text:
Perez v. California
PETITIONER:Perez
RESPONDENT:California
LOCATION:Stanley's Home
DOCKET NO.: 39
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1969)
LOWER COURT:
ARGUED: Nov 14, 1968
DECIDED: May 26, 1969
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument – November 14, 1968 in Perez v. California
Earl Warren:
Number 39, Enrique Perez, petitioner versus California.
Mr. Fetros.
Peter G. Fetros:
Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.
My name is Peter G. Fetros, I represent the appellant in this case, Mr. Enrique Perez.
In this case, there was a four-count indictment — four-count complaint filed against my client concerning three different instances.
Two of — the first two counts of the indictment at the trial, the defendant took the stand and testify upon.
On the third and fourth count which involved one incident which was separate from the first two, the defendant did not make any statement on the stand and upon being cross-examined or attempted to be cross-examined by the District Attorney, his defense attorney raised an objection which was sustained by the trial court.
Thereafter, there was no further attempt to cross-examine the defendant on a separate instant the third and fourth counts.
In addition to these three instances, which were involved in the case, there was a collateral crime which was brought into the case on the grounds that it was a similar modus operandi.
The Court allowed the collateral crime to come in but here again there was no cross-examination to the defendant when he was on the witness stand.
During closing arguments since Griffin had not been decided by this Court, the prosecutor made comment on the fact that the defendant did not testify as to counts three and four nor was he able to cross-examine him concerning counts three and four because the judge had told him that he was not able to cross-examine the defendant.
Then, the instruction was given which is the same instruction which is contained in the Griffin case and we have before us now a clear case to determine the scope of the waiver of the privilege of self-incrimination when a person takes to stand in a multi-count indictment.
Now, we have an unusual situation here in one respect that the trial court determined the District Attorney could not cross-examine on counts three and four.
The Supreme Court of the State of California said this was in error that the counts three and four formulated a common plan and design and therefore cross-examination under the California statute was permissible.
It then went on to say that due to the federal decisions which had been rendered in federal cases concerning the scope of the waiver of the privilege that the privilege extended to all that which encompass legitimate cross-examination.
And the Supreme Court of California therefore held that the man when he took the stand waived his right to self-incrimination as to counts three and four could've been examined by them and could not now complain.
And I say that this is wrong for three reasons and actually for four.
First, the crimes three and four were not specific — were not a common plan in design by any stretch of the imagination although the Supreme Court held that in that case.
Case which came later now says that the Perez case which is the one on appeal here is to be very limited in scope when determining what is modus operandi.
The crimes which are charged involved holdups of grocery stores and taverns.
The collateral crime which was brought in was another holdup of a tavern.
The timings of the holdups were different.
There were holdups in the 7 o'clock area.
There were holdups in the 1:30 area.
The number of people involved were different.
The weapons that were used were different ranging from sort of rifles to pistols.
The descriptions of the people who supposedly committed the crimes were different.
Therefore, I say that there was not this common plan or design and a cross-examine — what cross-examination was not permissible at state court level.
But even if there was a common plan and design in the specific case as other cases have ruled if examination for evidence is admissible for a particular purpose, its probative effect may be outweighed by the amount of prejudice which can be laid in against the defendant.
Now, on these multi-count complaints, the man is on trial for each separate crime that he has charged with.
He can be punished each separately.
He has to — the District Attorney has to prove each crime separately.
Therefore, when a question is asked in cross-examination concerning one of the other two crimes we have the direct situation where the man is — they're being asked to testify against himself on those particular accounts.
Potter Stewart:
Mr. Fetros, —
There is a statement in your brief that is not quite clear to me on page 6.
You're talking about the sentence that was imposed upon your client to say that the counts one and two to run consecutively and counts three and four concurrently.
Now, does that mean the three and four were consecutive to one and two but concurrently with each other or does it mean that they were concurrently with counts one and two?
Concurrently with counts one and two.
So that —
No, his maximum sentence therefore would be at the exploration of count of two.
Of count two —
— counts three and four where the sentence is imposed were fully concurrent with the consecutive sentences imposed upon counts one and two?
That's correct and of course in California we have the indeterminate sentence.
And what we have this situation in the parole board of the state meets and determines what sentence is going to be based on his past record and they would also take into consideration the fact that he was convicted of these crimes in determining when he was — would be eligible.
On sentence on counts three and four would never end later than on one and two under this sentence?
Although, it could make a difference on whether or not one and two was extended during this indeterminate period because this is of course within the power of parole board —
Well, I suppose the parole board could consider anything including the fact he was accused of other crimes?
But I think that it would have much greater bearing to know that he was actually convicted of two crimes after a jury trial and of course this is the thing that we are concerned with.
There is a third point in this that —
May I ask what is the relief you're asking for?
