It was a cold and rainy night. Something nefarious was happening in a ruck and Brendan Cannon had had enough!
He wasn't going to stand for it anymore, and anyway who could miss that nose?
So he flattened it just a bit more and started an all-in-brawl in the process.
This cold and rainy place was of course Wellington. The event was of course Bledisloe '04 #1. The nose was of course Keven Mealamu's.
And as I watched the replay - and acknowledged that it was as fine a smack in the snoze as I had seen in a long while - I said to Cone Stadium in general "He won't be playing next week!"
Jules immediately suggested that since he just been awarded a yellow card, that he couldn't be sited.
Although I blustered a bit, I had to agree (quietly to myself) that he had a very good point.
In the recent past, this was the way things had gone. Siting committees had invariably ruled that the referee had dealt with the matter - so that... was that.
However when the IRB Siting official filed his report, he included mention of one Brendan (Meat-axe) Cannon on the charge of striking.
Thus BC was subsequently heard by a committee of learned people who gave him 2 weeks off rugby to consider just how sweetly he had smited his foe.
And when I heard about that decision I thought, "What the hey?"
"That's it!" I said to my self. "No more will I stand for this!"
And had there been a convenient nose around, things might have been much different.
But there wasn't, so I was forced into more drastic action!
I surfed to the IRB website and downloaded 'The Laws of the game of Rugby Union' as framed by the International Rugby Board (2004 Edition).
Never before had I been driven to this length, and once again I was happy to have my work connection to download it, as the PDF file is a weighty 974 KB!
Surely this would enable me to know what the hell was going on - when and for what was a yellow card enough?
The answer distilled from this full and factual work is - Don't know!
There probably is something written down somewhere, but it ain't here.
Bit of an over-sight you might think, but then these are the rules for the whole game, at all levels - with appendices for Sevens and Under 19.
And strictly speaking, the siting committee hasn't got anything to do with the running of a game.
So the question is still open - and Brendan Cannon still needs a hair cut!
OK, so is there a part two to this saga? Don't leave us hanging SG!
Ah finally, a part two!
Supposedly this article has been viewed 2181 times since we bothered to start counting*.


text:
By Colin Wilson
A classic read: Woman on the Edge of Time
Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time stands in a long tradition of novels that describe a socialist utopia.
Connie Ramos is a 37 year old Mexican-American living in poverty in New York. She has been through a period of mental illness, was hospitalised and her daughter taken away to be fostered. As the novel begins she is hospitalised again, after trying to protect her niece from a violent pimp. The hospital is a barbaric reflection of wider society: drugs are used to discipline the patients, and Connie is treated with contempt and incomprehension by nurses, doctors and social workers. She forms friendships with fellow patients Sybil, who is detained because she believes in witchcraft, and Skip, held because he is gay. Piercy's depiction of a 1970s psychiatric ward is detailed and compelling.
Before coming to the hospital, Connie had met a woman called Luciente on the street. Luciente had told her she was from the year 2137 and Connie, of course, had not believed her. But now she finds that she can travel for brief periods to Luciente's time.
At first she finds the future society disappointing. It is a world of rural villages, where people spend time tending goats and growing vegetables. It reminds her of the poverty of Mexico. She finds it hard to understand the society, much less to like it. Children grow, for example, in artificial wombs, and are then raised by three parents of either sex. Gender differences no longer exist – men can breastfeed – and Connie often finds it hard to tell if a person is a man or a woman.
The future society is democratic, stateless and sustainable. There are no cars, and natural resources are carefully managed. Children are the responsibility of the whole community; there is no school, since they learn through activity.
To some extent it's a hippy paradise, a generalisation of the politics of the 1960s and 1970s. Connie is at first both fascinated and irritated by it. Her experiences have hardened her: she cannot easily trust the society's joy and openness. Yet, as she experiences how the future society deals with death and funerals, how a village party is organised or how decisions are made about the use of land, she comes to do so.
But the utopian future is not certain. The last few capitalists are fighting to maintain their rule, and Connie's friends must do military service, with terrible consequences. Or perhaps the utopian future will never exist – Connie also has a vision of a society where most people die in their forties, living only to provide organ transplants and sexual services to a genetically engineered ruling class who live to the age of 200. Back in the hospital, Connie herself is forced to undergo brain surgery which may be distorting her visions of the future. Finally, she carries out a desperate and ambiguous act of rebellion.
Piercy's imagining of the future is remarkable in its detail. It may not be everyone's ideal future, but the book is deeply moving in its account of human potential, of how things could be different. If someone ever asks you what socialism will be like, you could do worse than give them a copy of this book.
Nomadland is a powerful—but drippy—austerity story
Meltdown - Ben Elton
Fixing Global Finance

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Acer H6810 4K Home Cinema Projector MR.JQK11.002Immerse yourself in the world of Ultra HD. The H6810 impresses with impressive 4K images in cinema quality. TV, gaming and film fans can now experience rich colors, crystal clear details and great, high-contrast images.
With more than 8 million pixels, the 4K UHD resolution brings four times more detail to the screen than Full HD, delivering crisp, lifelike and rich colors. So you can sit even closer to the screen and dive into the picture. The HDR compatible projector H6810 is able to receive and display HDR meta data. So you see even more details and texture. Objects are rendered realistically and these extra details create a greater sense of depth - as if you were looking through the window.
All for 4K - See more, do more, and enjoy beyond measure with a 4K UHD image.
Bright, Clear Images - 3,500 lumens high brightness provides the ability to project crystal clear, vibrant images from a long distance on a large screen even in daytime indoors.
Handy Cinematic Experience - The world smallest and lightest 4K UHD projector with only 4 Kg (8.82 lbs) light weight and 343 X 258 X 124.6 mm dimension.
Built-in Speaker - A 10W speaker provides powerful sound, eliminating the need for external speakers.
Connect with Wireless - Break free from the clutter of wires with the easy wireless projection option.
HDMI 2.0 - Increases the maximum bandwidth, giving it the ability to carry 4K signal & Rec. 2020 colour space.


text:
By Submitted on Jul 11, 2019 at 12:53 p.m.
Governor's Fishing Opener 2020 Planning Committee near Otter Tail Lake. Photo courtesy of Otter Tail County
The county of 1,048 lakes is hosting the Governor's Fishing Opener (GFO) May 8-10, 2020. Otter Tail County was selected to host the event as a county-wide celebration to showcase Otter Tail County's diverse outdoor recreation opportunities. Otter Tail Lake will be host to Governor Walz and other state leaders fishing on May 9, 2020.
The local planning committee in collaboration with Explore Minnesota Tourism, the Governor's Office and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources met June 24 to kick off the preparation and planning process. Otter Tail Lakes Country is the lead organization with representative members from a variety of businesses and organizations throughout the county. The sub-committees will meet on a monthly basis and regularly update stakeholders and the public. Erik Osberg, GFO Committee Chair, said of the committee, "We are honored to be hosting the 73rd Annual Minnesota Governor's Fishing Opener. It's a tremendous opportunity for local businesses and organizations to capitalize on. It's going to take a lot of people and a lot of hard work. But we are up for the challenge."
A primary objective for local communities in hosting the GFO is to bring state-wide attention to the area. Past Governor's Opener celebrations have generated a lot of media attention throughout Minnesota and the entire Midwest. Otter Tail County has many diverse features to attract people to visit, live and work in the area. The GFO is a unique opportunity to highlight the area's natural beauty, the economic development opportunities in our thriving communities, welcoming people and of course world-class fishing.
Additional Articles Recommended by Wadena PJ
Sports betting tries its odds at Minnesota Capitol
Additional coaching approved to aide growing WDC teams
Explore related topics:sportsoutdoorsotter tailFishingGovernor


text:
Re: Thatcher, feminism, etc.
text/plain (145 lines)
I'm not avoiding anything:  I have no idea what you think "the issue" is, but
it is clear from the language you use that the issue is not feminism.  I
gather it is about whether Margaret Thatcher was in fact a woman in power
and did in fact exercise it and was in fact very sure of herself.  If that is the
issue, then yes, of course.  If the issue is feminism, that does not touch it
because the same can be said of the women who were powerful queens
and abbesses in the Middle Ages and of Queen Victoria.  And that says
nothing either about feminism.  If you want to insist on the fact that
Queens were hereditary, abbesses were not.  Hildegarde von Bingen was
a very powerful abbess of a double monastery, and she got that by her
visions and brilliance.  And she was also very committed to educating her
nuns and to some ideas that one could call focussed on women.  But she
was not a feminist and there was no feminist society to help her on.  There
were always women who refused to accept the strictures of their culture,
and in that sense, they did what feminism would affirm.  That is not the
same as having a feminist political, philosophical, and cultural view of the
As I said, I have no idea what issue you think I am avoiding.
Date sent:              Sat, 30 Nov 2002 21:02:29 -0800
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: Thatcher, feminism, etc.
To:                     [log in to unmask]
So you continue to avoid the issue.
Dr. Peter C. Montgomery
3100 Foul Bay Rd.
Victoria, BC CANADA V8P 5J2
www.camosun.bc.ca/~peterm
From: Nancy Gish [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Thatcher, feminism, etc.
I am sorry to say this, but if you think the issue is pickiness and you
think the issue is whether Thatcher is "liberated," you also need to read
about 30 years of feminist theory.  Hildegarde von Bingen was a very
assertive, powerful, and liberated woman, but it had nothing to do with
"feminism" as such and it had nothing to do with the position of women in
the middle ages.  Elizabeth I of England had far more power than Thatcher,
but she was not a feminist. Nancy
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
Alright, lets avoid muddying the waters with
academicism. Was Margaret Thatcher, or was she not,
a liberated woman? Without all of the efforts of
women which preceded her, of which feminism was
merely the bow on the rose, would Auntie Maggie
have been able to get to her high office or not?
In other words, let's not avoid the issue with pickiness?
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 8:26 AM
Subject: Thatcher, feminism, etc.
Dear Marcia,
Of course many women did and do things that fit the ideas of feminism. But
that is not the same thing as being a feminist.  Many people who are not
liberals are accepting of difference and personally generous.  Many people
who are not Christians behave in ways that far more fit the images and
words of Jesus than those of professed believers.  (In fact, much of what
many so-called "Christians" today claim would certainly have appalled
Jesus.) But feminism is not simply isolated actions; it is a way of seeing
the world that is complex, as you know, and makes connections among
structures that are or were assumed to be either "natural" or essential or
true and were none of those things.  "The personal is political" was
started by radical feminists and was not simply a way to include all
behavior that asserted a woman's individual self, however it may have
facilitated that.
Hrosvitha or Marjorie Kemp did things that were clearly assertive and were
what one might call "pre-feminist," but feminism was a developing and
developed vision of the way the world was constructed. Best, Nancy
From:                   Marcia Karp <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: Marianne Moore poem in WWII
Nancy Gish wrote:
> As I agreed with Carrol, I want to clarify why.  He said that feminism
> was a political position.  "The personal is political" was just that.
> Thatcher did not have a political position that addressed what the line
> meant at all; she did not have a politics that took any account of the
> lives of women as such. I don't think your point and his are at odds.
I think none of us is much at odds.  But "the personal is political" did
not necessitate a conscious political position.  While the stalwarts and
writers formed them, they granted that other women who did not, were
taking de facto political positions when they behaved in certain ways.
These ways, of course, were never well defined.  But, in the context of
the times, the woman who stopped doing all the housework was taking a
political stand whether she "knew" it or accepted it.
Don't forget all those arguments about whose movement this was and the
warnings that the academics and polemicists didn't own it.  Not all women
had the luxury or interest or ability to take positions that they called
political.  "The personal is political" can be seen as a concession that
welcomed a variety of women.  Perhaps it's come to be a requirement that
one take a stand about the slogan; I don't know.  But it wasn't always
that; the two states are in rhetorical apposition.


