text:
Neudorf ist ein Ortsteil der Stadt Diemelstadt im nordhessischen Landkreis Waldeck-Frankenberg.

Geografische Lage
Neudorf liegt an der Orpe im sog. Roten Land am Naturpark Teutoburger Wald / Eggegebirge.

Das Ortsbild wird noch heute von Niedersächsischen Bauernhäusern aber auch Häusern in Fränkisch-Sächsischem Mischtyp geprägt.

Geschichte

Ortsgeschichte
1189 wird die Waldecker Burg, die Burg Brobeck, die etwa um 1550 wüst fiel, in der Nähe der Bruchmühle genannt.
Die älteste bekannte schriftliche Erwähnung von Neudorf erfolgte unter dem Namen "das nigge Dorf vor dem Urehanenberge" 1537 im Landregister, das anlässlich der Erbteilung des Nachlasses von Philipp III. von Waldeck erstellt wurde.

Hessische Gebietsreform (1970–1977)

Zum 31. Dezember 1970 wurde die bis dahin selbständige Gemeinde Neudorf im Zuge der Gebietsreform in Hessen auf freiwilliger Basis in die Stadt Diemelstadt eingegliedert.
Für Neudorf, wie für alle durch die Gebietsreform nach Diemelstadt eingegliederten Gemeinden, wurde ein Ortsbezirk mit Ortsbeirat und Ortsvorsteher nach der Hessischen Gemeindeordnung eingerichtet.

Verwaltungsgeschichte im Überblick
Die folgende Liste zeigt die Staaten bzw. Herrschaftsgebiete und deren untergeordnete Verwaltungseinheiten, in denen Neudorf lag:

 vor 1557: Heiliges Römisches Reich, Grafschaft Waldeck, Amt Eilhausen
 ab 1712: Heiliges Römisches Reich, Fürstentum Waldeck, Amt Eilhausen
 ab 1807: Fürstentum Waldeck, Amt Eilhausen
 ab 1815: Fürstentum Waldeck, Oberamt der Diemel (Sitz in Arolsen)
 ab 1816: Fürstentum Waldeck, Oberjustizamt der Diemel (Sitz in Rhoden)
 ab 1850: Fürstentum Waldeck-Pyrmont (seit 1849), Kreis der Twiste (Sitz bis 1857 in Mengeringhausen, dann in Arolsen)
 ab 1867: Fürstentum Waldeck-Pyrmont (Akzessionsvertrag mit Preußen), Kreis der Twiste
 ab 1871: Deutsches Reich, Fürstentum Waldeck-Pyrmont, Kreis der Twiste
 ab 1919: Deutsches Reich, Freistaat Waldeck-Pyrmont, Kreis der Twiste
 ab 1929: Deutsches Reich, Freistaat Preußen, Provinz Hessen-Nassau, Regierungsbezirk Kassel, Kreis der Twiste
 ab 1942: Deutsches Reich, Freistaat Preußen, Provinz Hessen-Nassau, Regierungsbezirk Kassel, Landkreis Waldeck
 ab 1944: Deutsches Reich, Freistaat Preußen, Provinz Kurhessen, Regierungsbezirk Kassel, Landkreis Waldeck
 ab 1945: Amerikanische Besatzungszone, Groß-Hessen, Regierungsbezirk Kassel, Landkreis Waldeck
 ab 1946: Amerikanische Besatzungszone, Land Hessen, Regierungsbezirk Kassel, Landkreis Waldeck
 ab 1949: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Land Hessen, Regierungsbezirk Kassel, Landkreis Waldeck
 ab 1971: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Land Hessen, Regierungsbezirk Kassel, Landkreis Waldeck, Stadt Diemelstadt
 ab 1974: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Land Hessen, Regierungsbezirk Kassel, Landkreis Waldeck-Frankenberg, Stadt Diemelstadt

Bevölkerung
Einwohnerstruktur 2011

Nach den Erhebungen des Zensus 2011 lebten am Stichtag dem 9. Mai 2011 in Neudorf 225 Einwohner. Darunter waren 3 (1,3 %) Ausländer.
Nach dem Lebensalter waren 30 Einwohner unter 18 Jahren, 84 waren zwischen 18 und 49, 54 zwischen 50 und 64 und 60 Einwohner waren älter.
Die Einwohner lebten in 93 Haushalten. Davon waren 30 Singlehaushalte, 18 Paare ohne Kinder und 36 Paare mit Kindern, sowie 9 Alleinerziehende und keine Wohngemeinschaften. In 21 Haushalten lebten ausschließlich Senioren und in 51 Haushaltungen leben keine Senioren.

Einwohnerentwicklung

 Quelle: Historisches Ortslexikon
 1541: 9 Häuser
 1620: 28 Häuser
 1650: 22 Häuser
 1738: 31 Häuser
 1770: 86 Häuser, 269 Einwohner

Religionszugehörigkeit

Persönlichkeiten
 Wilhelm Dietzel (* 1948), ehemaliger Bundestagsabgeordneter und ehemaliger Hessischer Minister für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Forsten (betreibt in Neudorf auch den "wohl nördlichsten Weinberg Hessens")

Literatur
 Heinrich Bodenhausen und Friedrich Hübel: Das Rote Land. Helmighausen – Hesperinghausen – Kohlgrund – Neudorf. Arolsen: Waldeckischer Geschichtsverein 2014 (= Waldeckische Ortssippenbücher 88)

Weblinks
 Stadtteil Neudorf. In: Webauftritt der Stadt Diemelstadt.

Anmerkungen und Einzelnachweise
Anmerkungen

Einzelnachweise

Ort im Landkreis Waldeck-Frankenberg
Geographie (Diemelstadt)
Ehemalige Gemeinde (Landkreis Waldeck-Frankenberg)
Gemeindeauflösung 1970
Ersterwähnung 1537


i honestly can't even begin to describe how incredible receiving stories & meeting with people for the i want to know YOUR story project has been.
it has been humbling, inspiring, refreshing & all in all, leaving me awestruck time after time... to say the least. i cannot wait to share them all!
with that said, it is due time for another i want to know YOUR story!!!
i didn't actually get to meet with Dana in person (since she lives in Tennessee) so the images below are not mine -- they are a combination of photos from Dana, as well as some of her wedding photos, of which photo credit goes to Harvard Photography!
and my final destination (for now) my first HOME I OWN in Franklin, TN!
So I am from A LOT of places.
I am super super passionate about music.
I played violin at age eight and started playing the cello at age nine.
By age 15 I was touring internationally with an orchestra.
I sang in an opera with The Netherlands Opera singers and saw more countries at 15 than most people see in a lifetime.
For years, I was first chair in my orchestra at school. My family wanted me to study music in college, but I wasn't sure.
I didn't want to turn my PASSION into a CHORE or WORK.
So I studied Spanish and English in school and played music in my spare time.
I always felt I WASN'T GOOD.
I felt that I wasn't good at cello, I wasn't good at life, and I just wasn't good or worthy.
I suffered from self-worth issues before I even knew what that meant.
What I struggled with was major depression & anxiety... and didn't even realize this until I got to college.
One day during my senior year, I walked into the house where I lived and realized I was completely numb.
It felt like someone else was walking in my place and I was watching from somewhere else.
I remember telling my roommate how numb I felt and she kind of brushed it off in a kind of, "oh well!" kind of way.
I walked back to my room and knew I could not live another day feeling the way I'd felt since I was a kid.
who said it sounded a lot like major depressive disorder and GAD (generalized anxiety disorder).
I was glad to finally have a name to what I was suffering from.
I then saw the school psychiatrist and started on an anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medication.
In the years following, I had major ups and downs due to this "disease" (I know it's not a disease, but at times it can feel like one as it never ends).
I saw many doctors and had to try different medications to find the ones that worked for me.
Needless to say, it was a LOOOOOOONG (and often emotionally painful) process.
I still struggle with this every day, however, I never stop trying to find solutions.
When very emotionally painful things happen in my life, I find my depression/anxiety very hard to control.
In the fall of 2012, I had a miscarriage as I entered my second trimester. The pain I felt in the aftermath of the miscarriage was so terrible I found myself suicidal... and even cut myself twice in an effort to alleviate the pain (I had never done something like this before).
I immediately called my doctor and got in the next day to see him.
FIND A DOCTOR YOU LOVE AND WHO REALLY CARES! They are out there!!!
It was a long three months of getting back to where I felt OK (where I am today), but it's a daily battle.
I know there are so many people who have it worse, but I've learned not to discredit my feelings.
I want other people who suffer from mental illness to not suffer alone or in silence.
There are people out there who are passionate about helping people with mental illness - FIND THEM.
Enlist the help of a great friend, family member, anyone who loves you.
I felt ashamed for so long and I regret so many things I've done in my life because of my depression & anxiety.
I wish I had gotten help sooner -- but we can't go back in time.
All we can do is continue to get help, get well, and improve our lives in any (healthy) ways we can.
My passion for music took a backseat to my illness. There was no music for me for a long time.
Some days I struggled to get out of bed, to go to work, to even live. Playing music just seemed like a burden (just like everything else). Plus the feelings of low self-worth due to depression/anxiety didn't help with any of this.
These days I am much more proactive. When I can tell bad feelings are surfacing - I go immediately to the doctor.
I do not mess around with this illness anymore.
This is not how it HAS to be - I want other people who are suffering to know THERE IS HELP!
Reach out to someone and don't be embarrassed. Get help as soon as you feel any bad feelings arising - forget your ego - check it at the door, and GET HELP.
because sometimes (many times) it's NOT that simple.
Your feelings matter, just as mine did (though I didn't know it).
but I will always remain PASSIONATE about lifting the stigma surrounding mental illness.
they are people in (mental/emotional) pain & anguish who need help, our understanding and compassion.
If you have a friend you see struggling, help them.
You never know when the smallest act of kindness can save someone.
I love my little family - my husband, our son, our two crazy pups (one only has three legs!).
My best friend and first love is my sister.
and I love trying to figure out how to be happy.
I love and appreciate the struggle because it leads to growing as an individual.
I am a firm believer in always learning and growing and trying to become better every day.
The Suicide Prevention Lifeline provides access to trained telephone counselors, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
and has some great resources for people who are suffering or have people in their life who are suffering.


