at conception drew sharp opposition when it was introduced recently; a committee vote is scheduled for this week.
Find ongoing coverage of New Hampshire life-issue legislation at Leaven for the Loaf.
40 Days for Life Leader Visits NH for Midpoint Rallies
Steve Karlen got off a plane in New Hampshire Tuesday afternoon and…
Former U.S. Senator Bob Smith coming back to challenge Shaheen in New Hampshire
Bob Smith represented New Hampshire in Washington for eighteen years, winning three…
Republican Hemingway declares candidacy for NH governor
Andrew Hemingway has become the first New Hampshire Republican to announce a…
New Hampshire Abortion Statistics Bill Gets Another Look
New Hampshire legislators continue to study what might become the state's first law to mandate collection of abortion statistics.
Ellen Kolb writes about the life issues on her blog, Leaven for the Loaf. She and her…


Kamogelo Phahladira's accomplishments are monumental, yet she speaks softly and modestly about them, her pride coming across only occasionally in the form of a self-conscious giggle. Not merely the first in her family to graduate with a college diploma, Kamogelo completed two Ashworth College programs in the space of 12 months. And this young South African woman from an economically disadvantaged family did it by overcoming obstacles others might never dream of.
A good opportunity, or too good to be true?
Kamogelo's educational odyssey began in September 2017, when she arrived in the U.S. from South Africa as an au pair recruited by a cultural exchange organization that brings international students to the U.S. to provide nanny services to a host family while they study. The company promised Kamogelo "money for college" as part of her compensation package, but when she arrived in the U.S. she quickly discovered the $500 educational stipend offered by the company wouldn't begin to cover tuition costs at any bricks-and-mortar university.
But why not just attend college in South Africa?
Indeed, Kamogelo's success in completing the paralegal diploma so quickly – with honors, no less – led her to consider taking a second program: the forensic science career diploma. And this decision unwittingly launched Kamogelo into her dream career.
Asked what motivated her to study hard and graduate with honors from two Ashworth College programs, Kamogelo credits her family and friends. "When my parents and some friends told me they were saving up money to travel to America to watch me walk the stage at graduation, I felt very motivated to do my best with my studies," Kamogelo said.
Today, the sky's the limit for this ambitious young woman, whose ultimate goal is to work in crime scene investigation. So what would she say to other prospective students who may face financial barriers or other obstacles to an education? "Don't limit yourself" is her quick response. And that's good advice for anyone who has not yet discovered the benefits of the affordable online education offered by Ashworth College.
Learn more about the wide variety of online college degrees, diplomas and career certificates offered by Ashworth College. Talk to an admissions advisor today!


text:
GET REAL: Movie Ideas - Why Didn't I Think of That? Part 1
When exploring movie ideas, many screenwriters write what they know. David Garrett challenges you to step outside of your comfort zone for a better premise.
I thought I'd discuss one of my all-time favorite scripts. David Seidler's Academy Award-winning screenplay for The King's Speech was written from his own experience. Born in England in 1937, Seidler was inspired by the wartime radio addresses of King George VI (played in the film by Colin Firth), with whom Seidler shared the problem of stammering.
If the King of England could overcome his impediment to give magnificent, stirring speeches that rallied the free world, Seidler figured there was hope for him. It was this deep admiration for "Bertie" that led Seidler to begin a screenplay in the 1970's about the childhood hero whose courage stirred him to find his own voice.
While researching the project, Seidler came across the name of the King's Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue (played by Geoffrey Rush in the film). Seidler tracked down Logue's last remaining son, who agreed to hand over his father's diaries, but only if the Royal Family gave their blessing to the project. The Queen Mum gave her consent to the film's production—as long as it occurred after her death. Seidler waited 28 years—until 2002 when the Queen Mum passed away at 101—to pursue the project. And the wait was well worth it, with the film winning eight BAFTAs, eight Academy Awards and four Golden Globe. (What, no Razzies?! I guess you can't win 'em all.)