text:
Home > Companies & Markets
New SIAS chair aims to grow investor activism, education
Dealing with the ongoing challenge of obtaining funding will also be on top of the list for Magnus Bocker
Mon, Apr 10, 2017 - 5:50 AM
Michelle Quahmichquah@sph.com.sg@MichelleQuahBT
"SIAS needs to stand up for the rights of minority shareholders and convince companies to be more accountable to all shareholders," says Mr Bocker.
ST FILE PHOTO
GROWING investor advocacy and board accountability, and dealing with the ongoing challenge of obtaining funding, will be at the top of the agenda for former Singapore Exchange (SGX) chief Magnus Bocker in his new role as honorary chairman of Singapore's investor advocacy group, the Securities Investors Association (Singapore) or SIAS.
Speaking exclusively to The Business Times soon after his appointment, Mr Bocker shared the key objectives and challenges he intends to tackle during his three-year tenure, even while he stressed that his role would mainly support that of SIAS president and CEO David Gerald.
"I hope to see two things develop in the year to come. The first is to see more retail investors engaging in the market, hopefully through SIAS. The second and maybe the more important is to seek effective accountability and asking the right questions of boards and senior management, primarily through direct contact and not through campaigns via the media," Mr Bocker said.
"We need to accept that shareholder activism is an important pillar in the stock market, and it gives good feedback to achieve better corporate governance. Many boards listen regularly to institutional shareholders and should do the same with minority shareholders."
SIAS, considered the voice of minority shareholders here, hopes to tap Mr Bocker's reputation and experience garnered from decades spent in the financial industry. He served as SGX chief from 2009 to 2015, and as president of American stock exchange, Nasdaq, before that. Prior to his position at Nasdaq, he was involved in the creation of Nordic exchange OMX, and its eventual merger with Nasdaq in 2008.
Mr Bocker, who hails originally from Sweden but now calls Singapore home, is involved with tryb Capital, which provides funding for fintech companies in Asia. He also chairs Blibros Capital Partners, his own investment company, based in Singapore and Sweden, that focuses on companies that are part of the digital transformation.
Despite a seemingly busy schedule, he said, he decided to take on the role as SIAS's honorary chairman (taking over from Lim Hwee Hua) as he had worked closely with the organisation during his years with SGX. "I have always had a passion for investing in stocks. I bought my first stocks when I was 11 years old, and most of the education I got at that time came from Aktiespararna, the Swedish equivalent of SIAS."
He hopes to tackle the challenges - some more longstanding than others - facing SIAS. "For an organisation like SIAS, independent funding will always be a challenge. It has been that way since SIAS started in 1999, and I'm sure it will be so going forward."
SIAS operates on a non-profit basis, with its funding made somewhat easier when it was recognised as a charity and an Institution of Public Character (IPC) recently.
Mr Bocker added: "We (also) need to establish a strong case for retail shareholders to join SIAS, and for listed companies to support what we do. Another very important challenge is of course SIAS's mission to protect minority shareholders and be vigilant to any misconduct that goes on in the market.
"SIAS needs to stand up for the rights of minority shareholders and convince companies to be more accountable to all shareholders; one very good example is how SIAS is always present at all AGMs (annual general meetings) asking relevant and important questions.
"Additionally, we can always be better in investor education, a topic that is very close to my heart."
He emphasises, though, that his role is to support Mr Gerald. "It is not my role to be part of SIAS's day-to-day operations or (to say) how SIAS should be organised.
"I will focus my efforts on supporting David and his team on any issues they might have, give my input on where we can make things better and be generous with the contacts I have both here in Singapore and around the world. It is also the duty of the honorary chairman to see that the president and management committee act in the interest of SIAS and its constitution."
Sias
Magnus Bocker
[SINGAPORE] Singaporean investment firm GK Goh Holdings is exploring a sale of corporate services provider Boardroom...
[HONG KONG] Seven former and current bank employees have been arrested in Hong Kong as part of a major operation...
Tokyo: Shares close lower on profit-taking
[TOKYO] Tokyo stocks closed down on Wednesday as profit-taking wiped out earlier gains, with investors taking a wait...
[SINGAPORE] Hong Kong no longer has the busiest airport for international traffic in Asia after the coronavirus...
[SINGAPORE] HSBC Holdings and Malayan Banking's insurance venture are among shortlisted bidders for AXA's business...
Stocks to watch: ESR-Reit, First Reit, Keppel Infra Trust, Sunningdale, ARA Logos, Oxley
Broker's take: Maybank KE sees further upside for Singtel as recovery is underway
Broker's take: UOBKH starts coverage on GHY Culture & Media with 'buy', S$1.08 TP
EHT announces Chapter 11 filing; to start marketing process to sell some hotels


Our children: I think of my nieces and nephews, you may think of your own or your children and grandchildren. When they are young, they trust us, they are dependent on us, the learn from us, they want to be near us. We feed them, care for them, nourish them, protect them, teach them, and sometimes have to correct and discipline them. We want the best for them, we want them to succeed, we want them to be happy.
Can I become more and more each day a child of God – trusting, loving, learning, following? After all, he is our Father who loves, feeds, protects, nourishes, and instructs. And he wants only to bring us to Himself.


text:
Filed under: Talking Theatre (Reviews) — Fergal Casey @ 6:48 pm
Tags: Abbey Theatre, All My Sons, Barry Barnes, Cassio, Cyprus, Des Cave, Desdemona, Gavin Fullam, Guthrie Theatre, Iago, James Cosgrove, Joe Dowling, John Barry O'Connor, Liz Fitzgibbon, Malcolm Douglas, Marty Rea, Michael James Ford, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Othello, Peter Gowen, Peter Macon, Psy-Ops, Rebecca O'Mara, Riccardo Hernandez, Rosie Redmond, Sean O'Casey, The Field, Tyrone Guthrie, Venice, William Shakespeare
The Abbey joins in the Shakespeare 400 celebrations with its first ever production of Othello and it's a vibrant cracker
Beware my lord of jealousy, it is the green-eyed monster that doth mock the meat it feed on
Respected soldier Othello (Peter Macon) has secretly married Desdemona (Rebecca O'Mara), to the dismay and fury of her father Brabantio (Peter Gowen) when he is roused with the news by failed suitor Rodrigo (Gavin Fullam). But the support Brabantio initially receives from his peers on the Council; Lodovico (Barry Barnes), Gratiano (Michael James Ford), and the Duke (Malcolm Douglas); evaporates when they realise his righteous indignation is directed at Othello, for the Ottomans are moving against Cyprus, and Othello is Venice's indispensable man. Little does Othello realise that Cyprus will turn out to be a psy-ops front rather than a naval engagement. For despite being governed by his friend Montano (Des Cave) Cyprus will prove no home as his ensign Iago (Marty Rea) whispers poison in his ear in an attempt to usurp Cassio (John Barry O'Connor) as Othello's lieutenant.
Director Joe Dowling seems to dispense with Coleridge's celebrated 'motiveless malignity' of Iago for a fascinating interpretation; that Iago himself is acting throughout under the spell of the same species of madness he casts over Othello. While he is resentful of being passed over for promotion, his true anger seems to circle around his wife Emilia (Karen Ardiff) having betrayed him with the Moor. Iago's cold treatment of Emilia thus seems a parallel to Othello's rough abuse of Desdemona – having been turned against her. And his wail at the result of his handiwork adds to this impression; a man suddenly waking from a fugue state horrified at what he's done. Macon's performance is extremely impressive, and surprising. Instead of 'the noble Moor', dignifying every syllable, he gives us a soldier whose early scenes of camaraderie are rambunctious bordering on rowdy, and whose descent into madness involves howling, screaming, and an epileptic fit. Othello's modesty about his linguistic skills can seem farcical given his poetic eloquence, but here it signals insecurity because English is his second language, as the American Macon delivers Shakespearean verse with some acutely noted notes and flourishes of sub-Saharan African speech. Rea, in a rare occurrence, is asked to act in his own Northern Irish accent, and this also strips away posturing. Instead of grandstanding in his own villainy in RP, Iago is a street-corner slouch of bored contempt and hidden spite; in which each soliloquy seems to expose a man trapped in his own world of hatred – given memorable visual expression by Sinead McKenna's lights spotlighting a wordless conversation between Cassio and Desdemona while Iago creeps closer to them, railing at them, lost in solipsistic hate.
Desdemona's passivity works best as a sheltered girl's naivety about the world, but O'Mara is too old for the role. Desdemona is thus infuriatingly clueless, but O'Mara does gives full impact to James Cosgrove's fight direction by selling one of the most shocking stage-punches I've seen. Ardiff is a highlight in support making Emilia a beacon of common sense and proto-feminist, but rendering Bianca (Liz Fitzgibbon) as an O'Casey streetwalker is a cheap and mean gag. Dowling's staging is less naturalistic than previous returns from Minneapolis like 2003's All My Sons or 2011's The Field. Indeed Act 3's celebrated temptation scene takes place against what becomes a blood-red backdrop of ocean upon which vast shadows are cast as Iago corrupts Othello. Before that Venice has been represented by a massive suspended plaque, and as Othello descends into psychosis the walls almost literally close in on him, as the ocean backdrop is truncated by successively closing over more and more of the wooden panelling of Riccardo Hernandez's set which is identical to the Abbey's off-stage decor.
It remains bizarre to have chosen this play because of one line, which elicited sustained tittering heedless of the dead and maimed littering the stage during its delivery, but Dowling affords the Bard's tragedy of jealousy a bold debut.
Othello continues its run at the Abbey Theatre until the 11th of June.