You are a Trail Blazor – "Just Another BlaH BlaH BlaH BloG."
Today I utilize my vision to spot the wonder in everything and everyone, myself included, as I blaze my own authentic trail.
As we wake up daily, we enter into a private journey of self-discovery; each of us will be drawn in different directions all day long, encountering many beings who will cause us to potentially "get woke" on some level of our lives. Personalities have a way of doing that.
We are all gifted, and it is different for each of us, and these gifts, talents, and personalities is what guides us throughout the day.
We are in constant motion, we are being influenced, and we are affecting each other. That influence is the pure magic, the pixy dust; we are spreading ourselves around, gifting our authentic self to all we encounter.
I know I know you think what about the crap that comes our way, well, that is a gift too and there is a ton of magic in that authenticity as well.
There is nothing to do but to be us; we are all healers even if we don't identify with that, we help others to heal, grow, and in return, we elevate ourselves and others.
I am a humble student of love, authenticity, and magic.
Your Self-image anddin Your Self Imagination?


We propose that you attend every presidential candidate event you can, and pick (at least) one question to ask about foreign policy and military spending. Little is being brought out in these areas, and we need to be the ones bringing the arms race to their and the public's attention. Track events through usual news media outlets, Facebook events, etc. Get involved locally in organizations that help you stay connected.
If you learn anything worth repeating, send us a note at contact@starpac.org.


Air Max 2018 Shoes Sale Online at blackyeezys.com|Martha Sneakers!
Shop cheap nike air max 2016 womens sale online and more best black nike air max womens at shop. nike air max womens sale are hot sale online. Buy nice and great white air max womens at blackyeezys.ru.
We have Air Max 2018 Shoes in stock. Any kinds of new nike air max 2016 you want can be found here. Good nike air max 2016 hot sale online. Welcome to buy. Get best Air Max 2018 Shoes. Special womens air max with lowest price and comfortable nike air max 90 black are provided here. All womens air max are fast shipping.
Purchase wholesale Air Max 2018 Shoes at blackyeezys.ru now. Thousands of best shoes are here for you. More new sneakers here.
Amazingly, it came sooner than expected and the box was even in good condition. For the price, it's definitely worth buying. Seller is exceptional. Fast and efficient. One of best sellers from China.


For example, cookies help search engines remember that you want your search results in English and help online stores remember the items saved in your virtual shopping basket.
When visitors leave comments on Bookboodle we collect the data shown in the comments form, and also the visitor's IP address and browser user agent string to help spam detection.
If you leave a comment, the comment and its metadata are retained indefinitely. This is so we can recognise and approve any follow-up comments automatically instead of holding them in a moderation queue. Visitor comments may be checked through an automated spam detection service.
When we run giveaways either on social media or via Rafflecopter we/they collect your name and email address. We will use this personal data to contact you, should you win the giveaway. If Bookboodle has not run the giveaway directly i.e via a publisher or an author, your personal data will also be shared with the organiser so that they are able to post out the prize in the giveaway to you. This information is kept for the duration of the giveaway.
If you're so inclined to sign up to email notifications of when a new post goes live, your name and email address is stored in my WordPress account for that sole purpose. You can unsubscribe whenever you so wish.
This is a shared venture between Bookboodle and Jera's Jamboree for which we use Inlinkz as the host. When you link up on a post you are providing a link to your own blog together with your name and email address for the purposes of reducing spam. By linking up you are consenting to take part in the monthly giveaway for which your contact details will need to be provided to Black and White Publishing (the sponsor) for the purposes of sending you the prize, if you are the winner. This information is kept for the duration of the giveaway.
Bookboodle uses affiliate links; for example Amazon Affiliates, Book Depository and Skimlinks. In regard to third-party advertisers, Bookboodle has no access or control over these cookies. You should review the respective privacy policies on any and all third-party ad servers for more information regarding their practices and how to opt-out.
If you have any questions feel free to contact me directly here: bookboodleuk@gmail.com.


text:
"The Wolfpack"
Many of us were raised on film. But how many of us were socialized by film? Precious few, I hope, judging by Crystal Moselle's distressing documentary The Wolfpack. Moselle's subjects are the seven Angulo siblings, who claim that their parents essentially kept them locked inside their Lower East Side of Manhattan apartment for most of their childhood. Why? Their Peruvian-born father Oscar feared the mean streets of New York, so he refused to let his children—six boys and one girl—leave their apartment except for medical appointments etc. Homeschooled by their mother, Susan, the Angulo kids learned in part about the outside world through the films they watched. It wasn't until one of the boys, then 15, was curious and brave enough to sneak out of the apartment that some of the kids felt the need to assimilate into society. Moselle takes us inside the apartment, where the older Angulo brothers spend their days reenacting scenes from ReservoirDogs, Pulp Fiction, and Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight films. On the rare occasions when the brothers venture outside, they're usually dressed in Quentin Tarantino gangster garb. The Angulo apartment is a gloomy prison of sorts, with Oscar spending most of his time out of Moselle's sight as she films the brothers at play. At least one brother refuses to talk to Oscar, which does not come as a surprise. If Oscar's explanation is to be taken at face value—and some of the Angulo brothers offer evidence to the contrary—he's failed his children. A parent is supposed to prepare his children for both the real and the perceived danger to be found in the world. By locking up his children, Oscar's probably caused more emotional and psychological harm to his children than the schoolyard bullies and petty crooks found in New York ever could. Remarkably, the Angulo brothers profiled in The Wolfpack seem somewhat well adjusted given the circumstances. A few harbor bitterness toward their father but they don't allow their anger to dictate their behavior. Oscar is painted as a drunken villain in The Wolfpack; their mother, Susan, is portrayed as much as a victim as her children. During the course of The Wolfpack, she finds the inner strength to defy Oscar to the point where she calls her mother for the first time in decades. It's a huge victory that suggests the end of Oscar's time as his family's jailer is coming to an end. How much of the inner strength Susan eventually comes to display is a result of Moselle's presence in the apartment is open to debate. While it's good to see the Angulo brothers break free from their father, there's still something about The Wolfpack that seems off. It mostly has to do with Moselle keeping the documentary firmly focused on the Angulos. There aren't any strong outside voices to corroborate the Angulos' story or to provide insight into their years of confinement. No doubt Moselle wanted to duplicate the sense of isolation that the Angulo siblings felt. Or perhaps she did not want any outside influences to possibly debunk this dysfunctional family tale as an urban myth. There's no denying The Wolfpack is stranger than fiction. However, it remains to be seen whether each of the Angulo siblings will enjoy his or her own happy ending. Robert Sims
Web site: http://www.magpictures.com/thewolfpack/

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The Paulding County School District has over 28,000 students. These children are the future workforce of our community, and there are many ways the business community in Paulding County can make a significant impact on their education. A partnership is a voluntary relationship that is formed between a business or organization and a school or school system. These relationships create support systems designed to meet the needs of the schools through the resources of the community partners to the benefit of both. By becoming a Partner in Education, you and your business can share your expertise, time, ideas and experience with the students in our community.
Support area businesses in developing and preparing students to enter the workforce.
Developing and enriching the faculty experience.
Partner in Education: this is a business/organization that partners with one to three schools and commits to participate in at least one activity with that school per quarter. A business may be a Partner in Education with up to three schools, as long as they meet the one activity per quarter per partnership requirement.
Incentive Partner: this is a business/organization that wants to offer discounts to Paulding County School District employees. Incentives/discounts will be posted on the staff Intranet site and shared with staff through email. Discounts/incentives MUST be updated annually or whenever they change.
**Note: If a company wants to offer discounts to Paulding County students, they must go through an individual school's PTA representative, not the school or school district. Any other types of recognition would be at the discretion of the PTA representative.
Thank you for your interest in partnering with the Paulding County School District. If you'd like more in-depth information on our Partners in Education program, as well as a copy of our "Getting Started with PIE" handbook, which includes ideas on how you can get involved, where your contribution is needed, and details on how to make a monetary donation, please contact communications@paulding.k12.ga.us.