Which convictions are you asking us to set aside?
Well, I'm asking to set aside three and four because —
Only three and four?
Yes, because I don't think there was harmless.
The error was harmless —
Now, what if only three and four then he remains in jail and one and two does not.
No, I was going to finish.
I beg your pardon.
My argument is that since this trial was a long protracted trial.
It was an unusual trial.
How many trials do we have or witness identifies the defense attorney as the defendant?
How many trials do we have she is being taken (Voice Overlap) in the courtroom?
These things all occurred in the trial that with the instruction that was given at the end of this trial on three and four the confusion was completely compounded and I think this tainted the convictions of one and two.
I don't think we can say with (Voice Overlap).
But you're not asking us to set aside?
Oh, you are!
You want all four convictions?
That's correct and I want things either separate when they're retried and then the clear determination made by the jury if he is guilty of one, two, three and four.
Now, there is a line of cases in the federal courts that would indicate that if the judge says when the man takes a stand, you are not waiving the privileges against self-incrimination and you can't turn it right around and say afterwards that well, the judge made a mistake so you are waiving.
This is the situation where in the Johnson case, the man took the stand and he testified as to income tax evasion counts I think in 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1936.
Then they asked him a question, now, what about 1938 which is a similar collateral crime.
The judge said, "You can't ask because that's beyond cross-examination."
This Court reversed on the basis that the man could have explained something possibly if he was forced to testify.
And so here in Perez, maybe the man could have explained something if the objection at which his defense attorney raised was not sustained.
Instead, what happen, they sustained the objection then they made the improper argument at the end concerning the inferences to be drawn.
Now, I should make it clear that this last method of finding convictions of three and four of all of the convictions are to be set aside is of course easy way out because I think that time has come for the Court to indicate how much a person waives when he takes the stand.
Does he waive it as to all cross-examination or does he waive it as to matters which are only within his knowledge?
Caminetti of course has been quoted time and time again and it's being a case that says that all available relevant cross-examination is allowed and you waive your privilege for self-incrimination to that extent.
But that really isn't what its saying.
The reason I think that the Court has focused in to the Griffin rule is that the comment and the instructions which are given focused attention to the fact that the man is silent.
It's in effect shattering the constitutional right to remain silent.
Basically, the man can't testify a lot of these things because he doesn't have in his own knowledge.
There was a companion case in Perez in the lower court level called Ing.
Now, Mr. — Dr. Ing was charged with couple counts of rate by the use of drugs and they brought in three collateral crimes with three different people and he wasn't charged in these crimes.
He had testified those crimes and then they made the comment concerning the fact that he had testified.
But what would happen if instead of the Perez case where there was some possible explanation and knowledge on his part in this cross-examination area that the cross — the specific question he was asked on cross-examination was, why were you so-and-so in his house with the two men immediately after the robbery which occurred in counts three and four.
If we change the facts just a little tiny bit and say that counts three and four were there and there was no such question.
Are we to say that because it is a similar crime which I'm not agreeing to but if we say that it's because it's a similar crime the man can be cross-examined as to each one of the elements of the crime.
And I don't think he can because how can he reasonably be expected to know to explain and defend themselves to these elements which are beyond his knowledge.
It isn't that really the thing that we're saying that that the quick-witted or the dull-witted should be made equal that when they're asked the question about where they were at particular time that both can say that we aren't going to answer or rather than try the quick-witted will be able to make something up and the dull-witted will not.
I think that's the real substance of the Griffin rule and if that is the case, then what I'm saying is that on each count in an indictment or complaint.
The man should be able not to say anything which is beyond his knowledge on those matters and no inference can be drawn from the fact that he remains silent.
He just doesn't know; what were you doing on November 10, 1964?
How can he defend something like that?
Maybe it is something usually peculiarly within his knowledge but I think that in this day and age everybody realizes that unless something unusual happens, he is not going to remember what happened on that particular day.
But that of course if everybody realizes that then the jury can be assumed to realize that too?
Then, we get into this idea of whether the instruction focuses attention onto the fact that he didn't remain — that he remained silent and didn't explain something.
And this is where the problem comes in just like in Griffin you're focusing attention to something that you're attempting to protect.
Because he had this — he has a lawyer and if the lawyer is representing him he can make all this.
What you're making clear to us; he can make clear to the jury.
It's a matter of just the factual realities of life.
Well, it's just the same factual realities of life.
When any instruction is given to the jury, they are supposed to be able to understand the instructions but how about the cases let's say when you give — when you have A and B on trial and you have A's confession and then don't apply it to B.
Now, this Court held recently that you can't desegregate these people that closely.
In the federal system, we don't really have the problem that we have that's before us here.