Xiaoting Pan - a male celebrity - born on Thursday February 25th 1982, in Unknown.
With his omnipresent energy and intuition, Xiaoting Pan has the potential to be a source of inspiration and illumination for people. With no conscious effort, he galvanizes every situation he enters, and energy seems to flow through him without being aware of this great potential or controlling it. When he is aware of his outstanding personality, Xiaoting tries to blend with his environment, feeling conspicuous, alien, and out-of-place.
Xiaoting channels information between the higher and the lower, between the realm of the archetype and the relative world. Ideas, thoughts, understanding, and insight - all of these can come to him without having to go through a rational thought process, as if there is a bridge between his conscious and unconscious realms, attuning him to a high level of intuition through which even psychic information can flow. On the other hand, there is so much going on in his psyche that Pan is often misunderstood early in life, making him shy and withdrawn.
Xiaoting Pan is sharing his great capacity for invention with many inventors, artists, religious leaders, prophets, and leading figures in history. But because he is so highly charged, he experiences constant conflict between his great abilities and indulgence in self-reflection and self-criticism, leaving him highly self-conscious.
Although blessed with a message or a specific role to play in life, Xiaoting Pan must develop himself sufficiently to take full advantage of that opportunity. Until that time, his inner development takes precedence over his ability to materialize the great undertaking he was chosen to perform. Consequently, Xiaoting seems to develop slowly, but he simply has more to accomplish in his evolution than the average person. Thus, Pan's real success does not usually begin until maturity, between the ages of 35 and 45, when he has progressed further along his path. When he has found his niche in life and begun to realize his true potential, Xiaoting's rewards will more than compensate for his trials earlier in life.
Entrepreneurial and progressive, Xiaoting Pan is ever-striving, heading for the top, and enjoying an enterprising, ambitious and determined personality to do things well, and an unyielding dedication to his plan until the goals are achieved.
There is danger, however that his trait of determination and dedication will shift to stubbornness, making Xiaoting cling to ideas and projects well past their fruitious season. It is a good idea for him to keep fresh pipeline of ideas to make it easier to replace outdated plans by new and better ones.
Patient as he is towards his goals, Xiaoting's flying, ravaging temper endangers his relationships with the very same people that will help him to accomplish those goals. He should use his strength of will to study and practice anger management.
Xiaoting Pan makes a good performer, but at the same time he can be quite intense and serious.
Xiaoting can easily gain high respect in the community, being understanding of the views of others, and he often tends to achieve his goals.
When balanced, he is compassionate and emotionally secure. Pan is also a natural healer, with leadership qualities and the ability to genuinely empathize. He also radiates love and spiritual happiness to those around him.
When unbalanced, drama queen is not an unfamiliar term to Xiaoting, and he often likes to give advice to others even when his own life is a mess.
Tour Xiaoting's menu and gain more insight into his personality traits, relationships, strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, compatibility with you and with others, and much more.
With enhanced personal power and strong projection of authority, April 21st 2019 is a good day for Xiaoting Pan's career and new endeavors.
Xiaoting feels today a closer connection to God and nature. He may initiate or become more involved in a project that focuses on spirituality and self-expression - perhaps writing.


text:
Die 8. Tour of Oman 2017 war ein Straßenradrennen in Oman. Das Etappenrennen fand vom 14. bis zum 19. Februar 2017 statt. Zudem gehörte das Radrennen zur UCI Asia Tour 2017 und war dort in der Kategorie 2.HC eingestuft.