Almost each people have problems with the difficulty of again pain sooner or later in their life. After headaches, the again pain is the most frequent neurological problem especially in america. Any person experiencing the difficulty of pain inside the back need to initially make contact with to major care service provider. There are usually many factors behind backache coming from muscle tension to much more serious conditions just like herniated dvd, spinal stenosis, spondylosisthesis, weak bones, or any tumor. Initially it is vital to learn the exact reason behind the backache.
There are usually some symptoms related with the again pain that might indicate a challenge that wants immediate analysis.
1. If the backache awakens you during the night.
2. When you have a temperature, chills, sweats, or perhaps other indications of contamination.
3. When you have difficulty inside controlling the bowels or perhaps bladder.
some. If the backache is persistant beyond several days.
Sometimes the treating back soreness is many frustrating as there's no "magic bullet". A lot of the individuals retrieve completely by simply avoiding strain with their spine. The treating a person is dependent upon the signs and the size of the difficulty. You will get relief from your back soreness by pursuing these crucial steps.
Sleep: It is step one for treating the situation of again pain so that you can rest the particular spine. Most with the cases with this problem are related with muscle tension so to avoid the more complications, rest is important.
Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: It is effective in treating the situation of backache plus the associated swelling. Patients experiencing the difficulty of abdomen ulcers need to avoid these kinds of medications.
Temperature Application: Patients experiencing the difficulty of backache are able to use heating sleeping pad, hot h2o bottles, or possibly a hot bath to help relieve the complications as a result of pain inside the back.
Workout routines: The most critical step in the treating backache could be the strengthening regarding back muscle groups. When durability and overall flexibility of again muscles will be increased, weight will be distributed properly therefore less force is put on the particular spine. Thus, right exercises have become important inside treating the situation of backache in a few people.
Muscle tissue Relaxers: In a few types regarding back pain Health Physical fitness Articles, muscle soothing medications can be extremely helpful. It really is sold beneath the trade brands of Rumatone Rare metal Capsules and also Oil among others.


The organisation collects this information in a variety of ways. For example, data might be contained in application forms, CVs or resumes, or collected through interviews or other forms of assessment.
Your information will be shared internally for the purposes of the recruitment exercise. This includes members of the HR, interviewers involved in the recruitment process, managers in the business area with a vacancy and IT staff if access to the data is necessary for the performance of their roles.
internal policies setting out our data security approach and measures to deal with any suspected data breach.
If you would like to exercise any of these rights, please contact data.protection@clugston.co.uk. You can make a subject access request by completing the organisation's form for making a subject access request.


Christopher Fowler was born in Greenwich, London. He is the multi award-winning author of thirty novels and ten short story collections, and the author of the Bryant & May mystery novels. His first bestseller was ROOFWORLD. Subsequent novels include SPANKY, DISTURBIA, PSYCHOVILLE and CALABASH. His books have been optioned by Guillermo Del Toro (SPANKY) and Jude Law (PSYCHOVILLE). He spent 25 years working in film. He recently wrote RED GLOVES, 25 new stories of unease to mark his first 25 years of writing. His memoir PAPERBOY won the Green Carnation Award, and is being followed by a new volume, FILM FREAK. Other new books include the dark comedy-thriller PLASTIC and INVISIBLE INK: THE MYSTERIOUS CASE OF THE DISAPPEARING AUTHORS. He has written comedy and drama for BBC radio, including Radio One's first broadcast drama in 2005. He writes for the FT and the Independent on Sunday, Black Static magazine and many others. His graphic novel for DC Comics was the critically acclaimed MENZ INSANA. His short story 'THE MASTER BUILDER became a feature film entitled THROUGH THE EYES OF A KILLERS, starring Tippi Hedren and Marg Helgenberger. In the past year he has been nominated for 8 national book awards. He is the winner of the Edge Hill prize 2008 for OLD DEVIL MOON, and the Last Laugh prize 2009 for THE VICTORIA VANISHES. Christopher has achieved several pathetic schoolboy fantasies, releasing a terrible Christmas pop single, becoming a male model, writing a stage show, posing as the villain in a Batman graphic novel, running a night club, appearing in the Pan Books of Horror, and standing in for James Bond. His short stories have appeared in Best British Mysteries, The Time Out Book Of London Short Stories, Dark Terrors, London Noir, Neon Lit, Cinema Macabre, the Mammoth Book of Horror and many others. After living in the USA and France he is now married and lives in King's Cross, London and Barcelona.