Now, this is probably a unique problem or to California and maybe a few other states in the —
Byron R. White:
I gather in count one concerned the robbery in January 3 at the white club, count two were robbery on January 15, (Inaudible) and three and four, robbery that's still third and fourth places in January 13, is that right?
No, there is just one place on counts three and four.
One man was bartender and —
Had he took the stand and testified on defense on the accusation of robberies on January 3rd and January 15th, is that right?
He had it now —
(Inaudible)
He had alibis for those episodes.
Well, why didn't you say that those convictions are pleaded by the count of three and four?
Well, I don't think we can be reasonably certain that that after the jury went in to the jury room.
They took all of this evidence and were able to piss it out.
Now, this is what I'm saying.
If we could find but I don't think we can in this case.
Does this touch on harmless error problem?
From the Chapman on the harmless error?
Yes, on the harmless error.
Was there a harmless error finding here at all?
In the Supreme Court?
I believe they did find it that it was harmful.
They what?
I think they did find that it was harmless.
My difficulty is and these are concurrent sentences.
If you already said we can't get to the convictions on one or two unless we find that this comment on as to three and four somehow infected convictions on robberies with so in different days and I take involved entirely separate facts and you suggest that the defense was alibi as those two?
What I'm saying is that I think that when this inference came in as to three and four they were attempting to segregate to three and four but they couldn't do it with the scope of the trial and the type of evidence have came in and these other matters that happened.
This witness who I say identified the defense attorney was a witness in count one or either one of two and she says, that's the man who did it and here's the defense attorney saying there.
They did take off the man's shoes in the trial, it was rather strange trial to note.
The defendant did testify himself to counts one and two, didn't he?
Yes, that alibi and then he had two, I believe he had his brother or his brother and mother or brother-in-law and his mother who testified as to where they were.
So, I suppose that his evidence whatever he testified to or didn't testify to it to counts one and two could've been come on his own.
Yes, definitely.
And the problem there is what sort of —
But you're saying that comment on his failure to talk about three and four obtained in his convictions on one and two?
They were narrowing in on his failure to be cross-examined on three and four.
There was no question on that.
The next case, it comes up with probably be a case where they have no comment on three and four but they try to say that he failed to explain something back in one and two.
And here again, we have the same problem because we're citing in the jury into the privilege.
William J. Brennan, Jr.:
Well, you do agree don't you that we have to get to counts one and two before you can get any relief at all on any of these counts?
No, you could reverse as to three and four without reversing as to one and two.
But, we don't know what there concurring sentence si moot?
Nice question whether it is even though a case of controversy, isn't it?
I'm sorry I just can't answer that.
But you're familiar with the ordinary rule that we don't —
We'll view this rather concurrent sentence and it's conceded at least that two of the convictions must stand and we don't reach the —
Well, I haven't conceded them.
I'm —
I know you haven't.
You said they were tainted and I'm trying to find out what exactly in what respect you say that the convictions by the jury on one and two for those separate crimes were tainted by the comment of the prosecutor on his failure to testify as to three or four and that's what I —
Well, because on three and four now you're also bringing in the idea that by finding him guilty of three and four if they're saying that it's a similar type of crime.
Yes, but you have to say don't you that they convicted him on one and two in part because they felt that he was not to be believed in his defense on one and two if he didn't take the stand as to three and four.
That's really what you're saying.
We can't say how much they just count in two.
Maybe it was just right there on the border line and they just sheltered over because of these inferences.
That's what basically what I'm saying and that it would be fair to send it back for retrial in severed counts but that's what we have to do.
In the federal system when there is a joinder of counts and there is prejudice which is possible to the defendant, they sever as a matter of right if this is brought out prior to trial.
In California of course, we don't have that because they have this comment.
So, based on that, we are requesting a dismissible, we're requesting also a reversal — we're also requesting a broad rule in respect to when a person does take the stand what does he waive his right to the all of the counts charge or his right to be collateral offenses charge or to both.
Mr. Haws.
Edsel W. Haws:
Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Court.
We have the California comment rule here again to day but under much different circumstances and presented in Griffin and in the Chapman case.
In Griffin, as you recall the defendant did not testify and it was there held that that part of the comment rule of California which permitted comment by the prosecutor and a standard instruction by the Court cut down and violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Now, today, we have the other side of the coin as it were of our comment rule.
Our California Constitution permits comment in those situations as here where he does take the stand and fails to explain evidence — fails to explain or deny evidence within his knowledge.
Now, it is respondent's position that the privilege does not apply and the California comment rule is valid here in this situation where he does take the stand but fails to explain or deny facts within his knowledge.
We think this conclusion follows from the proposition and the many cases that by taking the stand voluntarily as here he waives his right — he waives his privilege against self-incrimination.
The waiver of course under the holding below is not unlimited.