Teilnehmende Mannschaften

Etappen

1. Etappe

2. Etappe

3. Etappe

4. Etappe

5. Etappe

6. Etappe

Gesamtwertung

Wertungstrikots

Weblinks
 Offizielle Website

Radrennen 2017

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Admitting Expert Evidence Under Rule 702: By What Standard?
Thursday 12:00 p.m. EST
Litigation Practice Group
Teleforum
This webinar will host a debate over the pending amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony. In August 2021, the federal judiciary's Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules published proposed amendments to Rule 702 to include within the text of the rule language directly stating that the proponent of expert testimony must establish each of Rule 702's elements by a preponderance of the evidence. Currently, Rule 702 does not explicitly include a preponderance standard, but merely cross-references the preponderance standard included under another evidentiary rule. A year's worth of research into federal cases analyzing the current Rule 702 reveals that some courts apply a preponderance standard while others apply a more relaxed policy favoring admissibility.
The Advisory Committee will host a public hearing on January 21, 2022, and those wishing to testify are asked to reserve a spot 30 days in advance. The Committee is also accepting public comments on the proposed amendment until February 16, 2022.
The webinar discussion will be moderated by Leah Lorber, Assistant General Counsel of Dispute Resolution and Prevention at GSK. Participants will include Lee Mickus, a Partner at Evans, Fears & Schuttert, who has written and spoken extensively in support of Rule 702 reforms; David Wool, a Partner at the Wagstaff Law Firm who has litigated Rule 702 and Daubert issues extensively and questioned the need for the proposed amendment; and Katie Jackson, an Associate at Shook, Hardy & Bacon and Fellow with Lawyers for Civil Justice who has conducted research regarding the courts' application of Rule 702.
Here is a link to a webpage with several Rule 702 resources for those wishing to file a comment, testify at the hearing, or simply learn more about the proposed amendments.
Kateland Jackson, Associate at Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP in Washington, D.C.
Leah Lorber, Assistant General Counsel of Dispute Resolution and Prevention at GSK.
Lee S. Mickus, Partner, Evans Fears & Shuttert LLP
David Wool, Partner, Wagstaff Law Firm
Event Transcript
Dean Reuter: Welcome to Teleforum, a podcast of The Federalist Society's practice groups. I'm Dean Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society. For exclusive access to live recordings of practice group Teleforum calls, become a Federalist Society member today at fedsoc.org.
Leah Lorber: Hi everybody. Welcome to The Federalist Society webinar on proposals to amend the Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The Federal Evidence Rules Advisory Committee is considering amending Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to clarify the standards for the admissibility of expert evidence. The committee is part of the Federal Judicial Conference, the policy-making arm of the federal court system, and is responsible for recommending amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The committee's proposed amendment is currently up for public comment. The comment period will run until February 16. There is also the opportunity to testify at a hearing that will occur virtually on January 21, but only if you get your request in to testify to the committee soon. It would be best to sign up by December 21, both because space is limited and because you want to make sure to meet the committee's 30-day-in-advance registration deadline.
In light of the opportunity for public comment, our goals for this webinar are to explain the amendment and to share perspectives from both sides of the bar about why this amendment is or is not needed. We are going to hear today from Katie Jackson, an attorney at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, who has recently published research on the variety of ways courts applied Rule 702 during 2020; from David Wool, a partner at the Wagstaff Law Firm who has litigated Rule 702 and Daubert issues extensively, and who has questioned the need for the proposed amendment; and from Lee Mickus, a partner at Evans Fears & Schuttert, who has also litigated these issues extensively, and written and spoken in favor of Rule 702 reform.
Before we hear from our panelists, I'd like to very briefly set the stage about where things stand with Rule 702 and about the proposed amendment. Several years ago, some attorneys and academics raised concerns that Rule 702 has become an afterthought for some courts, even though it provides the governing standard for the admission of expert testimony. Even Daubert recognized that in its core holding in 1993.
Unfortunately, both courts and litigants often see admissibility as a matter of case law precedent rather than as a matter of the governing rule. The result is that the content of the rule is overlooked. There have been a number of rulings based on case law that take different approaches to the admissibility analysis, but that all put factually unsupported or otherwise unreliable expert testimony before the jury. I'm sure you'll hear more about those today.
After several years of study of these and other concerns, the Evidence Rules Advisory Committee recommended and got approval to move ahead with the proposed amendment through the public comment process. I'll put some slides up describing the amendment.
The proposed amendment does two things. First, it expressly states that the party seeking to introduce the evidence must establish each of the elements of Rule 702 by a preponderance of the evidence. Rule 104(a) already applies a preponderance standard to all the rules of evidence, but the committee thought it would be important to emphasize the preponderance standard in the context of Rule 702, in light of the concerns that were raised.
This change should have two effects: clarifying what the standard actually is for courts that don't recognize it, and ensuring that all of the gatekeeping elements set forth in the rule are decided by the court as a matter of admissibility.
Second, through the proposal [inaudible 00:03:50] of subsection (d), to limit overstatement by experts stating a conclusion or degree of confidence that the method can't support.
The amendment will be accompanied by a committee note. This slide shows some of the current highlights. Importantly, it calls out that courts that have identified some of the Rule 702 elements as a matter of weight and not admissibility are wrong. And second, it shows that the 702(d) amendment is intended to deter experts from exaggerating their conclusions beyond what the method allows.
Now, at the most recent Advisory Committee meeting, they discussed adding a reference to the court as a decider into the text of the rule. That's received some pushback. I personally think it would be a good idea just to make crystal clear that the court is deciding these issues.
Another suggested change is making it explicit that in the consistent cases that find factual basis or application of the methodology to be issues of weight are rejected and not consistent with the rule.
With that, I'll turn to our first panelist. Katie, you and your colleague, Andy Trask, did a significant amount of research, analyzing all of the 2020 federal district court opinions that considered admissibility under Rule 702. Please tell us about it.
Kateland Jackson: Right. Thank you, Leah. I appreciate it. I currently serve as a fellow with Lawyers for Civil Justice, LCJ. So in that capacity, like you said, my colleague, Andy Trask, and I were able to conduct a year-long research study into how courts are currently applying Rule 702.
So Andy and I reviewed every federal case decided during 2020 in which the judge either admitted, excluded, or partially admitted expert testimony. There were over 1,000 cases that fit this description. So the purpose of this research was to isolate instances in which courts conducted a Rule 702 expert evidence inquiry and required the proponent of the evidence to show proof of its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. That's the preponderance standard that you were alluding to in Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a), which is incorporated by comment into Rule 702.
But what Andy and I found is that the majority of federal courts do not explicitly require a burden of proof at all when admitting expert evidence and that courts are split over whether to apply the preponderance standard. This split actually appears within 57 of the 93 total federal judicial districts, and that covers every federal circuit court's jurisdiction in the country.
Quickly, one quick anecdote: we actually found that one district court, the Southern District of New York -- two judges on the same case actually disagreed over whether to apply the preponderance standard to expert motions in that same case. So as you can see, there are some inconsistencies in the courts.
I'm going to try to share my screen with you to show you a graphic that LCJ put together to convey these results. Bear with me. All right. Are you able to see this graphic? Yes. Good. Okay, so I'll walk you through some of this data real quick.
So in row one, you'll see that nearly two-thirds of the time, in 65 percent of cases that we reviewed, courts did not mention the proponent's burden of proof or that a preponderance standard applies to a Rule 702 analysis. So this means that only about a third of the time, in 35 percent of the cases that we looked at, courts actually mentioned that the proponent bears the burden of proving admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence.
We'll move down to row two. And you can see that in about 13 percent of cases, courts included language indicating that there is a presumption of admissibility. So this would include language such as "the federal rules have a liberal thrust favoring admission." Several cases included this type of language. So we do know that, at least in these cases, there was a clear presumption in favor of admissibility, which does directly conflict with the preponderance standard. Again, that is referenced in Rule 104(a) and 702.
So finally, we'll look at the third row here. And we can see that, in a number of cases, the courts inconsistently required both a showing of admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence and a presumption favoring admissibility. This data point is probably the most interesting data point that we found because the two standards do directly conflict. So it's unexpected that the research would produce that some courts are applying both.
This finding indicates that there is general confusion among the courts over whether the preponderance standard applies under Rule 702. I think it also shows that there is deeper confusion about what the standards even mean.
So I will stop sharing my screen here. If you are interested in these research results or the report graphic that I just had up, these are all available on LCJ's Don't Say Daubert website. That's www.dontsaydaubert.com. I'm sure we can make that available to you if you're interested. And there are several resources available for folks that are looking to either submit a comment or testify or just want to learn more about what these proposed amendments would do.
Like I said, the results do indicate that there is inconsistent application throughout the country. So, yes, dig into the results if you're interested. And that's all I've got for you, Leah.
Leah Lorber: Thanks, Katie. David, you're up.
David Wool: So I'd like to push back on the idea that we need an amendment to the rule at all. So with all due respect to Katie and the research that she has done, we have a well- and generally-accepted methodology for determining whether district courts are getting it wrong. And that's called appellate courts. And fortunately, when you're dealing with a misconstruction of the rules of evidence or something like that, appellate courts review that under a de novo standard. So there's no deference given to the lower court's opinion.
And while you can pinpoint select words or phrases in some of these opinions, what you don't see are a slew of appellate decisions overturning district courts on the basis that they have misapplied the preponderance standard or something like that.
I think that, in a lot of cases, maybe a court doesn't specifically say, "Preponderance of the evidence," but does indicate that the burden is on the party that is trying to seek admission of expert testimony. And so, I think, overall, that this isn't something that is really consuming appellate courts and, therefore, isn't something that really, necessarily, warrants a change to the rule itself. Although, I will point out that, since Daubert itself, the burden has been on the party seeking to admit expert testimony.
And then, the other point that I'd like to kind of push back on a little bit is that the language that actually comes from Daubert itself, or was cited in Daubert itself—that Rule 702 has a liberal thrust favoring admission—is inconsistent with the preponderance standard. To the extent courts are confused at all, I think that the confusion doesn't stem from the standard or things within Rule 702 itself. The confusion sort of stems from this nebulous standard of reliability and what does it mean for testimony to be reliable.
And I do think that the judiciary could benefit from some more decisions and maybe articles that really try to flesh out what it means to be reliable. But we know that the gatekeeping standard and the reason that that language sort of developed, has to do with the ability of expert testimony to be quite misleading to the jury. And so, at least the way I see it, reliable testimony means that the expert is not giving misleading testimony.
And, ultimately, that isn't an incredibly high standard. Right? Reliability means something different than, "Is the expert right?" And so, I don't think that any of these proposed changes would really clarify for courts what reliability means.
And then, lastly, while we're on this initial introductory topic, I also think that the advisory committee note explaining that court decision saying that the sufficiency of the evidence goes to weight and not admissibility is sort of misplaced. Since Joiner, that has been the case—that you have to show that expert testimony is based on sufficient facts and data to be admissible. I think that most district courts review the Supreme Court precedent. But I think that the comment note is kind of based on an overreading of a lot of these decisions.
And the reason for that is that evidence exists along a continuum. Right? Once evidence is admissible, then it goes to the jury, who weighs it. And so, I'm not saying that there aren't some opinions out there who get it wrong, but I think that a lot of these courts are merely saying that because the proponent of the expert testimony has shown that it's based on sufficient facts and data, that the testimony then becomes a matter of weight for the jury to consider.
And so I think a blanket statement that sort of suggests that every district court opinion that says that the sufficiency of the evidence goes to weight and not admissibility is incorrect, really kind of over -- goes a little bit too far, if you will.
And so, overall, I think that this isn't necessary. I think that what it's going to do is really shift the focus of a lot of Daubert motions to rule 702(d) and sort of try to nudge courts into overstepping their bounds and kind of stepping into the role of factfinder in trying to weigh whether the evidence is sufficient by a preponderance standard to convince the court, which, obviously, is not, I think, within the spirit of the rule, and is not something that we need.
So with that, I'll turn it over to Lee, who I'm sure is going to tell me that he disagrees with everything that I just said.
Lee S. Mickus: Just maybe. But thank you, David, for that perspective. And thank you to The Federalist Society for giving us this forum to raise and discuss these very important issues. As David foreshadowed, I'm going to argue that the proposed amendment is necessary. And it's necessary because Rule 702, in our modern courts, has become the Rodney Dangerfield of the Federal Rules of Evidence. It gets no respect. Why do I say that? Under the Rules Enabling Act, Rule 702, and not the case law, actually sets the admissibility standard. That's what governs.
But everybody wants to talk about Daubert. Everybody wants to talk about other cases. And we heard David make a reference just now to Daubert motions. Well, it's 702 that actually governs. But because of this focus on the case law, rulings are getting framed in terms of language that are pulled from the cases and not in terms of what the rule itself actually says and actually directs.
And many times, these cases that are being referenced actually predate Rule 702, are fundamentally inconsistent with Rule 702, and were intended to be displaced by Rule 702 when it was amended and adopted in its current form back in 2000. So reliance on old cases that date back from the 1980s or early '90s can't possibly be interpreting the actual governing standard. But yet courts continue to apply and continue to make reference to these cases and to the language that they set forth way back in the 1980s.
I don't want you to take my word for it. I want to give you some examples to show why I think this is the case—that Rule 702 is the Rodney Dangerfield of the federal rules. So let's start with the burden of production—that concept that Katie and her colleague looked at—and what a proponent of evidence must show in order for the opinion testimony to be admissible.
Now, there shouldn't be a controversy about this. The advisory committee note that's out there, and has been since 2000, says the standard is preponderance. Rule 104(a) pretty clearly applies in this situation. It says, "Preponderance of proof." Even Daubert, in a footnote, says that in determining reliability, preponderance is the standard. And most recently, the advisory committee, when it published the current proposal at the end of July of this year, again reiterated, preponderance is the standard.
But the cases—even very recent cases that I'm about to make reference to—often don't. And instead, they employ a different standard. And they've done this even after the proposed amendment was published. And so, these courts should know better. Let me throw some examples at you.
So, the Ashley Energy case from the Eastern District of Missouri, just in November, less than a full month ago – it ruled as follows—that "exclusion of an expert opinion is proper only"— only—"if it is so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance to the jury." That doesn't sound like preponderance to me. Interestingly, this court cited to the Wood v. 3M case that dates back to 1997—so predates the amendment. And Wood actually cites to an even earlier case, called Loudermill v. Dow that dates back to 1988. So it even predates Daubert.
There's another example, this one from the Third Circuit, in a case called Knecht v. JAKKS Pacific, Pennsylvania, again, dating to August of this year, so after the advisory committee published the proposed amendments. And there should be no dispute as to what the actual standard is. Yet, the Court said, "Rule 702 embraces a liberal policy of admissibility pursuant to which it is preferable to admit any evidence that may assist the trier of fact." In making that statement, it quoted to a case called Kannankeril from the Third Circuit that dates back to 1997, again, predating the current rule.
And as Katie referenced—and this I find absolutely fascinating—it is by no means unusual to find courts that mix their metaphors, that make reference to the preponderance standard and yet, turn around—in fact, sometimes even in the same sentence—cite a modification of the preponderance standard. And so, it's unclear exactly what standard they're using.
Here's an example from the Ninth Circuit—a California District Court case -- again, just from August -- Glumetza antitrust litigation -- a case out there that concluded as follows: "Ultimately, while the proponent of expert testimony bears the burden of demonstrating its admissibility, the Daubert inquiry should be applied with a liberal thrust favoring admission." So, it's a neutral standard. Oh, but wait, there's a thumb on the scale in favor of admissibility. That's fundamentally just an incoherent approach. It can't be squared with itself.
Interestingly, that same approach—that it must be applied with a liberal thrust favoring admissibility—was something picked up by the Ninth Circuit in the Hardeman case, a case I know David knows very well. He's counsel on it. And it's a fascinating and very widely published case. But yet, when the Ninth Circuit is affirming application of that liberal thrust, it's doing so in a manner that is inconsistent with—that disrespects—Rule 702 and the standard that it, by its nature, is supposed to apply.
And then, even on the very content of the gatekeeping inquiry, the elements that are admissibility considerations that the judge must assess, that are laid out right in the text of Rule 702, again, Rule 702 gets no respect. Here are a few examples.
First couple of examples relate to Rule 702(b). 702(b), as you saw when Leah had the slides up, looks at the sufficiency of an expert's factual basis. And 702(b) says that's part of the court's gatekeeping determination. But courts very recently are saying things like what the court did in the Jaunich v. State Farm case up in Minnesota -- again, just last month, November of this year. It says, "The factual basis of an expert opinion goes to the credibility of the testimony, not the admissibility. And it's up to the opposing party to examine the factual basis for the opinion in cross-examination." It went on, not surprising, "State Farm's arguments in this regard are better suited for cross-examination, and State Farm's Daubert motion is denied."
Now, to David's point—and it's a legitimate one—that sometimes there are just pure disputes, and the preponderance is met with respect to Rule 702(b) for this particular issue. And so, it is appropriate for cross-examination on that point. But that's not what this court is saying. What this court is saying is, as a fundamental, general principle, this is not a matter for the court to determine on admissibility, despite rule 702(b). Rather, this is a matter that automatically gets deferred to the jury, and it's up to the jury to decide. That's not what rule 702(b) does. And that's why it's dangerous.
Is this the only circumstance where this happens? No. In fact, the case I quoted to you, being in Minnesota, came from the Eighth Circuit. And there is a whole vein of cases that come out of the Eighth Circuit, including, most recently, an Eighth Circuit decision itself -- from the Circuit -- a case called Bair Hugger -- in August -- that actually used that very same language, which again, originates from that Loudermill case in 1988. It used that case as the basis for overturning an exclusion of an expert.
So that's, in essence, a rejection of the content of Rule 702(b), and I dare say—as a rejoinder to David's point—that we can rely on appellate courts. If the appellate courts are reading content out of Rule 702, then it seems to be a rules problem because there seems to be a misunderstanding of what governs. And when the Eighth Circuit is relying on Loudermill rather than the content directed under the Rules Enabling Act, then we've got a real problem.
But the Eighth Circuit is not the only place where we see this problem. The Fifth Circuit is another great example, where there is a pattern of hundreds of cases that address this concern about factual basis in a manner inconsistent with Rule 702(b). Another very recent example -- a case called Britt, out of Texas in November of this year, where the Court said, "Moreover, as a general rule," —general rule—"questions relating to the basis and sources of an expert's opinion affect the weight to be assigned that opinion rather than its admissibility and should be left for the jury's consideration."
Interestingly, I have found hundreds of cases that use exactly that same quote. And that quote doesn't originate in Daubert, doesn't originate in Rule 702. It originates in a case called Viterbo v. Dow, a Fifth Circuit case from 1987 -- another concept that Rule 702, as it currently exists, should have displaced, but didn't, and has been carried forward, recycled by courts that rely on the case law as opposed to the rule.
Similarly, that Eighth Circuit language that I mentioned that was picked up by the Bair Hugger case and that I quoted to you from the Jaunich case -- I have found more than 200 cases that cite that very same general rule language in the last five years. So this is a -- it's not a pervasive problem, but it is a problem that has substantial, substantial impact because it is widespread. And it has generated a great deal of inconsistency.
And was 702(b) the only problem—the only content that gets left out of the rule when courts apply their gatekeeping? Not always. Rule 702(d) is another area. That rule, if you don't remember it off the top of your head, says that whether the expert reliably applied the methodology that he or she is employing in the case to develop the opinions—reliably applied the methodology to the case facts—that is part of the court's gatekeeping determination. But we see courts that say things like the court in a case called DoubleTap Defense, August of this year. Again, after publication of the proposed amendment, it went on to say, "Generally, deficiencies in application go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility."