text:
Massachusetts v. Painten
PETITIONER:Massachusetts
RESPONDENT:Painten
LOCATION:Telephone Booth
DOCKET NO.: 37
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1967-1969)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
ARGUED: Oct 18, 1967
DECIDED: Jan 15, 1968
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument – October 18, 1967 in Massachusetts v. Painten
Earl Warren:
Number 37, Massachusetts, Petitioner, versus Donald M. Painten.
Attorney General Richardson.
Elliot L. Richardson:
Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.
This case comes to you on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which affirmed an order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, allowing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by Donald M. Painten, the respondent in this Court.
The respondent had been convicted in Massachusetts for armed robbery and other related charges.
The Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth affirmed that a writ of error was subsequently denied.
The United States District Court vacated the judgment of conviction and gave the Commonwealth the option either of bringing a new trial or discharging the respondent.
The issue in this Court is essentially that of the reasonableness of police conduct held by the federal courts to be in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Since the facts and the constitutional issues thereby presented are inseparably interwoven and I shall be obliged to state the facts in considerable detail.
And at this point, may it please the Court, it is important to have in view that the statement of the facts that I shall be giving you is based in its entirety on the findings of the District Court which begin on page 50 of the record.
There are certain discrepancies in the fact as they appear in those findings, as they appear in the testimony before the District Court in the evidentiary hearing and as they appear in the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
These discrepancies are accounted for by the fact that the District Court and only the District Court had available to it, the full transcript of proceedings in the state court.
Proceeding then with the facts; on Saturday evening, March 1, 1958, Emmett McNamara and Herbert Maxwell, two plain clothes officers of the Boston Police Department were on patrol —
Potter Stewart:
Mr. Attorney General, I'm sorry to interrupt you and take you back one moment.
Now why did the District Court alone have available to the transcript of the Massachusetts proceeding? That —
Well, it was a very (Voice Overlap) —
–is part of the record with the Court of Appeals?
To the best of my knowledge Mr. Justice Stewart, it was not available at the Court of Appeals —
It is not here?
— it is very lengthy and it is not here in this Court.
So that we are only — awareness of what it contained.
It appears in the findings of the District Court which insofar as they vary from the testimony in the evidentiary hearing before the District Court can only be accounted for by the fact that the District Court compared both and selected a version which it believed to be the correct one and which we now before you are relying upon.
Well, that's one way to account for and another way to account for would be that the District Court is — was wrong and —
The District Court —
And how can we know without having a (Voice Overlap) —
The District Court explicitly states at the beginning of that portion of its opinion that it did so rely on page 50 of the record, on the basis of the state court record and the evidentiary type of hearing held in this court I find and then follows the statement of facts which I'm about to summarize.
Is there a dispute as to the accuracy of those facts?
To my knowledge Mr. Chief Justice, no actual dispute and yet in certain respects, the counsel for the respondent and for the Commonwealth select slightly different versions which can be found at these various points, so that I would simply mean and make it clear that —
— could bring you to a different it falls?
Well, of course we represent a petitioner and a respondent in a situation in which the facts and the constitutional issues are so much inseparable that slight shadings of difference in the facts could make a difference in the result.
So I —
Should we be bound — should we be bound in determining the case by the findings of the judge when we have no record to support it?
There's nothing here on which we can judge?
Mr. Chief Justice, it seems to me that the findings themselves are part of the record for this Court and that rather than for this Court, for example, to go back to the testimony which you do have transcribed before the district judge and to draw inferences from that testimony ab initio, leaves it preferable it seems to me to rely on the facts as found by the district judge who did have the benefit both of hearing the witnesses before him as well as reviewing the transcript before you.
This is the part of the order except for him [Inaudible]?
In one respect at least, their statement of the facts does differ from that of the findings of the District Court.
However, this Court may feel —
We have no — we have no complete record on which to determine which is right.
That is correct, Your Honor.
Why don't we?
Because the facts, the transcript in the original proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and then the Superior Court would have been a transcript of some 1120 pages.
And because the — it seems sufficient to proceed on the basis of the record in the evidentiary hearing which was also before the Court of Appeals.
Well, it's available somewhere isn't it Mr. Attorney General?
Yes, it is Mr. Justice.
And we don't many times, the records are printed than these files up here?
Well, it certainly could be made available.
I merely felt it's important at the outset to make clear that the statement that I will be making to you is drawn entirely from the findings of fact set forth in the record beginning on page 50.
Now, the record — that record of the state court hearing and I take it is lodged with the District Court, the Federal District Court at this point?
So then on Saturday, March 1, 1958, these two Boston plain clothes officers were on patrol in the south end of Boston.
They found themselves traveling behind a Ford Sedan occupied by two men.
They observed the Sedan pull up in front of a liquor store.
It happened that there had been a recent rash of liquor store hold ups in the vicinity.
Officer McNamara saw one of the two men get out of the car and entered the store.
He recognized the man as the respondent Painten from a mug shot, photograph of him that he picked at the police headquarters and happened to have in his pocket.
The Sedan moved slowly up the street, turned around and pulled up before the liquor store.
When the driver saw McNamara in the unmarked police car, he took off down the street in a burst of speed.
McNamara wheeled the squad car around and gave a chase, overtaking the Sedan within a few blocks.
McNamara recognized the driver as one George Ash, whom he knew as having been convicted of several holdups in the past and thus having served time in prison.
McNamara ordered Ash out of the car and asked him why he had fled.
Ash said that it was because McNamara had scared him.
The officers looked in the car and after some conversation, let Ash go on his way.
Ash went back in the direction of the liquor store.
In addition to the recent liquor store hold ups, there had been a loan company hold up that same day.
The hold up had been described as two White men, one tall, one a little shorter.
The appearance of Painten and Ash was consistent with this description, scanty though it was.
McNamara and Maxwell returned to the liquor store and showed Painten's picture to the clerk who told them that Painten lived in nearby apartment building.
They drove to this address and behind the building found the car that Ash had been driving.
Painten's name was under one of the door bells at the front door.
McNamara returned to his car and put in a radio call for two more police officers.
When these two officers, Menia and Rufo arrived, McNamara told them that he and Maxwell were going up to see some fellows in an apartment.
Rufo was assigned to watch the rear of the apartment building and Menia was left to watch the front stairway.
McNamara and Maxwell then went on upstairs to Painten's third floor apartment and knocked on the door.
Painten came to the door, opened it only a few inches and asked who is there?
McNamara showed his badge and replied, "It's the police.
We'd like to talk to you.
Painten asked, if they would wait a minute.
McNamara replied that they would and Painten closed the door.
While the door was closed, McNamara heard inside the apartment, a sound like that of a window being raised and lowered.
A few seconds later Painten opened the door.
McNamara and Maxwell entered the apartment.
Inside in the kitchen, they found George Ash and a woman identified as Doris Painten.
There was some conversation between McNamara and the occupants of the apartment.
No search of Painten's person or the apartment took place at this time.
About three minutes had elapsed between the admission of McNamara and Maxwell to the apartment when Officer Rufo came into the kitchen and said, "They threw a bag out of the window."
Rufo opened the kitchen window, stepped out on the fire escape, went down on the landing in the second floor, picked up the brown paper bag and brought it back to the kitchen.
McNamara opened the bag and discovered inside wrapped in wax paper, a 32 caliber automatic and 45 caliber revolver together with a number of 32 caliber and 45 caliber bullets.
McNamara thereupon placed Painten under arrest and proceeded to make a thorough search of the apartment.
In the course of the search, McNamara found and seized the box of 32 caliber bullets and under a mattress in Painten's bedroom about $980.00 in cash.
Later the same evening, either police officers found and seized a roll of waxed paper, edge of which corresponded with the edge of the wax paper that had been used to wrap the guns and ammunition found in the paper bag.
Now —
Thurgood Marshall:
Excuse me Mr. Attorney General, when was Painten search to find the money in his pocket?
There was no money found in Painten's pocket.
Upon entering into the apartment, I left this out only because it did not seem material, a bulge was noted in Ash's pocket and McNamara reached into the pocket, presumably thinking it might be a weapon.
Well, it could he have felt it?
He might have.
In any event that money —
I mean if it was a weapon, could he have felt it while that was in the pocket?
Mr. Justice Marshall, I don't know why he did.
In any event, that money was not seized.
As soon as McNamara found that it was money, he withdrew his hand and so far as I'm aware, that money is not an issue here.
And you don't consider that a search?
No, well, if it were a search in any event, it was a search which was in the sense negated by the fact that the officer did not seize the object found and it was not later introduced in evidence.
The only reason I raise it, well, you said there was no search involved until after the window was —
I made my point that there was no search of Painten.
The money that you — we've just been talking about $200.00 in cash that bulge in the pocket.
This was Ash's pocket.
There was no search of Painten whatsoever and no search of the apartment as such until after the bag had been brought into the kitchen and opened and the guns and bullets found.
Now these, may it please the Court, are all the facts which a neutral observer could have seen or heard which a camera, accompanied by tape recording equipment at every point in the scene could have picked up.
And if these were all that the record contained, it could very well be that the case would not ever have reached this honorable body.
In setting aside Painten's conviction however and directing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts either devote a new trial or to discharge him, the courts below relied on elements in the record which could not have been seen or heard by a neutral observer.
These consist of McNamara's own impressionistic attempts more than seven years after the events in question.
Under cross-examination at the evidentiary hearing to account for the motives and attitudes which led him to do what he did.
As their opinions make overwhelmingly clear, both of the courts below make McNamara's intent as they construed it, the touchstone of the validity of his actions.
Thus as the District Court put it, I find that the officers went into the apartment intending to ask Painten a few questions and then they arrest him on suspicion of the loan company job.
Abe Fortas:
Mr. Attorney General, could you tell me whether the officer told Painten the reason for his arrest?
Did he say anything to Painten about why he was arrested?
I notice in page 50 of the record it says, it recites McNamara then placed Painten under arrest for suspicion of the hold up from "loan company.
" Does that mean that the officer told that — said that to Painten?
It doesn't appear to my — I don't find satisfactorily answered Mr. Justice Fortas the question of what they did say to him.
The reference is to the loan company job and the arrest are parts of McNamara's reconstruction of what he had in mind, but I find nothing and which differs directly to what he said at that time.
The District Court then finding that he did intend to arrest him on suspicion of a loan company job by going to say in so finding, I have in mind the statement by Officer McNamara at the hearing here that if Painten have not gone from the car into the liquor store, he would have asked him and Ash a few questions and then quoting McNamara, "I believe I would have taken him to the station for a suspicion of that hold up that day.
" Similarly, the Court of Appeals in its opinion observed, the Commonwealth's own evidence indicates that a search was in fact intended, continuing the Court quotes from the testimony of McNamara under cross-examination.
"Was it your opinion?"
You're speaking with the Court of Appeals now quoted from —
Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.
This is from the Court of Appeals' opinion.
It appears on page 63 of the record before you.
This is the question of counsel.
Something was going on in that household to give you reason to enter the household without a warrant.
Answered by McNamara, "Yes sir.
In that household, it has people with a background, people that I knew were in there, I might be able to solve a string of serious crimes".
Further, the Court of Appeals observed quote from McNamara.
"Now, we have them," referring to Ash and Painten, "together in the apartment and the hold up of the loan company is in my mind now and I found out he is living there.
These things in my mind lead me to arrest him for that hold up."
The meeting mentioned of McNamara as additional reference a moment later, the officer coming in discovering the guns and in this connection McNamara's testimony could be read as meaning, "These other things I had in mind plus the discovery the guns.
" This is the second reference by McNamara.
It is not included in the Court of Appeals quotation.
The Court observes, "It is apparent that the police knowing of a crime and knowing that Ash and petitioner were suspicious characters, but having no reason to connect them with the crime they are investigating set out to arrest and searched the man in the hope that evidence would develop.
" The courts below have thus rested their invalidation of a state court conviction fully on a police officer's efforts to bridge up from the remote subconscious, his motives through action which took place more than seven years earlier.
Excuse me Mr. Attorney General, on page 31, McNamara said that, "if Painten had not stopped to go into the liquor store, I would have approached him, questioned him and more than likely arrest him on suspicion."
Yes, Mr. Justice Marshall.
That point is relied upon by the District Court in supporting the District Court finding that McNamara and Maxwell intended to make the arrest when they went to the apartment.
Our point is that reliance upon this sort of testimony as to McNamara's state of mind at the time, particularly since it is a testimony seven years after the event can only lead to a confusion and speculative tests of subjective attitude in application of the administration of the law of search and seizure.
This I think is the irony of this entire exercise reconstructing McNamara's state of mind.
It's pointed out by the fact that his own introspective self-examination simply cannot be squared with what he and Officer Maxwell actually did.
If when they knocked on the door of the apartment, they had really intended to carry out an arrest and search.
Why didn't they enter the moment the door opened instead of acquiescing in Painten's request that they wait a moment, why?
After entering the apartment, didn't they arrest Painten immediately instead of engaging him in conversation for three minutes?
If they thought they already had probable cause to make an arrest and conduct a search, the discovery — did the discovery of the guns and bullets become the critical factor in the actual timing of the arrest and search.
One can speculate of course that McNamara despite his belated efforts to reconstruct his own state of mind, didn't in fact really have any fixed purpose in setting out to talk to Painten and Ash.
But applying the post hope objective test which you suggest and submit, by that test, what was it that brought the officers to the door of the apartment?
A series of observations, none of which were of tremendous importance in themselves, first of all, the knowledge that there had been a rash of hold ups in the area.
The fact that two men answering in general the very scanty description available to them of the men who would commit at the most recent hold up, caught up in front of the liquor store in a manner consistent with the intent of carrying out a hold up.
The fact that the one left in the car took off at a burst of speed simply upon seeing one of the officers that they then upon going to the house heard the window being raised and lowered.
Well no, we're not to the house yet.
I asked you what brought them to the door of the apartment?
Up to the point where they come to the door, I think one can only say that this combination of circumstances, the noticing —
William J. Brennan, Jr.:
The policeman's informed intuition, is that about it?
I believe that is expresses precisely what is involved here.
Indeed, this is a way of expressing the importance of this case because this Court would have been (Voice Overlap)
If I may discontinue a moment to ask you to — so that you understand your position.
You do not contend, do you, that at the time they were at the door of the apartment, they had probable cause for a search or for an arrest?
We do not contend that.
We concede that they did not.