The waiver in this case and in the many federal cases is cited in our brief is determined by the scope of relevant cross-examination.
The landmark case of course cited in our brief is Caminetti that has been followed in such leading cases as Johnson versus the United States which is held the waiver the privilege is not limited by the fact that the defendant's answer might tend to establish guilt of a collateral offense for which he could still be prosecuted.
Now, this to me seems important does this waiver of the privilege concept conflict in anyway with our comment rule.
In other words, to those rules hit head on and I don't think they do when we consider the history and the privilege underlying the privilege.
That was detailed precisely in the Court's Griffin case.
The Court pointed out the two main reasons policy considerations underlying the rule and the first is that not all people have the ability.
However, innocent to withstand the perils of the witness stand.
And of course in that situation, the Court noted that comment cuts down on that right.
Now, it's really apparent that that's not the situation here.
The petitioner while represented by the counsel, the public defender's office of Sacramento County voluntarily took the stand.
Now, they must have waive the possibilities of relying upon the presumption of innocence or the advantages of putting forth their versions of the fact and of course after weighing that decision was made to take the stand.
Another reason given in Griffin is that some defendants, in fact many defendants will not take the stand, not that they can explain the present charge against them but due to the fear of impeachment by prior convictions.
That reason has no validity here because the petitioner did have prior convictions; they were alleged in the accusatory pleading.
May I ask you Mr. Haws?
I don't find in your brief that you make any argument based on concurrence?
No sir, I don't.
Don't you think there are any — do you have any replacements?
Well, Your Honor I thought about that — I gave that considerable thought and of course we would take that argument if we had to but we thought that this case was so clear that there might be some —
Well, you wanted us really to decide the waiver question?
We thought that the principles of waiver were so clear that we would hit —
No, it's not really presented by the case provided (Inaudible)
Well, as I say that to your statement is entirely in my favor and it would perhaps I have to take that but we had considered briefing but we didn't —
Here was just decided constitutional question, you migth use that of rule, do you?
Well, Your Honor that —
Do you think in that?
Yes, that was waived but on the fear of not taking the stand because of prior convictions that has no validity here because two prior convictions were charged against this petitioner.
He admitted them and one was used for impeachment when he did take the stand.
So, that fear could not have the third — the defendant from taking the stand.
Now, California in this case and in the companion case of People versus Ing on the waiver principle followed the rule that has been followed in the federal courts.
That is that the waiver extends to permissible or relevant cross-examination.
And the court below reason in this case as it did in the companion case of Ing that counts three and four showed a plan, scheme in modus operandi and in view of the general denial as to counts one and two and when you have a general denial cross-examination is extremely wide and goes to his motive, his scheme, his plan that those counts three and four were within the scope of permissible cross-examination.
Now, we counsel mentioned that the error of the trial court in over in sustaining the objection to cross-examination and it seems to conclude that some prejudice resulted to the petitioner by that ruling, we contend that that error of the trial court was an error in favor of the defendant.
The Johnson case of course points out that where the privilege is claimed when a witness takes his stand if the privilege is claimed.
And then, and granted as in the Johnson case and then there is comment; of course that's not playing the game quite fairly and there would be prejudice but that was certainly not the situation here.
Well, what would happen if there was an objection to the cross-examination about counts three and four?
That is right.
And the objection that was sustained?
And so, there was no testimony about three and four for him?
That is true, Your Honor.
But there was comment?
And then the California Supreme Court said, "No, the law in California that there was no privilege as to counts three and four."
And so, he should've testified?
Should've been allowed to be cross-examined.
And should've been force to testify?
I don't think they said that Your Honor.
Well, what if he has no privilege and he's asked the question on cross-examination and on privilege question and he refuses to answer, what happens?
Well, of course I would — the general — I understand —
You didn't instruct him to answer, don't you?
That point Your Honor —
Well, what do you think the defendant would've done if he had found out and he had mistakenly claimed his privilege and it has been mistakenly upheld, do you think he'd rather had comment or would he rather testify?
Well, I don't know Your Honor.
But here, there was no claim of privilege.
There wasn't?
No, he —
Well, what was the objection based on?
Beyond the scope of direct examination.
So, you see there and you don't —
I know but he's claiming that privilege.
He's claiming the privilege now.
Well, now but you see the prejudice would have to relate to the factual situation Your Honor occurring then as in Johnson the witness or I think it was the defendant did claim a privilege which the trial judge granted.
All right, do you think the Supreme Court of California also said that this was unprivileged?
They didn't discuss that.
They said, this isn't beyond the scope of cross-examination.
That's right and since it is —
Do you think they also rule that was unprivileged?
Well, I think that that would follow.
Didn't they have to?
They had to in order to permit the comment?
I think it would follow that if it's within the scope the privilege is waived therefore, he should've answered it.