And interestingly, it quotes a case called Martinez, another Eighth Circuit decision that dates all the way back to 1993. So again, we've got a court that is relying on the case law, not on the text of the rule, in order to displace and reconfigure the content of the gatekeeping function in a way that is inconsistent with Rule 702.
And so, what are we left with when we've got courts that are doing this both with the standard and the content that should apply to the gatekeeping function? Even though we purportedly have a national standard, a single uniform national rule, we've got a patchwork of different approaches with a wide range of overlapping and confusing different standards. Sometimes it's preponderance. Sometimes it's a presumption in the Second Circuit. Sometimes it's a liberal thrust favoring admissibility. Sometimes it is only unless it's so fundamentally unsupported. We've got an inconsistent standard. We've got inconsistent content. And so, what that means is, depending on where a case gets filed, the admissibility of expert testimony is going to be analyzed in a different way.
Now, think about that in terms of pattern litigation. Think about that in terms of NDL cases. That creates a real problem, where the same expert in the same kind of a case is going to be treated very differently even though, supposedly, there is a single standard that applies. That's not what the federal rules are designed to address. And that's not what our court system should allow. But yet, that's what we are dealing with right now. And that is why this proposed amendment is needed. It will go far to correct this confusion in the court about what the standard is and what the gatekeeping content should include.
But I will say, I have a concern about the effectiveness of the communication that is set forth in the current draft. Courts have been ignoring the content of Rule 702(b) and 702(d) for decades now. I made reference to Viterbo. I made reference to Loudermill. Those cases go back to 1988. They have been rolled forward now for more than 20 years, consistently. The courts in those jurisdictions, the Fifth and the Eighth in particular—great example being the Bair Hugger decision—the courts in those areas place great emphasis on the case law. And as a result, these practices of reading 702(b), reading 702(d) out of the standard are very deeply entrenched.
And so, requiring courts that have gone with this approach for so long to change their practice and require them to internalize that what they've been doing for so long is not right, is going to require some very clear, very direct direction in the form of the rule. And to do so in a way that demonstrates that this must be a court determination, I think, requires including that direction right in the text of the rule, adding in what we saw in red in what I think was Leah's third slide -- that, if the court finds, or if the court determines, in order to make it 100 percent clear that this is intended to displace those case law determinations that read Rule 702(b) out -- if we go up one slide -- yeah, there we go -- that language, I think, is going to make things very, very clear if it is added.
If it's not there, then I have a fear that there's a risk that some courts are going to read this amendment as a clarification that, "Well, that just doesn't apply to me." And that's a real concern. If we're going to go to the trouble of amending it, we want to make sure that everybody gets the right message.
So with that, I'll turn it back to Leah to lead the discussion further. But I appreciate the opportunity to go through what the problem is and why we need this amendment.
Leah Lorber: Sure. And we're going to take audience questions in a few minutes. Before we start that, I'd like to give both David and Katie an opportunity to comment either in a rebuttal or just add additional remarks following their fellow panelists' comments.
David Wool: Well, I guess my comment for Lee would be -- and I get what Lee is saying with respect to court's relying on the case law, as opposed to, say, purely on the text of the rule itself. But obviously, these elements of the rule find support in the case law itself, and specifically from cases from the Supreme Court. And I'm thinking most specifically of Joiner and the reliable application of the methodology to the facts of the case.
And so, it sort of strikes me, I guess, sort of as the way that Lee has framed it, as kind of a problem that doesn't really have a solution if courts are both ignoring the text of the rule itself —if that's really occurring—and seemingly ignoring the Supreme Court's directive in Joiner. And so, I guess I would just kind of wonder, Lee, how you sort of square that, if you will.
Lee S. Mickus: Sure. I'm happy to take that up. And look, you're right that the concept originates in Joiner. But I think that overlooks the fact that Joiner itself was displaced by the adoption of Rule 702. Daubert doesn't govern. And in fact, there's some great authority out there—the best one comes from the Seventh Circuit—that notes that every time litigants show up and talk about Daubert, they're talking about superseded case law because it's Rule 702. We shouldn't be talking about Daubert motions. We should be talking about Rule 702. And that is where the content comes from.
And if your concern, David, is, as I hear you, is that courts are just not getting it right—they're either confused or they don't understand what they need to be doing—then I think that is a perfect opportunity for education through the rules process—what the advisory committee is presently undertaking—in order to communicate to them what the rule is and what the rule directs they should be doing. If they're reading it out, and they continue to read it out, then sure, the appellate process and other steps are worthwhile.
But the problem we've got right now is that there isn't even agreement about what governs because there is so much emphasis on the case law over Rule 702. And that has led to this chaos that we see within the district courts. So it's a rules problem that needs to be communicated to the courts through the advisory committee and through the kinds of steps that will be taken once the amendment is adopted and courts can get refocused on what the standard is, it seems to me.
Leah Lorber: So is it a rules problem, or is it an efficacy problem, or is it both? David and Lee, what are you seeing in your cases about the attorneys arguing to the court in this area?
David Wool: Well, I'll give the attorneys that I go up against a lot of credit. I don't think that they have left any doubt—at least in the recent cases that I've been involved with—as to the standard or the burden and where that lies. So I guess I would push back on the idea that there's a fundamental problem to begin with.
But I think that if courts are confused as to where the burden lies, then I think that, ultimately, is an advocacy problem because I think everybody on this panel would agree that for decades it has been clear in both, I think, the rule and the case law that the burden is on the party proffering the expert testimony. There's no dispute on that. So I think it, ultimately, is an advocacy problem.
Lee S. Mickus: And I would tend to agree with that. But I'm going to add another dimension. I think it's not just an advocacy problem. I think it's also a vocabulary problem. Lawyers and judges, for decades now, have talked about, just as David did -- and I'm not faulting him because it's the way lawyers talk, and the way judges talk about these issues. They talk about it as a Daubert issue. They talk about it as a Daubert hearing. And when we do that, we emphasize the case law over the content of the rule. And that then encourages litigants and court clerks and judges to look first to the cases, and then look to the cases that interpret those cases, look to the recent applications of those case procedures.
And the content of the actual rule kind of fades into the background. And when those judges follow the natural instincts to look to the case law first, what they see is a case law history that is shot through with these old concepts that have been carried forward—in error, but carried forward—and, a lot of times, misapplied. And as a result, you've now got this range of different standards, this range of different content, that is in the gatekeeping function.
And so, if we, as advocates, clean up our language and make clear the focus should be on Rule 702, whatever it is, then that is going to go a long way, I think, to helping the courts and the litigants refocus the issue because that's where the standard exists. And to the extent that we look at case law, that should be supplemental. It should be interpretive. But we need to make sure that those cases that we rely on are actually interpreting Rule 702 and are not carrying forward something that dates back to the '80s that was purposely displaced by Rule 702, but in a way that didn't effectively disrupt its recitation in the cases going forward.
Kateland Jackson: I have a quick point to support something that Lee just said—just an interesting data point, as well, that some of the cases that we reviewed did not even use the word "702," "Rule 702." They only reference Daubert or other controlling case law. So that's interesting as well, and kind of supports what Lee is saying—that this vocabulary might need to be cleaned up. And it could be cleaned up from an advocacy standpoint. I'm not sure if it was the lawyers who submitted the Daubert language before the court, and then the court picked it up. But regardless, some of the cases did actually not even reference Rule 702 at all.
Lee S. Mickus: Yeah, I think that's a --
Leah Lorber: So, before we move to audience questions. Go ahead.
Lee S. Mickus: Go ahead. Yeah. Katie, I think that's a great observation. And I think it's troubling. I mean, I think it's far too common. But it's, I think, another indication of the overreliance on case law to the exclusion of Rule 702. Again, it's Rodney Dangerfield. It gets no respect. I'm sorry, Leah.
Leah Lorber: To what extent are there opportunities to participate in educating of courts through amicus briefs for people that might be with organizations or others that are watching today?
Lee S. Mickus: David?
David Wool: Well, as Lee knows, there's tons of opportunity. I've been involved in an appeal involving various significant Daubert issues, Rule 702 issues. And there's been a ton of amicus support for the other side. And I think that a lot of the briefs are very interesting. They're well-argued. I think that they're wrong in this case, but these cases are percolating up with a good bit of regularity. And so I think that, if you look out particularly on the NDL landscape, I think that there are lots of cases that would lend themselves to amicus briefing if somebody wants to get involved.
Lee S. Mickus: I'm glad to hear you say that, David, because I agree with that point. I mean, I think it's an important function right now in light of everything that we see and the attention that the advisory committee has drawn to Rule 702 and what's been going on there. And I guess I'll raise a practical point with respect to the amicus function. When I have found myself as party to a counsel in arguing a 702 issue, frequently, my hands are tied by page limitations and record references and all the nitty-gritty of the particular case. What did the expert do? What was the factual basis? What was the methodology being applied? And is it good or bad, admissible or not? And that's what appeals are all about.
But the kinds of issues that we've been talking about—what is the proper standard, is it appropriate for a court to be making reference to the liberal thrust favoring admissibility or to the Loudermill decision—that takes a lot of discussion. There's a lot of history involved in that. There's a lot of case law progression involved in that. That takes [inaudible 00:41:07]. And I think that kind of discussion to help courts understand what is the standard, what is the content, is a great opportunity for amicus parties to engage in. It's something Lawyers for Civil Justice has done recently in a couple of different cases. And I think it's a very useful function to help educate the courts and to help recenter them on the text that matters.
David Wool: And if I can sort of add one thing to that, I guess what I think would be interesting to see—and I think this would be very well-suited for an amicus brief—would be briefing on the topic of what is reliable because I think a lot of this discussion is focused on what is the -- making parties meet the preponderance standard for proving reliability. But there hasn't been much discussion on what does reliability mean in general. And I think that it's really a topic that hasn't been as developed as it should within the case law or within the commentary. And in talking to judges, other lawyers on both sides, I think that if there is confusion-- or really, where the source of the confusion springs from is how reliability is, in and of itself, kind of a nebulous term, a little bit.
Leah Lorber: So now, we have several very interesting questions and comments in the queue, and I'd like to move on and get your thoughts on those. I'll start with one from Paul Cole, who says that it is confusing to apply the same standard of proof to admit expert testimony that will be applied to deciding a case. This is especially true because, in many cases, expert testimony, if taken as submitted, could be dispositive. The rule, as stated, has the potential to moot the right of jury trial. What do you people think of that? Panelists?
David Wool: Well -- if I can jump in -- that's my big concern. Obviously, we have a rule. And the rule is the law. But we also have a Constitution and the sixth presumption amendment right to trial by jury. And in particular, my concern is that -- and I've spoken on a panel with Lee about this before, but with Rule 702(b) in particular, by including the preponderance language in the rule itself, I think that it can cause a little bit of confusion because where a judge is trying to decide, "Has the expert relied on sufficient facts and data and proven this by a preponderance of the evidence?" without some -- if the rule is adopted without further clarification of the rule, it kind of encourages a judge to put their thumb on the scales and say, "Well, does the evidence that the expert's relying on prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence?"
And I think that that's the real concern. And so, if the rule is adopted, I would add something to the language of 702(b) to the effect of, "Has the expert relied on sufficient facts and data to meet the preponderance standard of reliability, or to show that it's" -- sorry -- "sufficient facts and data to show that the opinion is reliable, rather than correct?" because, ultimately, that's what the point of Rule 702 is, is to meet reliability, not correctness.
Lee S. Mickus: And I would certainly agree with that notion. It's about reliability and not correctness. I guess I would come at it from a slightly different perspective, not surprisingly. The notion that there has been gatekeeping, and that gatekeeping is a responsibility of the court, and that gatekeeping should include an examination of the factual basis of supporting the expert's opinion and analysis -- that's been part of the discussion since Daubert, certainly since Rule 702 was adopted in its current form in 2000.
So that's been part of the discussion for 20 years. The problem has been not courts overstepping their bounds. The problem has been courts ignoring it entirely and not recognizing that that does present a reliability consideration. I think there is a vast case law, however, among courts that do read 702(b) as part of the reliability analysis, part of the gatekeeping function. And there's a good line -- and I know David is familiar with these cases. They're recognized.
Okay, when there is a factual dispute as to whether the light was red or green, then the experts are allowed to rely on the testimony, the evidence that they rely on. And it is probably going too far to determine the correctness of which witness's testimony an expert gets to rely on. But there does have to be a determination that there is sufficient factual support, period.
I mean, an expert can't just make a castle in the air and then try to apply it, or try to speak to it in front of the jury, and hope that the jury will try to fill in some gaps and reach a conclusion. And that's the problem. That's the kind of misleading stuff that Rule 702, I think, was entirely intended to keep out.
Leah Lorber: So we have another question. This is from someone identified as Carlos CDC, who notes that there are some discussions, for example, on the Harvard case, where each side brings in very heavy weights on each side. For example, tenured economics professors working education policy. These cases seem to bring in notions of expertise and assumption to the fore. Put differently, where the expert testimony weighs in highly contentious issues, where reasonable people disagree, as expert opinions might become more politicized, would this rule change help fix those risks?
Lee S. Mickus: I guess I can start. I think, to the point that David was raising—and it's a very good one—the whole notion of Rule 702 is not to determine what is the correct outcome, or what is the correct assessment of a complex or technical or scientific matter. It is to determine what is a reliable opinion. And on the cutting edge of certain functions, there is, perhaps, room for disagreement among reasonable scientists, or reasonable engineers, who may look at a particular widget and, from one perspective, see it as good, and from another perspective, see it as bad.
I think the focus of Rule 702 is maybe down a notch. It is really more to the level of, is this theory something that is, at this point, only a hypothesis? Something that is potentially misleading to the jury? Something that is not going to be of a substantial substance? Is it junk science? Is it of such insufficient substance that putting it in front of a jury with the credibility attached to it being expert testimony, is that going to give it such a stamp of approval, such prestige, that the jury is going to look at it in a way that it's going to be more credible than the methodology justifies?
And so I think there's room for disagreements within science, within engineering, within any expert topic, I think. And that's not what Rule 702 is designed to tease out. But there does need to be some real substance to look at the foundation, the reliability, of the opinion. David? Katie?
David Wool: Yeah. Well, I'll jump in here. I actually pretty much agree with all of that. Where two experts are applying reliable methodologies and they just happen to disagree, that's what courts are for. Courts are there to resolve disputes. And so, where both experts meet the reliability standard, then it should go to the jury.
And to Lee's point, what the court should be focused on is not that two experts disagree with each other, but whether one expert has some testimony, or maybe a conclusion, or something to that effect, that has the capacity to mislead. And so I don't see really a big issue with two well-credentialed experts disagreeing with each other over something.
Kateland Jackson: Yeah. I would agree with that, based on the cases. I would say it becomes an issue when the court clarifies that its believed role is to simply keep out junk science. And that did come up in several cases. So I think that would be my one hesitation, is just to make sure that that wouldn't be flipped on its head so that the court is getting its own role wrong in that instance.
David Wool: Katie, that's a great point. And that harkens me back to the Eighth Circuit's -- it should not be excluded unless it is so fundamentally unsupported as to be unhelpful to the jury. There's a vein of cases in the Ninth Circuit that says the gatekeeping function is only to screen out "unreliable nonsense opinions." There's more substance to Rule 702 than that. But I think that Rule 702 does allow for a level of disagreement among well-credentialed scientists who have applied reliable methods and a factual basis, etc.
Leah Lorber: Is there a line dividing reliability and correctness? And where should it be?
David Wool: Well, I can jump into that. I think I mentioned this at the very beginning, but I think that the line for reliability, at least as I see it, is whether the testimony's misleading. Right? Obviously, you can have some non-misleading testimony that's so far afield from reliable scientific principles that even though a jury could clearly recognize that it's wrong and misleading, that it's just sort of not worth the time of dragging regular citizens into court to sit and listen through that.
But where the testimony is not misleading and the court simply views it as incorrect, I think that that should always go to a jury. If the jury can understand it, if it's not misleading, and they simply conclude that it's wrong, that's what they're there for, to kind of resolve disputes like that.
Leah Lorber: Katie or Lee, do you want to take that? Do you have a thought?
Lee S. Mickus: This is sort of a how-high-is-up kind of question. And I mean, look, this is why we have judges. I would, not surprisingly, probably take a little bit higher view of the gatekeeping requirement than just, is it misleading? I think reliability demands more than that. And I think that's what the four Daubert factors are all about, as well as all the content of 702(b), (c), and (d). And to some extent, this is a -- the judge is going to know it when he or she sees it.
But I think concepts like, are there circumstances where a theory is disprovable -- I think that bears something worth considering. But this is literally where the rubber meets the road, and it is why we have judges because in every different technical field and every different set of circumstances, I think reliability is going to be presented through a series of different facets. And conveniently, that's why judges have the opportunity to look at briefing, to study, to have hearings, and to explore these in a way that makes sense under the standard.
Leah Lorber: So before we go to our last question, I wanted to make sure to call out Professor Capra's question in the Q&A. He is the reporter to the Federal Rules Advisory Committee. He asks about -- as to the suggestion that language be added to the rule that says the court must find that all the elements are satisfied by a preponderance of evidence, he'd like to say, "It would be helpful to provide insight on why that language would not create a concern that the court would have to make a 702 finding even without the objection of the adversary."
He has his own answer to that, but he would like public comments to address that concern. I'm assuming he means public comments within the comment period. We do have one other question that I'd like to get to real fast—the next four minutes. Enrique [inaudible 00:54:40] asks, "Why not a probable cause standard, or, in the alternative, a clear and convincing standard, instead of the preponderance of evidence?
David Wool: What was the first standard that you said?
Leah Lorber: Why not a --
David Wool: You said, "Very convincing," and what was the first one?
Leah Lorber: Sure. Probable cause. What other probable cause standard?
David Wool: At least from my recollection from law school and whatnot, probable cause, at least my recollection, is that it's a sort of 51 percent, and more or less the same standard as the preponderance standard.
Lee S. Mickus: Yeah. I mean, I'll take a look at it from maybe a different vein, but not necessarily reaching a different conclusion than David. I mean, I think the answer is because that's the way evidence rules work. Rule 104(a), when it's a judicial determination, applies a preponderance of the evidence standard, or a preponderance of proof -- however you want to phrase it -- if that's easier. And from time immemorial, or at least as far back as I've been practicing, that is the approach.
And clear and convincing is a standard that gets applied maybe in some criminal contexts. I know in a number of states, it's used as the punitive damages standard, and maybe for findings of things like recklessness, circumstances like that. And that would be an interesting concept. But the answer is -- my answer, at least is, that's just never been part of an evidentiary consideration. And so, that would be really a fundamental shift in the framing of the issue—not necessarily a bad one, but that's a whole different topic, I think.
Leah Lorber: Do any of our panelists have any final remarks before we close out? We've got two minutes. Thank you so much to The Federalist Society. Sorry, Lee. I cut you off.
Lee S. Mickus: No, no. Please go ahead. Go ahead.
Leah Lorber: Thanks so much to The Federalist Society and to the members of our panel for taking part in this today. This has been a great discussion, and I'm sure it won't end here. Please, everyone, think about your position on this, and file a comment or sign up to testify. Again, get your request to testify in by December 21. So make sure you meet the 30-day-in-advance deadline.
Guy DeSanctis: Yes. On behalf of The Federalist Society, I want to thank our experts for the benefit of their valuable time and expertise today. And I want to thank our audience for joining and participating. As always, please note that all expressions of opinion are those of the experts on today's call. We also welcome listener feedback by email at info@fed-soc.org. As always, keep an eye on our website and your emails for announcements about upcoming Teleforum calls and virtual events. Thank you all for joining us today. We are adjourned.
Dean Reuter: Thank you for listening to this episode of Teleforum, a podcast of The Federalist Society's practice groups. For more information about The Federalist Society, the practice groups, and to become a Federalist Society member, please visit our website at fedsoc.org.
https://fedsoc.org/events/admitting-expert-evidence-under-rule-702-by-what-standard
Kateland R. Jackson
Leah Lorber
Lee S. Mickus
David Wool