Why was The King's Speech script so special? Without a doubt, it contained a high-concept idea (a monarch who stutters) complete with gut-wrenching tension, exacting dialogue and engaging subplots. But what made the screenplay an instant classic was the way Seidler realistically captured the frustration and embarrassment the King faced every time he had to speak. It was the writer's very personal connection to the story that put us in the shoes of the struggling protagonist. We understood the hero's fight because Seidler's writing was informed by living with the same impediment.
Could someone else have written The King's Speech? Sure, it's possible. However, it is rather telling that in the 40 years it took for the project to come to fruition, no similar scripts surfaced.
One commentator noted that The King's Speech was the first major motion picture to portray stammering with honesty and compassion, rather than just as a punch line. No doubt, Seidler's personal experience allowed him to view the issue in a unique, sensitive way very few others could. I know what you're saying—Dave, I don't have a stutter. Or a glass eye. Or even a limp.
Can I still write the great American (or British) screenplay? Of course you can! You don't have to live an exact experience to be able to understand it. You've probably never fought in a heavyweight title bout against an unbeatable opponent, but you may have felt like the underdog at some point in your life. You might not be able to travel to Mars in a spaceship, but you can understand what it's like to feel isolated and lonely, sitting in your grandmother's basement eating cheese puffs and feeding them to your pet rat. Wait, that's me.
Anyway, these examples are simplistic, but I'm making a point: you must have a deep understanding of some aspect of your story or else it will fall flat. It can be an emotional connection to the situation or a technical expertise that provides a sense of authenticity. If you can provide both, you've really hit the jackpot!
Like Mark Boal. Boal penned the Oscar-nominated screenplay for The Hurt Locker based on his experience as a freelance journalist embedded with an American bomb squad in Iraq. Boal not only delivered the realistic jargon that literally puts you in the Humvee, he also captured the psychology behind the type of soldier who volunteers for such a dangerous mission. It was Boal's "boots on the ground" that allowed him to accurately depict a team of bad-asses who go toward the IED's that everyone else is running from.
James Cameron has never been to another planet or battled a robot from the future, but his lifelong obsession with alien worlds (Avatar, Aliens, The Abyss) and technology run amok (Terminator, Titanic, True Lies) gives him a unique ability to bring these stories to life. He lives and breathes this stuff.
Like Tom Clancy (RIP). His first novel so accurately described the stealth technology behind an advanced submarine that the Pentagon investigated whether the author had access to Top Secret documents detailing a similar vessel already in development.
"Look, Dave, I don't know a thing about hovercrafts, light sabers or any of these newfangled gadgets you speak of. I live a regular life. I work at a boring office. I go to Chili's for lunch. And then I drive home. There's nothing exciting or cinematic about what I do." Oh, yeah? Tell that to Mike Judge.
Mike Judge based his cult hit "Office Space" on a mind-numbing temp job he once had that involved alphabetizing purchase orders in an office park with chain restaurants next to an identical office park with identical chain restaurants. He resisted the studio's suggestion that he move the film to Wall Street because he wanted the setting to be like the unglamorous, bleak workplace he was in. The story resonated with a generation of viewers who could identify with the lead characters' fear of wasting away their entire lives in a four-foot cubicle. Mike Judge wrote what he knew.
Of course, if you only write about "what you know," it's going to get boring really quick. Especially if you don't know much, like me. So, read some books. Get out more! Park your car and go for a walk in a strange neighborhood. Stop off for a drink in a seedy bar. Eavesdrop on some nearby conversations.
Pop into a swanky hotel and check out the people in the lobby. Watch the interactions closely. Is that businessman trying to close a deal or is he meeting his illicit lover? Visit a church service of a denomination you've never heard of. Sit in front of a police station and watch as criminals in handcuffs are carted by. Crash a Sexaholics Anonymous meeting. Listen to some people share. You might get some ideas, or even make a new friend!
In short, change your perspective in order to rattle your brain out of its long-settled mental lethargy. Great screenwriters aren't geniuses. They just open their minds to observing things in a slightly different way than everybody else. Sundance standout Gordy Hoffman said it best, "We've run out of ideas because we are bored with what we see. We're shut down. You don't need to get on a plane or visit a foreign country to clear your head and help you focus. Your distant planet is down the street, walking distance." More to come…
Read Part 2 of Movie Ideas - Why Didn't I Think of That?