But here, under the factual situation I would say that the error of the trial court benefited the defendant because he did not have to attempt to explain what happened to the —
Mr. Haws, are you familiar with this Court's decision in Raley versus Ohio?
I don't recall on that.
A situation and which the witness was told that he could avail himself of the privilege and he did and then he was prosecuted for contempt in the Supreme Court of Ohio so he should've been told that he could avail himself to the privilege because it was an immunity statute.
Therefore, he had to testify and this Court held that the states can't do that with witnesses like plain denial of due process.
Now, how do you distinguish this here as I understand it what happened was — it was an objection and it was sustained on the ground that it was not relevant cross-examination and then the Supreme Court says, "Oh, yes!
The trial judge applied the wrong rule of law" but that's what this petitioner acted on, wasn't it?
Well, Your Honor his direct examination was in on counts one and two.
Certainly, he had made no claim privilege and he was —
Well, he couldn't obviously.
Then, when he was asked a question as to counts three and four the objection was on not that you're going in —
So, the point here is that the objection was made whatever the ground of the objection was.
The objection was made not that you're requiring him to incriminate himself on a matter not charged but you're going into matters —
Beyond the direct testimony?
But unless you utilize the concurring sentence rule Mr. Justice Brennan was asking you about it.
It seems to me that Raley against Ohio and Murphy against Waterfront and cases like that really are very relevant.
Well, —
Because I'm not so sure of what — did not know that he was suppose to testify that he would rather testify than have to comment.
Well, of course —
Because the Supreme Court certainly upheld the comment.
Our California Supreme Court?
Well, yes upon this ground that was within the scope of relevant cross-examination.
Of course at the time of the trial Justice White, Griffin had been decided at that time.
So the standard instruction and the comment was proper under California law at that time.
What — the way I view the cross-examination is that since the defendant was not required to answer question which undoubtedly would've been incriminating it was to his benefit.
Well, anyway that he did has a choice in the sense that he knew there was going to be comment he didn't testify?
Was that the California law then?
In any event whether he took the stand or not the comment would've been permissible at the time of the trial.
Mr. Haws, I'm having a little trouble in finding — satisfying myself what happened here in the California Appellate Court.
I'm looking at page 11 of the appendix where there appears what purports to be an opinion of the District Court of Appeals the Fifth Appellate District which, if you must go on page 22 includes by saying the judgment is affirmed as to count one and two of the information and reversed as to counts three and four.
And there then follows beginning on page 23 what appears to be the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of California which ends up on page 29.
The judgment is affirmed and does that mean that the judgment of the District Court of Appeal affirming as to counts one and two reversing as to counts three and four is affirmed.
No, Your Honor.
That's what it seems to say.
No, Your Honor, that language relates to the judgment of the trial court affirming —
Well, that wasn't the judgment was it that the Supreme Court of California was reviewing.
It was reviewing the judgment of the District Court of Appeals?
No, Your Honor, when our California Supreme Court grants a hearing it is reviewing the conviction of judgment.
The case is set aside of the third District Court of Appeal.
Now, just on that I might —
So, as the case stands before the Court today, all counts of the conviction have been affirmed.
So, that instead of the judgment is affirmed which submits judgment of the conviction at all four counts charged?
That would've been a full explanation, yes Your Honor.
Now, to just on that one point I noticed that in the dissenting opinion by Justice Peters he and the concurring he would've agreed with the Fifth District Court of Appeals.
Now, counsel has made some mention about some prejudice because of California's joinder provisions and just generally the joinder provisions provides that offenses connected together in their commission or offenses of the same class such as here robbery against the single defendant maybe joined.
And of course that was done in this case and there are some implications in petitioner's brief that this provision somehow cuts down on the privilege and I don't think the factual situation here —
Do I need a Gettysburg's opinion directly in reading it to say in effect that all of the evidence on counts three and four as a matter of California law were admissible on the charges under counts one and two as part of the modus operandi?
So that it was all — if they've never been at counts three and four, isn't never been that evidence nevertheless would've been admissible in the trial on counts one and two.
That is true Your Honor —
And that's what he said and that's (Voice Overlap).
And the same comment would've been justified if he didn't —
That is true.
That's my point on the severance would not have injury of the defendant here and what I mean by that is this, just the example if you tried him first on count one, evidence of the other three counts would've come in as collateral offenses to prove plan scheme and so forth.
If he took the stand this to count one, then it would've been the permissible of scope a cross-examination his privilege would've been waived and that and even carrying further on the second trial assuming for trial — on the second trial.
Then I would assume that if his answer on cross-examination had been incriminating that could've been used against him in the second trial as a judicial admission.
So and one more point on the joinder provision and in cutting down on the privilege.