And we would agree that they had no probable cause for an arrest or a search incidental thereto after they entered the apartment or at any time up to the point when the paper bag was opened and the guns appeared.
They were carrying out an investigation?
They are carrying out an investigation and of course, it is essential to our position that there was no unlawful act at any step of the way up to the discovery of the guns.
If of course, it were found that they had entered that apartment without consent of Painten, this would be a basis for invalidating what took place thereafter.
On the other hand, there is no finding that there was a lack of consent and indeed, we believe that the facts before you require the conclusion that that there was consent.
Mr. Attorney General, I gather that from Judge Kaufman's opinion that he disagreed with the rationale of his colleague.
What if one – one of his basis for concurring namely that as he puts it, the officer used the apartment as a conduit of convenience for seizing the bag on the fire escape that therefore the — in that circumstance, the seizure of the bag from the grading was unlawful?
Mr. Justice Brennan, I can only say as to this that I find it difficult to account for his characterization of what — of what Officer Rufo did as being the use of a conduit of convenience.
Actually, the time when Rufo entered and this is quite clear I think in the record, McNamara and Maxwell were talking to Painten and Ash and Mrs. Painten in the kitchen.
Rufo entered and found them in the kitchen and the window he used to go out on to the fire escape was the kitchen window.
He was therefore if the others were lawfully within the apartment so was he.
Their consent in other words would embrace his appearance as well?
It would appear so and if he were lawfully there then what we have in effect is a lawful entrance to the apartment, but which is sometime and somehow or rather the exit there from becomes unlawful and thus used by Judge Kaufman to invalidate everything else.
Would you take the same position of that bag that had been sitting on the kitchen table, they looked into it?
I think that the case would be — would be very clear at that stage that of course, the bag unlike the heroin in the Kerr against California case would not have had been obvious with respect to what it's contents were.
The situation then I think is that there would have been no reason to direct attention to the bag.
Here, it was the fact that the window opened and this particular item was dropped out which of course gave reason to inquire what it was and open it.
And we're not aware of any contention before the Court that the actual opening of the bag somehow invalidated everything else.
I would like to reserve what few minutes remains Mr. Chief Justice for rebuttal.
Mr. Nordlinger.
Louis M. Nordlinger:
I'd like to just address myself first if I may to a couple of the factual matters that my distinguished brother from Massachusetts has covered quite thoroughly, but a few things I think bear mentioning.
First of all, having in mind the decision of this Court of Johnson against United States, I'd like to make it clear, if the Court please, that the time of day of the case now before the Court, this Painten case we're arguing today is quite similar to the time in Johnson against United States.
These are both evening cases, just to fix the time of day.
Another thing I would like to mention which was not brought out heretofore, the respondent on this case, Painten was not known to the police officer to have any record for any particular type of offense.
This appears from our record.
He did have a mug shot though, didn't he?
That's the only basis for suspicion Mr. Justice that there was a record.
Well, ordinarily, they take a mug shot only when someone is arrested or something?
Oh, that's very true then I think we have to concede that much but the officer have no knowledge whatsoever that would connect this man, Painten to any robberies or any crime of that nature.
It's a different matter of course as to Ash, the companion.
And then, in the record, I would like to submit to the Court that we have a rather complete record of the testimony in the District Court and that testimony indicates that the police came to the door, showed a badge and said only, this is the police.
There was no mention, we'd like to talk to you, if that were to be important, but I think that the District Court maybe had overlooked this.
I don't know what happened.
We never made an issue of it before the United States Circuit Court.
The Court of Appeals did not make that finding.
I think just examining the same record that is before this Court today, there is nothing to indicate that the police said, we would like to talk to you.
Now, there is a finding if I may call to the attention of the Court, there is a finding that there was no consent to the entry or finding by the United States District Court.
Maybe it was not in expressed words but I would like to call to the attention of the Court respectfully that on page 55 of the record which is part of the findings of the United States District Court, the Court says, it follows that the entrance into Painten's apartment without a warrant and absent to any probable cause to arrest any occupant thereof was "under column of their police authority" and citing Johnson against United States and there was no "valid basis in law for the intrusion.
" I think when the District Court judge included this language, he had in mind that there was no consent to this entry.
The court — majority of the Court of Appeals clearly did not pursue that line?
No, Your Honor.
That is opposed to the statement by Judge Kaufman concurring?
That's true Your Honor.
That the majority then went off on a different basis namely that as I read, namely that the police officer set out to arrest and search the man with the hope that evidence would develop.
Is that correct?
That's very true.
Yes, that's true Your Honor.
I'd like to urge and I hope I don't exceed the liberty that counsel has in this Court, I would like to urge very seriously before the Court that this is not an unusual situation, but rather this is a very typical situation where the states would do well to apply the pronouncements of this Court and there are ample decisions in this area regarding the importance of privacy of the individual.
In the words of Mr. Justice Bradley that I think are so important here, it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.
Or again words of Mr. Justice Brennan, "we are duly mindful of the reliance that society must place for achieving law and order upon the enforcing agencies of the criminal law, but insistence on observance by law officers of traditional fair procedural requirements is from the long point of law best calculated to contribute to that end.
" And I think if the Court please that this is what this case is about.
If you take this step by step, what are the specific points of conflict with the constitutional doctrine.
The officers came to the apartment and they said, this is police and then they were voluntarily admitted into the apartment.
Now, is it your point that there — do you have an objection at that point namely that there are some coercion resulting from their saying this is the police?
That would have to be our contention if Your Honor please that there was not a voluntary admission surely for the purposes of search and the —
And why – wait a minute, let's just like about the admission to the apartment without reference to search?
We would argue that the entry to the apartment was not because the voluntary —
You mean that anytime the police come to the door of an apartment and they say this is the police and people let them in that, that is an unlawful entry by the police, wouldn't have to be your position?
Well, if Your Honor please, I don't know whether we would go so far to say in every case, the simple entry by the police without a forceful resistance by the tenant would mean that —
What makes this — what is the element that differentiate this case then that makes this case a violation of the constitutional rights?
Is it the intention, the mental attitude of the police purpose?
No, I don't think so Your Honor.
I think —
That's what the majority said, isn't it?
Well, I think that the United States Court of Appeals looked to the entire record, looked to all the elements in the case —
Yes but you have to put it in words what did they say, what did they (Voice Overlap)
They did look to what the police had in mind of course.
That figures into it but they do not rely solely on this.
They looked to what the police did if Your Honor please.
They look to what Officer McNamara related was the actual history of the actions of the police.
Well, let's take it step by step if you don't mind.
Then, let's assume for purposes of discussion that the entry into the apartment was lawful by the police, make that assumption would you —
Yes, Your Honor.
– for just for purposes of these questions.
Then was — what was the next unconstitutional act done by the police, if there was one in your submission?
Well, having — in treating your question properly, Your Honor, I have in mind that the courts have already examined this problem to see whether the police were admitted voluntary (Voice Overlap)
Well, make that assumption.
Whether they were admitted for the purposes of talking or whether they were admitted for the purpose searching.
Now we have cases on this of course.
I think one of the cases is —
The search here was not undertaken or would you contest this?
Oh, yes, Your Honor.
The search was not undertaken until after the bag containing the revolvers was found and produced.
I think the search began, if Your Honor please, when the officers entered the apartment, walked over to Ash, the gentleman who was in the apartment.
The officer put his hand on Ash's pocket, withdrew a roll of bills and examined these bills.
I think that's the beginning of the search.
Now was that introduced and there was a testimony to that affect that Ash had in his pocket $200.00 or whatever it was in the bills, was that introduced as evidence against Ash?
Let me say this if I may Your Honor, to clarify the history of this very briefly.
"We have no problem with Ash being in a trial because this material that was seized as a result of this search and seizure," this material was never used in what the officers claim was a loan company hold up or a liquor store hold up was not used for that at all.
These people were never found —
Well, was the fact that the officer found $200.00 or whatever in Ash's pocket used in evidentiary manner?
Not against Painten, no Your Honor and Painten is the only man before us of course.
Now what's your next complaint about what happened?
The next complaint of course is taking the paper bag from the fire escape and bring it back into the apartment.
That would have to be the next element of the search that we see an issue here.
What made that unlawful?
The fact that the paper bag was on — either on the premises or within the cartilage of this apartment, I surely would urge that most strenuously and that the officers had no authority to search in the apartment, search anywhere in the apartment when they entered and this is just part of the search that they conducted.
That's because you say the consent when I went — we're assuming that it was consent to enter the apartment did not extend to the cartilage or did not extend to a consent to picking up what was inside on the fire escape or whatever?
I have some difficulty in knowing how far we're making an assumption here, but if we're not assuming that the tenant that Painten agreed to a search of his apartment and then of course we'd say that it would be immaterial whether the bag was on the fire escape or on the kitchen table that they have no right to search.
We have in the —
Mr. Nordlinger, suppose the policeman outside in the back had gotten a ladder and climbed up and he picked it up?
I see no difference Mr. Justice.
The bag we still would argue was within the cartilage of the apartment.
It was not in plain view.
We have no trouble here with a plain view case.
This is not a plastic bag that the guns are visible in on the fire escape.
This is a paper bag and the police had no way to tell what it was until they went up and got it and opened it up.
It makes no difference whether he went through the apartment or went up to fire escape?
I don't think it would if Your Honor please.
I think they're still invading a protected area of this tenant's apartment whether they go through the apartment or up the fire escape.
There's an equal invasion of this man's privacy.
Suppose you have got into the bottom in the backyard of the apartment or house —
Well, I could —
I assume there was more than one tenant.
Yes there were.
And suppose they had dropped it from the backyard?
Your Honor, I can only have in mind when I answer that — I can only have in mind the cases that we already see in the reports where the courts have examined what is this area in which the material was thrown out.
Now in some cases, it was thrown out in the backyard of a privately owned dwelling and they said that was within the cartilage.
Suppose the material was thrown out on the street, the back window opened on a street instead of opening on a fire escape and the stuff fell on a public street, I don't think we're going to argue if that's within the cartilage.
I think there, we're faced only with an area that is within the protections of this tenant's premises.
So it wouldn't made any difference whether they climbed up the fire escape or went through the apartment?
I don't think so, Your Honor.
Well, what do you do what they do?
How does this differ from Abel where Abel discarded in a paper basket as I recall it in his hotel room?
Yes Your Honor, I think there's quite a difference in the facts if you please —
I mean, throwing it out in the window in a paper bag is different from —
Throwing them into the —
In the case of — in Abel, he was leaving the premises for good.
He was heading for detention and then to prison.
He was leaving his premises for good.
The officers were in the apartment.
He was told, "Pack up your things, you're coming with us" and as he packed up his belongings in a suitcase, he threw a few incriminating items in the waste basket and then he went out —
It was still his room though, was it not?
No it wasn't Your Honor.
The Court, I believe that this Court found, that when he left that apartment — that room, he had no more right to what was in the waste basket became the property of the hotel if anyone and the hotel gave permission to the officers to engage in a search.
He abandoned that property, throwing it in a waste basket and knowing that he wasn't going to come back or take the other case, if Your Honor please, the Hester case of some years ago.
The officers appear on the property and these moon shiners, all — I don't know why they have them but they happened to have jugs and bottles on their persons.
You don't know why they have it?[Laughter]
Unless they were thirsty Your Honor and they took these bottles and threw them aside just abandoned the bottles and threw them aside.
First of all, there was no question of the home, but aside from no invasion of the home,' here they were just throwing these bottles in the side and running away and the bottles were smashing around on the ground right in front of the officer.
I think there's a difference in Hester also and in Abel but I think the distinction is clear from the Abel case.
Turning for a moment to this question of consent which seems, I think it's rather important and I know that to the Commonwealth's case, they must stress the element of consent.
We don't have the factual situation that was before a Court of Appeals in Davis against California some years ago.
This is a case which was stressed in the brief for the Commonwealth and I think should be distinguished in that the tenant said, "Come in and look around.
" Now, if Painten were to say to the officers, "Come in and look around," I don't think we'd be here today.
I don't think it will be much merit to the case.
In addition in the Davis case in which a consent was found —
Would you be here if he just said, "Come on in please, I will be glad to talk with you?"
I think we would be.
Because I don't think that the consent to come in and talk means a consent to search.
What is your concern is just as though the bag that was out on the fire escape proceeding in the corner of the room and the officer without any consent like to look for this?
That's true.
Hugo L. Black:
You're not implicating the exact words that were said in the two that you say it's so difficult?
I don't understand your question Mr. Justice.
The words that you said — they said about coming in.
You draw a distinction between one little words and another [Inaudible], do you mind stating that [Inaudible].
The record of testimony not — I'm not speaking of the findings Mr. Justice, the record of testimony in the District Court which appears in the record before this Court today shows that the police said, "I had my badge in my hand."
I said, "We're police officers."
The district judge when he made his findings added to this that the police said, "We're police officers, we would like to talk to you," but by the time the case come to this Court of Appeals again, they examined this record of testimony and couldn't find that and they made a finding that there was only the statement, "we're police officers," that's all.
Now, I submit also, if Your Honor please, that the petitioner test —
You said there was a difference in that and if they have sent something else, maybe a few but I just don't remember it, it's not important?
No, there would be a difference if the petitioner, if the tenant had said, "Come in and look around."
He said nothing.
The first time to — I don't want to —
What would happen if he had said, come in and look around?
I think then Your Honor it would be a very hard foot to make an argument that there was no consent.
So you think that could be the same?
Well, I think that could.
Remaining silent, isn't not?
Well, he did say something, he said wait a minute.
Oh, that's when he first opened the door and saw who it was.
He said, "Wait a minute."
And then closed the door?
And then he came back and opened the door?
Well, what did he say there?
For that matter he opened the door to let them in?
He came back after knowing who they were and he came back and opened the door?
I don't know if that's much different than his opening the door initially.
Well, I really have difficulty seeing why there wasn't a consent to entry in those circumstances?
Well —
That — opening the door that seems to me the second time to invite them to come in.
What else it could have been?
And it certainly does destroy your case to admit that?
No, but if Your Honor please, you have this question before this Court in Johnson against United States and a very same thing happened and no consent was found.
In the Johnson case, you have the officers coming to the door.
I think this is a hotel room, if my memory assures me correctly.