Gary Jones has been a practicing attorney for over 25 years. His representation of a wide range of clients has given him a unique perspective on all aspects of management in businesses from 1 to 400 employees.
In the last 10 years Gary has provided training for many organizations focusing on developing the leadership and management skills of those folks who serve as front line managers. Through the use of humor and real world examples, Gary teaches and inspires people to seriously consider how they go about being a manager on a daily basis. From the legal aspects of management to the characteristics of a successful manager to the pitfalls of social networking, Gary transforms how managers… manage. To maintain the transformation, Gary will provide coaching, either on-site or on-line. Experience a new perspective on what it means to be a manager.
I highly recommend Gary Jones' presentation, "Management 101 and Social Networks" for any organization with mid-level management staff. His presentation style is informal, humorous and very effective at getting the points across to all present.
Board members, department supervisors and nurses all enjoyed and benefited from this educational opportunity.
I would highly recommend Gary Jones as a trainer. It is unusual to find a speaker that is an expert in law, as well as in the non-profit healthcare/human services field. He actually speaks and understands our lingo, our regulations and the unique challenges we face. His presentation style is interactive and engaging and he uses real world examples to get his points across. My entire leadership team really enjoyed the training.
Gary Jones has presented to our association many times and is always one of the most popular speakers. His ability to integrate humor, real life examples and legal principals engages the audience and leaves them buzzing.