You see this — it's not unlimited for example if this man had been charged with a robbery that had no evidentiary connection with another robbery.
Obviously, it would've been beyond the scope of cross-examination.
There could've been no cross-examination and of course no comment by the prosecutor the privilege would've applied.
Because there would have been no waiver with respect?
That is right Your Honor.
So, it's —
Abe Fortas:
Well, I suppose that here in your theory that there was a waiver as to counts three and four where prosecutor could've said, "All right, I'll now examine him as I examine the petitioner as my own witness."
He couldn't — you can't do that Your Honor under —
Well, I can't think of the California cases but that has been attempted in California and of course that violation —
Well, I see in your theory is that as I understand it that there was a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination as to counts three and four as well as to counts one and two, is that right?
That's right, Your Honor.
Well, the Court excluded cross-examination as to counts three and four on the evidentiary basis that that cross-examination would be beyond the scope of the direct, that's right isn't it?
Now, does it follow that the prosecutor — the privilege having been waived could have made the petitioner his own witness and proceeded to examine him with respect to counts three and four?
I don't think that would follow Justice Fortas.
And I don't understand because it seems to me that's necessary logic of your position, it's a necessary consequence of saying that testimony as to counts one and two resulted in a waiver of the privilege as to counts three and four.
I don't think so Your Honor because of this; his examination of this defendant of course is within the bounds of the relevant cross-examination.
Of the relevant direct examination.
Excuse me, direct examination.
But why, why couldn't he — if the privilege is waive, why couldn't he call petitioner as his own witness, why couldn't the prosecutor call petitioner as his own witness, does it call John Jones on your theory that the privilege was waived?
Well, I think that calling as his own witness with no doubt open up a broader field than what he had to work with and what he could work with under relevant cross-examination.
Well, then don't you have to say that privilege was not waived as to counts three and four?
So if the privilege was waived as to counts three and four, the prosecutor presumably could put petitioner on the stand, petitioner being by hypothesis in possession of relevant information.
And he could then examine it on direct as his own witness as the state's own witness privileges were waived.
Well, I would say that the waiver extended to counts three and four because that would be permissible cross-examination and he can do that because the privilege is waived.
Now, I — the procedure, I can't carry it on to where he would have a situation.
I think it would have the situation where the prosecutor would then be calling the defendant on the stand that I just thought —
That's right and if the privilege has been waived why can't he?
That privilege has been waived but it occurs to me other things might come into involvement there in it.
It seems to be some what perhaps too coercive for a prosecutor to call the defendant.
I know but that's a valued judgment if you think that's too coercive whether that's a little inconsistent with your position.
Well, that's not my judgment that was the judgment of the California Supreme Court on this —
But the problem here is whether offhand it seems that the trial court took position and maybe somewhat inconsistent if or let me put it this way; that if the prosecutor had said, "Privilege has now been waived, defendant testified as to counts one and two.
Privilege has been waived as to counts three and four.
I will now make the defendant my own witness and I will direct some questions to him."
I failed unless you — some rule in California which I'm unaware, I don't why that isn't the necessary logical result of a waiver of the privilege if you're right that the privilege was waived as to counts three and four?
Well, all I could to answer your question, all I could say that the privilege extends to counts three and four under the theory that that is proper cross-examination.
Now, I suppose it logically if everything else were excluded you would have no a different situation if you wanted to call that cross-examination direct examination.
No, but the court didn't allow to examine as to counts three and four to cross-examine as to counts three and four —
That's true.
That was outside of the scope of the direct.
And of course that was — our California Supreme Court said that was error.
He should've allowed that cross-examination.
On the grounds that there was a waiver of the privilege?
No, there's a waiver of the privilege Your Honor because it's within the scope of cross-examination.
It was proper cross-examination because it showed his plan.
A general denial you see brings in the collateral matters.
Yes and I see what you mean but I still I suggest to you that if it is your contention that the privilege was waived, that would open up the defendant to being called as — by the state if the state want to do it and examine it with respect to the entire scope of counts three and four.
Your Honor I would think that if logically if you can insulate it to this cross-examination waiver problem, it will logically follow perhaps but as I mentioned so many other aspects of calling the defendant would —
I understand that but I mean to say we have to look at this thing as a matter of principle, not to look at the parameter of the problem as well as its immediate focus and I suggest to you that what you're telling us is that may result in the logical conclusion that if a defendant take stand as to any counts as a waiver as to all counts and the net result of that is that the prosecutor if he sees fit, and examine the witness as his — and examine the defendant as his own witness with respect to those other counts.
Your Honor, that has not been the history of the situation in the federal practice.
This principle of waiver as to the extent of permissible cross-examination Caminetti, I think was decided in 1917 and no one is contended that under the Caminetti principles are I know of no federal prosecutor thus contended that by virtue of his waiver he can then put them on the stand.