The girl in the hotel room, there was a smell of opium in the hotel and the girl opened the door and the police came in.
She didn't say anything and Painten said nothing and there was no consent in that case Your Honor.
Well, there wasn't anything in Johnson comparable to these set of facts as I understand it.
The police officers arrived, they knocked at the door, Painten saw them, Painten said wait a minute.
He closed the door and then later, he came back, opened the door, stepped aside and let them in.
That's not the same as Johnson of course.
I should have known.
I think that there is excellent language, if I may say this, if the Court please, Judge Youngdahl in this district or I should say in the District of Washington, in the case of United States against Evans and another case, I don't recall who the district — who the judge was, this is a decision of the Court of Appeals in Jude against United States examined this type of situation where the police come to the door and there's no express consent.
In the words of the Court of Appeals, he didn't give us actual consent to search, the police said in our case, "He gave us consent to go in there.
He said he had nothing to conceal or hide, it was perfectly alright for us to go out there."
The Court of Appeals says, "Invitations to enter ones home, extended to armed officers of the law who demand entrance are usually to be considered as invitation secured by force".
There was no demand of entrance here.
The officers didn't demand to come in as I understand these facts?
Well, just the fact that the officers were there and said "we're the police".
That's enough?
Would be enough, I believe so Your Honor.
I think there is — aside from the opening of the door and saying wait a minute and then coming back to the door, I would urge upon the Court that this is a case very close to Johnson against United States.
I think a case which calls for the same sort of approach, the same sort of thinking that we see expressed in Johnson against United States.
Now with consent lacking and I believe that under the cases like Jude against United States and Evans which both come from this area.
I think with consent lacking and of course, we have no ward in issue here, and we don't have those exceptional circumstances that were authorized an entry to arrest and search.
The petitioner then is asking to have the arrest and entry rehabilitated by the fruits of the search and I believe this is where the Commonwealth finds itself today.
They're saying that because we found a paper bag and brought it in and found guns in the paper bag, that made our entry valid.
I don't see how well the Commonwealth can ask that the state be upheld in the way it handled this case.
How do they happen to find the bag?
How did they happen to find it?
By seeing the bag, by seeing a bag and that's all, a paper bag dropped from a window on to the fire escape.
That's this case is about?
Onto a fire escape.
That's quite different from just seeing the bag, isn't it?
Well, possibly so.
You know we have a case, if Your Honor please, that under the name of Work (ph) against United States again, a Court of Appeals case.
Here, the police approached the house and the girl who is in the house as inconspicuous she could, just walked out the door as the police were coming in.
One of the police turned around and saw this girl stuffing something in a trash basket and then she came in.
Here, the Court of Appeals said, "This girl acted involuntarily because of the presence of the police and this was not abandoned property."
And the police said, "no right to open the trash can and take out the narcotics that the girl had put in here."
Acts of involuntary —
The girl acted involuntarily.
That the actions of the police compelled her to act that she didn't put this material in the trash can expecting that it will be taken away by the rubbish disposal people.
She put in the trash can under the emergency situation of seeing the police come in.
To hide it from the police?
To hide it from the police.
And we have that — we have that in a number of cases that the Commonwealth — the petitioner seeks to distinguish another case which is relied on by the United States Court of Appeals, the case of Hobson and in the Hobson case which appears in both of our briefs, we have something of this element.
We had officers approaching the house and somebody in the house opening a back window just like in Painten's case and throwing the material out the back window and it fell all the way to the ground.
Now in this case, in Hobson, the Court had found that there was the involuntary act of the tenant and this was the cartilage, within the cartilage of the property and within the protected area under the Fourth Amendment.
The petitioner seeks to distinguish this saying that in the Hobson case, officers broke through the door and this compelled the property to be thrown out the window but of course if the Hobson case is read, this is simply not the factual situation.
In Hobson, the material was thrown out the window when the police came to the door and in fact in Hobson unless I'm mistaken be a the same thing, somebody came to the door and said to the police, "Wait a minute, my wife has to get dressed" and closed the door and I think they use a peep hole in that case.
They didn't have to open the door, but in any even in Hobson, the property was thrown out the window when the police came to the door and then the officer posted in the back of the house called to the men in front and said, "They just threw something out the window."
And with that, the officers burst into the door.
So it was not the bursting through the door that compelled the throwing of the material out the window in Hobson.
It was the appearing on the scene by the police officers which provoked the tenant to throw the material into his backyard and this was held protected, a protected area and the material was not admissible.
I think this is a good case employed by the United States Court below and I think it's a case that have every bit of validity before the Court today.
You know, both my distinguished brother and I come from Massachusetts and we have a tradition in Massachusetts that began 200 years ago and this Court knows very well when James Otis, Jr. argued for the discontinuance of the writs of assistance and I feel as though Massachusetts should not be down here today arguing before this Court that the right of privacy and the Fourth Amendment should not receive every bit of protection.
It should not have every bit of substance as pronounced by this Court, traditionally before this Court and should be limited.
If this Court were to decide in a manner in which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is asking today.
I think it would mean a regression from what the Fourth Amendment has come to mean.
I think it would be a diminution surely of what the right of privacy means in this country today.
We've come a long way with the development of the Fourth Amendment and the right of privacy.
I don't think that there's anything compelling either in this case or in the general picture of the country today that warrants detracting from what the right of privacy has come to mean and what the Fourth Amendment has come to mean.
Thank you very much gentlemen.
May it please the Court.
Massachusetts certainly is proud of its contributions historically to the development of the protections of the individual.
At the same time, Massachusetts has also recognized the validity of the observation of this Court in Kerr against California that the states are not precluded from developing workable rules governing arrest, searches and seizures to meet the practical demand of effective criminal investigation and law enforcement.
The courts of Massachusetts indeed from their earliest history have been engaged in the process of developing just such workable rules.
In so doing, they have been mindful in the words of the supreme judicial court in Massachusetts in Commonwealth against Lawton that a police officer in the solution of a crime and in the presence of when he thinks committed it, is not adjudged with time for mature consideration and the contrary in this position more nearly resembles that in the sentry it is post in time of war, upon his alertness and judgment depends the safety of many?
The importance of this case, we believe is that, we have here on the one side a series of steps taken by police officers which in the point of view of those of us who represent law enforcement do constitute the exercise of alertness and intelligence in the carrying out of their responsibilities.
The issue before this Court is whether in substance it shall validate that kind of course of conduct or whether it shall say to the police, "No, you may not do this" even though each step along the course they take is justified in the light of the knowledge and experience and the information available to them at the time.
Mr. Attorney General, I — if we can return for a moment just to the jury facts.
Your brother represented that the facts were that after they went into the room, the first thing that one of the policemen did was to reach into Mr. Ash's pocket.
Do you agree with that as a matter of fact or do you dissent to the facts?
Your Honor, this is dealt with on page 53 of the record in the findings of the District Court, noticing a bulge in Ash's pocket, McNamara stuck his hand into it and found about $200.00 and $10.00 and $20.00 bill stuffed in the pocket.
The Court then goes on, there were some conversation between McNamara and the occupants of the apartment, no search of Painten purse.
District Court's finding.
This is the District Court's finding.
No search of Painten.
No search of Painten's person or his apartment took place at this time.
And Ash of course — Ash's case is not before it?
That is correct Your Honor.
Mr. Attorney General, when they went to this apartment with the sole purpose of questioning Painten, is that correct?
Yes, insofar as it appears.
They went there simply to talk to him to find out whatever they might find out and I believe the issue is quite correctly stated that they reappoint in the course of the questioning which is may police officers under these circumstances knock on the door of a person to make that sort of inquiry and be admitted for the purpose.
Well, why did they assign an officer to the back, while they were questioning?
They knew that these were men who had been involved in police records.
There had been hold ups.
They did so where we submit simply as a manner of wise precaution under all the circumstances, indeed a precaution which the events prove to have been well taken.
Well, I thought you said they only wanted to talk?
Well, they certainly would not have been in the position in our view to have taken any of our action, but for the circumstance that the bag appeared and I might add it was on the second floor, below the floor of the apartment in which — from which it was dropped and they would have gone away.
We suggest that this is —
That is Mr. Attorney — they were around say the third floor and they stopped in the first, is that it?
It dropped to the second.
From the fourth?
From the third.
Oh, from the third.
— with one floor below —
One floor below.
— when retrieved by Officer Rufo.
We submit —
Mr. Attorney General, what will you do with the finding of the District Court on page 55?
He said, I like what I have in mind in calling additional officers by radio in the placing of officers to guard both front and rear exits of the apartment building is far more indicative if for a planned arrest and of an intended interview?
Mr. Chief Justice, we would say as to that that if the intent of the police officers is to controlling test here that there maybe basis for the courts below, both to have found that they did intend to make an arrest, but our position basically is that the finding of their intent whether or not substantiated in the record, it should not control the question whether or not the ultimate arrest and search were valid.
You have in this respect, the Court of Appeals approved the finding of the court below, did it not?
Yes, and indeed they —
Aren't we required to give a very, very strong consideration to the finding of two courts below.
Why do you ask us to –?
Well, Mr. Chief Justice, we believe that the central issue in this case is whether the finding of intent should control the determination whether or not a valid arrest and search took place.
Our position basically is that granted that the findings may have been correct as to the intent of the police officers and then what they did in fact and the reasonableness of what they did in the light of all the circumstances ought to be the test and alone should be the test of whether or not their action was or was not constitutional.
But would you ask us to abrogate this finding.
It follows, this follows immediately from what I read before, it follows that the entrance into the Painten's apartment without a warrant and absent — any probable cause to arrest any occupant thereof was "under color of their police authority" and there was "no valid basis in law for the intrusion" citing Johnson versus United States.
We suggest Mr. Chief Justice that even if it had been their intent to make an arrest that that intent alone would not invalidate the entry and in fact, they didn't make an arrest.
The difference between this case and the Johnson case cited there is that they smelled the opium in the Johnson case.
The occupant of the hotel room opened the door and the officer said, "You're under arrest.
We're going to search the hotel room," which they did and then found the equipment used for smoking opium.
In this instance, they went in and they were talking to them three minutes in the kitchen when Rufo came up and said, "He had seen something dropped out of the window."
But before they did any talking even they went through as close to the other man's clothes to some extent and they extracted his money from the —
I think the only possible explanation of that is that the officer saw the bulge and presumed that it may be a gun.
In any event, nothing turns on this and although, he reached into the pocket immediately, they were still conversing three minutes later when Rufo came up the stairs to say that he had seen the gun dropped out of the window.
Well just so I'm very clear with you Mr. Attorney General, I gather that the Commonwealth's position is this.
It's utterly irrelevant that they had an intent to make an arrest or a search when they appeared at Painten's door.
That there are factual circumstances that followed, it's clear that there was a consent that you argued to the officer's entry and that the things that followed thereafter after their entry justified the arrest as an arrest then certainly on probable cause and that the search of the apartment later was incidental with that arrest, is that it?
Yes, Mr. Justice Brennan, that very simply and accurately does state to the condition of the Commonwealth.
It's your position that on the findings of the fact that the District Court approved by the Court of Appeals to the effect that there was not a probable cause for them to enter, should be reversed by us?
Mr. Chief Justice, we concede that there was no probable cause for arrest at the time of entry, but what – our position is that the entry should not be invalidated with all the consequences then flowing from this by the mere circumstance that in the mind of the police officers' entering was the intent as found by the District Court and the Court of Appeals to make an arrest.
We say first of all that this is implausible in the light what actually transpired, but in any event as Mr. Justice Brennan has just restated our position that it is irrelevant.
Excuse me, if I may take another moment.
The difficulty about United States against Johnson as I see it is that in that case there was a consent or acquiescence consent — consents and there was a smell of opium coming out into the hall but this Court held that search warrant was necessary and that the entry was unlawful because it was compelled in the sense that there's always coercion implicit in a police request to come in.
Well, Mr. Justice Fortas, I would suggest that the — however, one characterizes the terms of legal conclusions what transpired in that case that the fact that the moment the door was opened, the agent said, "you're under arrest, we're going to search the room."
There's a fundamental distinction.
There the issue essentially is, was there probable cause for an arrest and search consequent thereon at the time the arrest was made.
The issue though in the case as I understand it is whether the entry, not the arrest but the entry was a lawful entry and this Court held that the opinion by Justice Jackson that since there was no search warrant and since coercion is implicit and the request for police, the entry was unlawful.
Mr. Justice Fortas, I would have suggested that the essence of that holding is summarized in the statement by Mr. Justice Jackson for the majority, thus, the government is obliged to justify the arrest by the search and at the same time, to justify the search by the arrest, this will not do.
Now, we would concede here that there was no cause of arrest at the time of the entry.
So, this would suggest to me at least that the lawfulness of the entrance was not the controlling issue there and certainly, we do not believe that it is here.
Do you think the court's conclusion — a courts conclusion that there is or it is not a probable cause as a pure question or facts?
If I understand the terminology, I would say that it was a mixed question of law and fact.
One certain facts that it is — that those facts, taken together to constitute what's in the mind of the court to consider a reasonable probable cause.
Gentlemen, before we go to the next phase, I would just like to say that I understand Mr. Nordlinger, who represents this indigent defendant as a member of the Voluntary Defenders Committee of your community.
This Court considers that it's very important that indigent defendant should be represented through all the courts including this and we are always comforted by the fact that any bar of any community would have an organization of that kind that can see to it that every indigent defendant is given his rights in Court.
And of course, we're always comforted by the facts that the state that they represented in the proceedings before this Court and I would just like to express my appreciation to you Mr. Nordlinger for having undertaken this public service as we view it.
And you Mr. —
— Attorney General for having ably represented your state in this matter.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice.
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Aro Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Convertible Top Replacement Company, Inc.
Herdman v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
Davis v. Virginia Railway Company
United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corporation