Elevate your scripts to high concept with our FREE Download High Concept Scorecard
More Get Real articles by David Garrett
Get Real: What's Your Excuse?
Balls of Steel: Write What You Know... or Not
Submissions Insanity # 3: Familiar Screenplay Ideas to Avoid
Get help creating a series bible with Tom Benedek's webinar
Season Bible: Building Your TV Series Pitch
movie ideasdavid garrettmovie premisewrite what you knowstory ideashigh concept


text:
Legislature approves bill banning undetectable firearms
Chris Carola | The Associated Press 05/21/19, 19:43
FILE- This Aug. 1, 2018 file photo, shows a 3D-printed gun called the Liberator at Defense Distributed, an online organization for weapons development, in Austin, Texas. New York's Democrat-controlled state Legislature has approved a measure that would ban the manufacture, sale and possession of 3D-printed guns and other undetectable firearms. The Assembly passed the bill Monday, May 20, 2019, five days after the legislation was approved by the Senate. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)
Making, selling, transporting or possessing 3D-printed guns and other undetectable firearms would be banned in New York under legislation approved by the Democrat-controlled state Legislature.
The Assembly passed the bill Monday, five days after the legislation was approved by the Senate.
The measure would ban all firearms whose components can't be detected by security screening technology such as X-rays and metal detectors typically used at airports.
The bill now goes to Gov. Andrew Cuomo for approval or veto. The third-term Democrat has successfully pushed for tighter gun control laws in New York in recent years.
"We obviously support efforts to further strengthen the strongest gun safety laws in the nation, which were advanced by Governor Cuomo, but we need to review the language of this amended bill to make sure it accomplishes its stated goal," Cuomo senior advisory Richard Azzopardi said in a statement Tuesday.
"This bill demonstrates our commitment to keeping our kids and communities safe through thoughtful and comprehensive legislation," Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, a Bronx Democrat, said after Monday's passage.
Other states have banned 3D guns — also known as "ghost guns" — or are considering doing so.
Earlier this month, Washington state approved new laws that tighten regulations on firearms, including a ban on undetectable guns. The bill signed into law May 7 by Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee essentially prohibits printing complete plastic guns on 3D printers, unless metal parts are included.
Proposals to ban undetectable firearms have also been introduced this year in Rhode Island and Maryland.
The 3D gun legislation is one of several gun-control measures approved by lawmakers in Albany this year. They include a measure that allows authorities or family members to seek a court order that would prohibit a person deemed dangerous to themselves or others from possessing a firearm. Known as the "red flag" bill, the measure was signed into law by Cuomo in February.
The Legislature also approved a bill that would make it illegal to sell or manufacture bump stocks, devises that can increase the rate of fire of semi-automatic weapons. Such a device was used by the gunman who opened fire from a Las Vegas hotel room in 2017, killing 58 people at a country music concert and wounding hundreds of others.
The bump stock ban bill has yet to be sent to Cuomo, who supports the legislation is expected to sign it into law.
The federal government's ban on bump stocks took effect in March.
Tags:New York Technology Legislation Bills Andrew Cuomo Albany Laws Legislature Las Vegas mass shooting State legislature
New York judge dismisses sole criminal charge against Andrew Cuomo after sexual misconduct allegation
Andrew Cuomo to face no charges in handling nursing home COVID-19 deaths
News 01/06/22, 15:25
David Gilbert granted parole after serving 40 years in prison since 1981 armored car robbery
California 10/29/21, 22:32
Andrew Cuomo charged for allegedly groping a female aide
New York 10/29/21, 02:52
Dealers openly sell marijuana in busy NYC park
New York Gov. Hochul will 'find replacements' for healthcare workers who refuse COVID jab


Grace Dunbar recently joined Equinox Software as the project manager for product development. We are thrilled to have a second PM and one dedicated to development. It's another sign of Evergreen's growth!
Grace spent five years as a librarian at Stanford University, where she managed the Google digitization effort. She then took a position with Camp Lejeune, a Marine Corps base, as Library Director of their three base libraries, followed by a brief stint with Savannah College of Art and Design. Grace loves knitting, sci-fi, and cooking, and in her copious free time is learning to play the banjo.
Naturally, we had a few questions for Grace!