One final word, assuming a Griffin error I would ask you to consider that this is a situation where Chapman could apply.
The comment here was not extensive as in Chapman; considered in the light of the situation that he did take the stand and the jury could draw their own conclusions without a situation in Griffin without being aided by the prosecutor in the Court.
I think it points to the conclusion that the error of any was harmless beyond to reasonable doubt and we would submit that California decision should be affirmed.
May I ask you Mr. Haws, supposing the Court had not found that these were similar offenses and therefore that he could be cross-examined on that scope but have put it on the grounds of pure waiver, could this be sustained?
Well, some of the earlier federal cases seem to indicate that the waiver of the privilege was not bounded by the scope of cross-examination.
Caminetti indicates that some of the later cases in the federal courts Johnson and the Brown case and so forth would indicate that it is tightened that the waiver the privilege extends only to the scope of relevant cross-examination.
If those cases were followed then of course and it was not connected crime then, Griffin would be violated.
So, they had a broader scope of cross-examination for a defendant than for a witness — ordinary witness?
I would say that it would be perhaps broader for the ordinary witness because since he is not charged.
And suppose the witness — suppose then a witness in this trial had testified as to count one only but you have cross-examined him as to two, three and four?
An uncharged witness?
No, no Your Honor, I don't think so.
Well, that I would be — there is a difference scope then according to our theory as between the witness and a defendant.
Well, that is true.
And it's broader for the defendant?
Well, what I meant was that the non-charged witness his privilege or he can be questioned about many things in a much broader area because he is not charged and I think that the privileges would work differently between the non-charged witness and the charged witness that in your — if I made myself clear.
My time is up Your Honor.
But I don't see how that follows if you say that if he testifies concerning one count, he cannot be cross-examined as to the other counts.
Your Honor, I think it's the theory; the non-charged witness is not being — you're not proving anything against him but as with the defendant here, you're proving a defense against him and when he makes a general denial he has an effect denied the collateral offense of count three and four.
He didn't make a general denial on the witness stand as two, three and four?
Just one and two?
That is true but because of that general denial under the rules of evidence, he makes a general denial also of counts three and four and therefore, within the scope of cross-examination.
Then you would say that even if three and four were not similar offenses under the similar offense rule in California that they could still cross-examine him if he testified concerning one and two?
No, I'm sorry Your Honor.
I mean that California Court didn't hold that and as my illustration was if he had no evidentiary connection between a robbery you couldn't cross-examine in order he would not have waived his privilege, that's the holding below.
Can you tell us in just a moment what to make these similar offenses?
Counsel — the counsel said that in his opinion they were not that's the only reason I asked you.
Well, I have a chart here and just running across they were similar because of clothing, because at all counts they searched other areas looking for other things such as the radio in count two, credit cards in count one, and in counts three and four they also search to other areas they were in all of the offenses; they were some type or use some type of mask but I think most significant of all is that you had the admitted robber David Perez unrelated to this provision.
You had him as a confessed robber in count two and counts three and four and the evidence showed that he and that was used in the Haston case as a significant similar mark where the admitted robber is present at the uncharged and charged crime as showing plan scheme.
Mr. Fetros, did you have some time left?
I think, yes you have some time left.
I just want to make one very brief comment and that's the use of the term "cross-examination" by the California Supreme Court.
It's not being used I don't think in the same sense that we're thinking of it.
There's direct examination and then there's cross it's on the direct but they're saying is that there's a further area which makes the defendant the prosecutor's witness and this is the whole area that this thing opens up if we allow this type of theory to stand then in effect on a charged crime the District Attorney can ask any question he wants concerning a charged crime which is similar in modus operandi.
He can say, "Where were you, what were you doing?"
you know, "How can you explain this?"
Go through the whole thing as if he is in the civil case he was calling the guys an adverse witness.
The Supreme Court of California used the term "cross-examination" is proper but it's a little bit different that we normally think of.
The man is on the stand at that time and you're asking him these questions that in effect they're making him — the District Attorney is making him as his witness to prove elements of the crime.
And if this thing is allowed to stand, they're saying that the District Attorney can elicit from the defendant as to counts three and four all of the necessary elements by asking questions which they say are cross-examination which I say is really just direct examination.
They don't have any relationship to the questions which were asked on — by the defense attorney at all.
It could be anything because that's what they're saying.
Very well.
Lear, Inc. v. Adkins
Usner v. Luckenbach Overseas Corporation
Arizona v. California – Oral Argument – January 11, 1962 (Part 2)


Hermine is dumping TONS of rain on us this week.
This post is mostly just for our family memories. Most of you have no idea what my neighborhood looks like, so you don't understand the flooding, but it is crazy!