text:
Russia's Military Buildup in the Arctic: Political Rhetoric vs. Reality
14 October 2015 · by TheThresh.com	· in INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL SECURITY.	·
By Ekaterina Klimenko
World Policy
Although over the last decade there has been concern regarding the possible emergence of territorial conflicts or a 'resource race' in the Arctic, in reality the Arctic has enjoyed a high level of cooperation. Even though Russia has been strengthening its military and civil emergency forces in the Arctic as a part of a wider program of military modernization, the Arctic has still been regarded by experts and policymakers in the region as a benign security environment. However, against the background of the conflict in Ukraine and Russia's tensions with the West, Russian military build-up in the Arctic has renewed concerns regarding the potential militarization of the region.
For much of the past decade, the Kremlin has worked actively on developing energy resources and shipping in the Arctic region. It has built partnerships with foreign companies and created a favorable investment environment through tax breaks and mechanisms for partnership between the public and private sectors. In this context, most Russian officials distanced themselves from security-based rhetoric on the Arctic and instead underlined that Moscow views the Arctic as a special zone of international relations where peace and cooperation prevail over tensions.
However, since the deterioration of relations with the West, Russia's rhetoric regarding the Arctic has significantly changed, pointing to increasing threats to Russia's national security and interests in the region. This has been reflected in Russia's security documents. The task of "protecting Russian interests in the Arctic" for the first time appeared in the Russian Military Doctrine adopted in 2014. The Doctrine names expansion of NATO power capacity, which endows the organization with global functions realized through violation of the international legal norms and moves the military infrastructure of NATO member states closer to the borders of the Russian Federation, as number one external military danger to Russia.
New amendments to Russia's Maritime Doctrine, which were adopted in July 2015, have focused on the Arctic and Atlantic. NATO's global activities are seen as the major security concern in the Atlantic, while Arctic's importance is determined by its provision of limitless access to the Atlantic Ocean and by the Northern Fleet's defense capabilities. Additionally, the Maritime Doctrine has underlined "lowering the threats in the Arctic region" as its main goal for Arctic policy, to be achieved through strengthening the Northern Fleet, among other means.
Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that Russian officials are not expecting conflict over resources or territories in the Arctic. Despite the current tensions between Russia and the West, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov underlined that "the current complicated international situation does not bring any cardinal changes to the established order."
Picture: ВикиКорректор (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Tags: Arctic, Arctic Command, Arctic Development, Arctic Security, Foreign Policy, Icebreakers, International Security, Russia, Russian Military, Russian Navy, Vladimir Putin
← How Your Brain Decides Blame and Punishment
Reclaiming the Initiative From Russia →