What is important about open source software?
For me, the most important thing is community involvement. The "bosses" of the developers working on a product are the end users of that product which, to me, is unique and valuable. As a librarian, I see open source as a natural fit with libraries, as librarians have historically embraced radical evolutionary change.
Where do you see open source development in the next ten to fifteen years?
We've largely gotten past the fear of open source. Acceptance and ownership of open source product is now becoming mainstream. My hope is that in fifteen years the concept of "open source" will be something kids have to look up in the dictionary (at the library, natch!) because it will have become the modus operandi.
When you get stuck on a problem how do you solve it?
It depends on the nature of the problem. If it's a logistical problem I resort to using small scale models to better conceptualize the issue. For everything else, when I'm well and truly stuck, I usually start seeking out people. I work through problems verbally and having another person there to play devil's advocate or just to point out something I hadn't considered is invaluable.
A full coffee cup. Small plastic monkeys and dinosaurs to help me sort out those tricky logistical problems as mentioned above. Many, many notebooks and notepads – I'm compulsive about organizing my projects in notebooks and my desk is also usually littered with sticky notes. My "Mr. T in Your Pocket" sits on the desk for when someone needs to be told "Don't give me no back talk, sucka!".
My favorite way to decompress is by cooking. I love to come home, put on some music, rummage through the fridge and put together a good meal. A little wine while I'm cooking doesn't hurt either! [Editor's aside: you mean beer, right?] If cooking isn't an option then I like to knit or play Guitar Hero.


Must be for Ceriani and would prefer straight and with good chrome but beggars cant be choosers it seems so anything considered as long as correct length or longer would work but most def not shorter.
I think we have NOS at OCT. Can check Tuesday.
.... unbelievable Piet! OCT is hiding treasures!!!
I'll keep me fingers and toes crossed, thanks for that.
Got a NOS set as well, but not a keen seller.
I still have the 595 downtubes, but they are bent (not bad, will roll out) and will need stripping and hard chroming. Not worth the exercise for you.
Better for me to keep. I can get a complete pair of Ceriani's out of what I have if I need them.


Following their move last year to a different location, Belmont-Cragin Elementary dropped to a level 2 Chicago public school.
Staff and students had to relocate about seven blocks away from their previous building and the school suffered a 70% retention rate because of the change. Their new building, which they share with Northwest Middle School at 5252 W. Palmer St., is situated in a more crime-infested area, so it is difficult for students to walk to and from school, said Daniela Medrano, a technology instructor at the school.
However, Supplies for Dreams has been a constant during this time.
The non-profit organization—run mostly by Northwestern University undergrads—provides CPS students with supplies-stocked backpacks, takes students on field trips to Chicago museums and gives one-on-one mentoring to its partner school students, which includes Belmont-Cragin.
Ninety-five percent of Belmont-Cragin's students are low-income, Medrano said. The elementary school also has 70 percent of its students as English language learners and 14 percent are special needs students, she said. Most families of the school are working class families. The school is also SFD's second longest partnership and has worked with SFD for at least three years.
Medrano said that while the supplies help students' families who suffer from financial distress, they also help the teachers.
Supplies for Dreams also brings students to NU to give them tours of the campus and to do activities centered around college education.
Belmont-Cragin students, who came to NU on Nov. 22 for an event called Wildcat Workout, have grown accustom to these trips to campus and really benefit from them, Medrano said.
SFD also recently took students on a field trip to the Museum of Science and Industry. Since there are not a lot of people of color in the math and science industries, it is important to expose them to learning in those fields, Medrano said. Students usually come back from the trips eager to tell classmates what they have learned, she said.
Marie Donaldson, SFD's operations director, said, though, that the move has been one of the more difficult things Belmont-Cragin has had to deal with.
However, the staff members are passionate about the students and the work that they do, Donaldson said. At SFD's annual gala last year, Belmont-Cragin Principal Stacy Stewart spoke. She delivered an "inspiring" speech, Donaldson said.
Medrano said whatever the case and location of the school, she is proud to work there because of the staff and students.
"I wake up every morning knowing that I'm happy to go to work, whereas at other jobs, I haven't really experienced that," Medrano said.