In my PLR4WP video sets where I update them when WordPress decides to make changes or "improvements", there are a couple ways I go about making the updated versions of an existing video.
The easiest and least time consuming method for ME is to simply record an entirely new video, create the graphics, produce the different video formats, and get the transcripts.
However, there are several of you (my customers) that use the transcripts to re-record the audio track and take the time to sync your new audio track to the original video track. You then render the video in your web-ready format.
This entry was posted in plr-video and tagged how to edit plr video, plr video, wordpress plr video on September 1, 2016 by Steve Dougherty.


text:
Der Bahnhof Priesterweg ist ein S-Bahnhof im Berliner Ortsteil Schöneberg im Bezirk Tempelhof-Schöneberg.

Lage
Der Haltepunkt befindet sich im Ortsteil Schöneberg im Bezirk Tempelhof-Schöneberg. Das Berliner Stadtzentrum liegt rund acht Kilometer Luftlinie nordöstlich. Er grenzt an den Priesterweg und den Prellerweg. Östlich des Bahnhofs ist der Natur-Park Südgelände gelegen. Südwestlich liegt der Insulaner, ein ehemaliger Trümmerberg, auf dem sich die Wilhelm-Foerster-Sternwarte befindet. Der Bahnhof Südkreuz liegt 1,8 Kilometer weiter nördlich, der Bahnhof Attilastraße 1,3 Kilometer und der Bahnhof Südende 1,4 Kilometer südlich. Die Station befindet sich im Tarifbereich Berlin B des Verkehrsverbundes Berlin-Brandenburg.