text:
Piazza della Carina
Syria teeters on Obama's "Red Line"
Spokesmen of the Assad government recently accused foreign-backed militants of launching scud missiles containing chemical weapons in the city of Aleppo, killing dozens. Witnesses claim to have seen powder emanate from the rocket, causing those who inhaled the substance to suffocate or require immediate medical attention. An unnamed chemical weapons expert cited by Al-Jazeera claimed that the causalities were not consistent with Syria's reputed stockpile of chemical agents, stating, "If it's a chemical warfare agent, it's not working very well." Syria's ambassador to the UN, Bashar Ja'afari, called on the UN Secretary-General to form an independent technical mission to investigate the use of chemical weapons by terrorist groups operating in Syria.
While on his first state visit to Israel, Barack Obama cast doubt and expressed deep scepticism toward the Assad government's version of events, stating that if the government did indeed use…
2 thoughts on ""
carinaragno on March 23, 2013 at 4:39 pm said:
thank you … they are doing their infamous back pedal now that they can not blame Assad
toolwielder on March 24, 2013 at 8:27 am said:
the blame game will never end …but the inclination to buy or sell more military equipment has begun …. war supplies is the cause …as always


Discovery Kits are fun and interactive learning kits created to introduce new concepts and activities to all ages. There are many kits to choose from. Some highlight imagination-based play using kits that contain blocks, magnets and idea cards. Musical instrument kits encourage learning and love of music. Elementary-aged children are introduced to concepts like identification through birdwatching and seashore kits and teens and adults can explore metal detecting, board games, and coloring for meditation. View all of our kits below in detail and request one for checkout today!
Host a murder mystery party in your home, invite your friends to become the suspects for an evening of mystery and intrigue!
Being played from the 1800's onward, this game is an enduring favorite for a reason.
This kit contains everything you need to learn how to play, or just to enjoy a game with friends.
Studies have shown coloring can help to reduce stress and help you focus, never mind that it's also pretty fun!
Perfect for a rainy day or just to help you relax.
Bluffing with wild words and whimsical stories! We'll give you five challenging words on cards, you write a story using them in one minute. Share your stores and add up your points to be the first to earn 300 points and win!
Liven up your next dinner party by killing off one of your guests! Not really, of course, but in the context of a fun murder mystery game!
You'll find everything you need for an evening of intrigue including a book about wine to help ensure a perfect night.
Start your budding young astronomer on their journey to the stars with this fun set of materials all about space!
A bingo game based on bird identification.
South Jersey is one of the best places for birdwatching in the world, so why not spend time with your kids looking for the many beautiful species that pass through the area?
This kit has everything you need to get started with this relaxing activity.
K'NEX pieces are a great way for children to learn about creating simple machines and get an introduction to the fundamentals of engineering.
This kit also includes a book and a DVD to help explain the themes to them.
If your little one isn't old enough for smaller pieces, but still likes to build, this is the perfect kit for them!
The larger sized Prism Bricks allow them to safely express their creativity and learn the basics of building.
This kit contains 3 classic games in one! Everything you need to play perennial favorites chess, checkers, and backgammon is included.
Perfect for a rainy day or just to exercise your brain!
Use hands-on coding skills to build a maze and use coding cards to create a step-by-step path for 2 programmable mice; program the steps and watch the robot mice race to find the cheese. Mice light up, make sounds, and have 2 speeds.
Kids love to color, and it's good for them too! It helps develop motor skills, coordination, and creativity.
And of course it's a lot of fun too! Great for rainy days.
Get started playing several classic domino games!
The colored dots make it easier to match numbers and the starter piece makes the Mexican Train game easier to play.
Instructions are also included for other games you can try.
Perfect for kids who aren't yet old enough for Legos but who still enjoy building.
Everyone loves getting together for a good game of cards, and this kit includes everything needed for a variety of popular favorites.
In addition to a standard deck, you'll find cards for Go Fish, Old Maid, Memory, and enduring favorite Uno.
Take your construction creativity to the next level with lights and motion. Complete with power motor, flashing lights, and glow-in-the-dark stickers.
These colorful magnets can help kickstart the creativity of any child!
They can use the included idea cards to get inspired, or just create whatever their imaginations dream up!
This fun game is a great way to help kids learn about logical thinking and problem solving.
Each of the puzzle cards contains a diagram of an object that can be made using the included blocks, along with some basic instructions. From there it's up to your kids to figure out how to build it. Fun and creative!
The KEVA Maker Bot Maze lets you experiment, innovate, and create with precision-engineered KEVA planks and a variety of doodads and gizmos.
Build your own dinosaur using these connectable blocks, and then light it up!
Everything you need to build your own glowing dino is included in this kit.
One of the world's most popular toys, Lego bricks have been inspiring the creativity of children since 1932.
This kit comes with more than enough pieces to help your child bring their ideas to life.
Take your friendship bracelets to the next level by using paracord instead of string!
This kit comes with everything you need to make countless crafts from this durable material.
Every budding musician needs to start somewhere.
The children's instruments included in this kit are a great way to encourage your child to discover this fulfilling skill.
DVD: "Music Makers: Live-Action Musical Adventures!"
CD: "Baby Einstein: Baby Mozart"
CD: "Baby Einstein: Playdate Fun"
Based off of Dan Gutman's popular series of children's books, this fun card game uses humor to help teach kids reading, math, and strategic thinking skills.
A bingo game based on sea life identification.
This game is a lot of fun for the whole family, and helps kids develop skills like spacial recognition, problem solving, and planning.
This super set builds a semi-truck, jumbo jet, and helicopter. We've also included 3 additional builds and lessons that align with Common Core school standards, which introduce things like counting, sorting, shapes, and more. Your child will have a blast building a castle wall and battering ram, happy and sad robots, and a giant pyramid.
Has your child expressed interest in the many different kinds of seashells they encounter on the beach?
This kit will help kids of all ages learn about these fascinating finds.
DVD: "DK Eyewitness DVD: Seashore"
Grade K - 2 book: Why Do Oceans Have Tides?
A fun card game where multiple players can launch shark attacks on each other and win points based on the characteristics of the sharks in their dealt hands.
The popular game Jenga is a great way to spend some time together as a family.
Not only will everyone have fun, but your kids will actually learn a lot about structural engineering, problem solving, and strategic thinking!
Kids can learn about the basic of electrical engineering with this fun kit!
A creative construction kit that makes it possible to connect both straws and cardboard to each other to build anything from a tiny pixie to the biggest you robot you dare to imagine.
Building toys are some of the best ways to inspire learning in your children.
This kit includes enough pegs and mats to help your little ones build the tower of their dreams!
The butterfly game will help you learn your butterflies that frequent your gardens, backyards, and neighboring fields. The butterfly game can be played in under a half hour.
In the ABC Game, players spin the spinner and seek for letter cards that match their space. The letters and corresponding image cards are inspired by The World of Eric Carle.
Zentangle helps you to relax away your worries through drawing intricate patterns.
This kit has everything you need whether you're just getting started, or already experienced with this trendy craft.
This exciting board game is based off of the hit video game franchise.
Players stalk their way through an ancient city in seach of targets to kill and hidden treasures.
This fun game asks players to caption an "awkward family photo" using a selection of quotes from popular movies.
A fun and irreverent way to spend some time with your own "awkward family"!
The Dungeons & Dragons Starter Set is your gateway to action-packed stories of the imagination.
This unique card game tasks you with making sure your characters suffer the most before their deaths, while simultaneously trying to cheer up your opponents.
A grimly entertaining way to pass an evening.
The piano has long been one of the most popular instruments in the world, and now you can learn to play without the expense of having to buy one.
This fun roll-up keyboard comes with books and videos to help you learn the fundamentals of playing.
DVD: "Kids' Piano Lesson 2"
DVD: "Beginner Piano & Keyboard Lessons"
The hit word game that is fun to play for all ages is available to check out at the library.
Use your collection of letter tiles to try and make words on the board and score as many points as you can.
You've seen other people find hidden treasures on the beach using a metal detector, so why not give it a try?
This kit has everything you need to get you started with this exciting hobby! Just remember us if you every strike it rich!


The AHDC Shipping department maintains an assortment of supplies for your specimen needs.
Click here for a full list of diagnostic supplies and shipping materials to meet your specimen needs. See QMPS Supplies for additional Quality Milk supplies and materials.
How long will it take to receive my supplies order?
Generally, your order will take up to 24 hours to prepare and depart the AHDC loading dock. All supply orders are shipped UPS ground. Faster service is available for an additional fee. Call our Shipping dept at 607-253-3935 for more information on getting your supplies faster. The UPS map below will reflect standard ground transit time.
Note: The AHDC is located in the yellow section of the map.
How much does it cost to ship my Supply order?
Shipping charges are based on the total USD amount of the order placed.
* All supply orders are shipped out UPS Ground.


Does your skin remind you more of sandpaper than a baby's bottom? Might be time to schedule a conSALTation with our exfoliating salt scrub. It contains finely ground salt, crushed walnut shells, coconut gel, vitamins AD&E, sweet almond oil, avocado oil, safflower oil, cocoa butter and gentle cleaners. You can shed those rough layers you thought were permanent hang-ups and guide your skin back in time to when there were no calluses on your hands, feet, knees or elbows. Join the exfoliation nation!
#1 selling bath junkie product!