Geschichte

Der Bahnhof wurde am 7. Oktober 1928 mit zwei Mittelbahnsteigen eröffnet. Die Elektrifizierung mit der heute im Berliner S-Bahn-Netz üblichen Spannung von 750 V Gleichspannung erfolgte am 2. Juli 1929.

Vorher gab es hier auf der Anhalter Vorortbahn vom Potsdamer Vorortbahnhof nach Lichterfelde Ost seit Juli 1903 einen elektrischen Probebetrieb mit 550 V Gleichspannung, der schrittweise erweitert wurde. Die Vorortzüge der Dresdener Bahn wurden weiter mit Dampf gefahren.

Seit dem 15. Mai 1939 wird der Bahnhof nur von ausschließlich elektrisch betriebenen S-Bahn-Zügen angefahren. Ein zweiter Ausgang wurde angelegt und der komplette Bahnhof modernisiert. Im Zweiten Weltkrieg wurde mit dem Beginn der Schlacht um Berlin der Zugverkehr Mitte April 1945 eingestellt. Am 8. Juni 1945 wurde der Bahnhof für mit Dampflokomotiven bespannte Züge wiedereröffnet. Ab dem 16. August war wieder der elektrische Betrieb möglich.

Mit der Übernahme der S-Bahn in West-Berlin durch die Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG) am 9. Januar 1984 wurde der Zugverkehr nach Lichterfelde eingestellt. Die Züge verkehrten nur noch auf den äußeren Gleisen. Im Mai 1990 nahm man den Bahnsteig A außer Betrieb und die Züge fuhren nur noch auf dem Bahnsteig B. Der Bahnsteig A wurde abgerissen, etwas weiter südlich komplett neu gebaut und ging am 29. Juni 1992 wieder in Betrieb. Danach wurde der Bahnsteig B genauso neu errichtet. Der alte Zugang und das Empfangsgebäude blieben erhalten, lagen jetzt aber am Nordende des Bahnsteigs. Am 3. August 1993 entstand ein neuer Südzugang zum Bahnsteig A. Der neugebaute Bahnsteig B ging schließlich am 6. Dezember 1993 in Betrieb. Seitdem ist der Bahnhof teilweise überdacht. Ein neuer Südzugang für den Bahnsteig B wurde ebenso im Januar 1995 gebaut.

Seit Mitte 2016 erfolgt die Zugabfertigung durch den Triebfahrzeugführer mittels Führerraum-Monitor (ZAT-FM).

Im September 2017 wurde das Gebäude des Stellwerks Pr abgerissen, das sich am nördlichen Ende des westlichen Bahnsteigs befand.

Anbindung

Schienenverkehr
Der S-Bahnhof wird von den Linien S2, S25 und S26 der Berliner S-Bahn bedient.

Busverkehr
Es bestehen Umsteigemöglichkeiten zu folgenden Buslinien der BVG:

Literatur

Weblinks

 Umgebungsplan des Bahnhofs

 Bahnhof Priesterweg auf stadtschnellbahn-berlin.de

Einzelnachweise

Priesterweg
Priesterweg
Berlin-Schöneberg
Baudenkmal in Berlin
Erbaut in den 1920er Jahren
BerlinPriesterweg

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Is a chronic degenerative disorde. Its cause is still unknown.
Average age of onset: 57 years.
The disease was first identified in 1817.
Approximately 40,000 new American patients are diagnosed each year. In many cases the general "slowness" attributed to old age, may be an early symptom of PD.
People in rural areas are at higher risk of developing the disease than those in urban areas, perhaps because of exposure to pesticides, fungicides or herbicides through contaminated well water.
There is also a microorganism in the soil — Nocardia — that may damage dopaminergic neurons. Other high-risk environments include regions surrounding petroleum plants and pharmaceutical manufacturing plants.
Epidemiologists have noted that most PD patients have never smoked, and at least one study found a marked increase in the incidence of the disease among individuals with a history of mumps compared with those who never had mumps.
PD is not generally regarded as a genetic disease, although patients may inherit a predisposition. Some 14% of PD patients have one or more first-degree relatives who have the disease or a related disorder, compared to 5% of controls. Onset before age 40 is more often associated with a family history.
Low prevalence of Parkinsons's disease among Indians is said to be due to the presence of some protective factors in the brain that inhibit the pathological changes leading to Parkinson's disease.
Prevalence ratio:
North Americans: 280/100,000
Africans: 59/100,000
Chinese: 44/100,000
Indians: 19/100,000. Parsis living in India have the highest recorded prevalence rate of 328/100,000. (Parsis migrated to India from Persia now Iran.)
Parkinsonism is a syndrome consisting of three main components:
Muscular Rigidity
Hypokinesis
(Hypokinesis is slowness in initiating & repeating voluntary movements)
Overall prevalence is about 1 / 1000 of the general population. There is a low prevalence of this disease among Indians. It is more common in elderly, the prevalence rising to 1% of those over 60 years.
The cause of the disease is not known. Genetic factors are not important in a typical case.
Environmental toxins may be a contributing factor.
Country areas frequently sprayed by herbicides show increased incidence of parkinsonism. Chemicals such as (MPTP) methyl-phenyl-tetrahydopyridine, paraquet have been implicated.
Both sexes are affected equally. Onset of the disease is usually after 50 years. Very occasionally the symptoms may start in 3rd & 4th decade. Initially the classical symptoms may be absent. The disease may start as Tiredness, aching limbs, mental slowness, depression and small handwriting.
Face gives appearance of Expressionless face, Greasy skin, Fixed posture.
Tremor: Tremor at rest affecting one or both hands may be the first symptom. Tremor may also affect tongue, legs, mouth. Tremor may remain the only symptom for many years. Tremor is intermittent present at rest and when distracted. It diminishes on action.
Hypokinesis: Difficulty in initiating rapid fine movements, slowness of gait, difficulty in tasks such as fastening buttons and writing.
Gait is typical – slow to start walking, shortened stride, rapid small steps, tendency to run, reduced arm swinging, and impaired balance on turning.
Rigidity of muscular tone: causes stiffness and flexed posture. Gradually the speech becomes softer and indistinct. Postural balance is disturbed because of impairment in the reflexes responsible for maintaining balance. Such patients are prone to falls. Rigidity is known as Cogwheel type in upper limbs and Plastic lead pipe type in the lower limbs.
Features of parkinsonism may be unilateral in the beginning but gradually they become bilateral. Muscle strength and reflexes remains normal. Facial reflexes are enhanced. Tapping of the forehead causes rapid blinking known as Glabellar tap sign. Intellectual faculties are not markedly affected. Some patients may get depressed and there may be some cognitive impairment as the disease advances.
L-DOPA
The rationale for using L-DOPA is that the enzyme step converting the precursor DOPA to Dopamine is dependent on the concentration of the substrate. Although in parkinsonism the number of dopamine releasing terminals in the striatum is diminished it is possible to overdrive the remaining neurons to produce more dopamine by administering DOPA.
More than 90% of the orally taken L-DOPA is decarboxylated in the gastrointestinal tract to dopamine and only a small amount reaches the brain. If L-DOPA is used alone there is high incidence of side effects such as nausea, vomiting, vasodilatation. This problem is solved by giving a peripherally acting decarboxylase inhibitor. This combination therapy permits use of low dose of L-DOPA.
L-DOPA + Carbidopa
L-DOPA + Benserazide
The combination should be started with low dose and gradually increased. Tremor, Rigidity and hypokynesis are improved.
With the progression of the disease there is loss of capacity to store dopamine. Late deterioration in response to L-DOPA therapy occurs after 3-5 years in 1/3 to 1/2 of patients.
Selegiline and Bromocriptine may be helpful at this stage.
Bromocriptine is preferably used as a low dose combination with L-DOPA. Especially in young patients who need treatment for many years.
Stereotactic thalamotomy is occasionally performed in patients with severe unilateral tremors not responding to drugs.
Implantation of Fetal mid brain or Adrenal cells into the basal ganglion in parkinsonian patients has been tried.
Physiotherapy and Speech therapy is needed to reduce rigidity and to correct posture.
Other drug:
Benxhexol 1-5 mg tid
Orphenadrine 50-100 mg tid
Have useful effect on tremor and rigidity. Do not help hypokynesis. They should be used in early stage of the disease when hypokynesis is not a problem.
Side effects: dryness of mouth, blurring of vision, difficulty in micturation and constipation.
Amantidine 100mg bid or tid
It has mild short lived action on hypokinesis.
Side effects: oedema, confusion, seizures.
Ropirinol – Requip – ( SmithKline Beecham )
Pramipexole – Mirapex – ( Pharmacia & Upjohn )
Tolcapone – Tasmar – ( Roche )
Disorders that may mimic Parkinsons disease
Benign essential or familial tremor, a slowly progressive condition that usually develops in the fourth and fifth decades.
Symptoms include a tremulous voice and shaky hands and/or head (the head may bob side to side or up and down).
The typical parkinsonian rigidity, stiffness and bradykinesia do not occur.
Hyperthyroidism can also cause tremor.
Other more serious conditions that may mimic PD include Progressive Supranuclear Palsy, Shy-Drager Syndrome.
Parkinson's Gene
Parkinson's Disease – Genetic & Environmental etiology
Coffee and Parkinson's disease
This entry was posted in Diseases & Conditions by Manbir & Gurpreet. Bookmark the permalink.