This is an area of our neighborhood that we were just walking through on Saturday mornings during our family walk. It is all underwater right now. I am in shock!
This is a photo of the fire station. The school is to the right, I cut it out of the picture..duh! I was under pressure taking quick photos. People probably thought I was Nuts! But it is all under water...wild.
OH my! That is a ton of water. Please be careful.
when it rains --- it pours!!
We're having flooding here in Austin! Hopefully the rain lets up soon.
haha ours looks the same~!
Crazy! My Hubby's Aunt and Uncle live in Arlington, and his Aunt just posted pics on FB of all of the flooding there.
WOW! I've heard that there has been a lot of rain on the coast...but that's crazy! I hope it dries up soon. It's been rainy here the last day or so, but nothing like that! Praying that the rain goes away!
Could you go outside and blow it over here to AZ?
Girl, I almost floated away on my way to school this morning! I have never seen anything like it!
Girl, it dumped here before it came to you and our places look very similar. I was digging it though cause we have been SO DRY!! We needed it desperately!! Hopefully it will stop soon for you!
Ohh my goodness! We got a bunch of rain like that a few years ago during Tropical Storm Fay...crazy!


text:
"use strict";
var __decorate = (this && this.__decorate) || function (decorators, target, key, desc) {
    var c = arguments.length, r = c < 3 ? target : desc === null ? desc = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(target, key) : desc, d;
    if (typeof Reflect === "object" && typeof Reflect.decorate === "function") r = Reflect.decorate(decorators, target, key, desc);
    else for (var i = decorators.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) if (d = decorators[i]) r = (c < 3 ? d(r) : c > 3 ? d(target, key, r) : d(target, key)) || r;
    return c > 3 && r && Object.defineProperty(target, key, r), r;
};
var __metadata = (this && this.__metadata) || function (k, v) {
    if (typeof Reflect === "object" && typeof Reflect.metadata === "function") return Reflect.metadata(k, v);
};
var core_1 = require('@angular/core');
var NavigationComponent = (function () {
    function NavigationComponent() {
    }
    NavigationComponent = __decorate([
        core_1.Component({
            selector: 'navigation-component',
            template: "\n              \n                Home\n                Detail forecast\n                Forecast in capitals\n              \n            "
        }),
        __metadata('design:paramtypes', [])
    ], NavigationComponent);
    return NavigationComponent;
}());
exports.NavigationComponent = NavigationComponent;
//# sourceMappingURL=navigation.component.js.map

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Join us for the Work Canada Expo on June 21st!
Come to the Work Canada Expo in Auckland at the IEP Office – 220 Queen St. Level 10 on June 21st @ 6:30pm to learn more about working and travelling in Canada! We will review all our Canadian working holiday programs and answer any questions you may have.
Whether you are heading to Canada this year or next year, this event is not to be missed!


There are plenty of people young and old all over the world bringing in money with an internet marketer advertising business. To tell the truth starting an affiliate marketing business of your own is easy to do. Discussing have a take a look at just a few things you will need to do to start your own make money online now.
1. First of all you have to choose a market being in. Today that is certainly called obtaining a topic that you want to become involved in.
Deciding on a niche market to be a first step is mostly a better techniques for have than picking a merchandise to offer since what you are searching for is a niche area that allures a lot of interest and is compelling enough pertaining to money in. Likewise, once you contain chosen a niche many viable items within that specific topic will present themselves to you.
If at all possible, I would definitely pick a niche market that you are an professional in or have the in.
2 . Now you can search for products to sell within that particular industry. Utilizing on the net directories just like or is a fantastic way to find products to offer for industry to you select.
Choose a couple of items that charm to you and determine on only one to showcase. At this point, it would be a good investment to purchase the merchandise so that you can easily test drive it and become an experienced on that.
3. Your next stage is to subscribe to an auto fiar system and publish a number of messages about the merchandise you intend to promote. Check with the confederate credit card merchant whose merchandise you intend to promote and look at the marketing that they give you.
A great way to publish the advertising backup is usually to illustrate the thorough product data through the affiliate marketer product owner and show how it might gain your readers. In the event the affiliate merchant provides canned messages, you can either connect them directly into your auto-responder or spin them to suit the unique marketing campaign requirements. Also if you choose to order the merchandise you may discuss your experiences with it.
4. One of the most good affiliate entrepreneurs will not immediate their particular possible customers right to the professional revenue page. What they do is to point them to a lead capture webpage initially. The advantage of a business lead capture webpage is the fact you can then simply redirect all of the guests in to your auto-responder for a muslim and then simply give these people to your affiliate sales page.
Just remember that few-people buy an item on the earliest browsing. They must come to be heated up to the primary advantages of the product earliest. That is as to why it is significant to encourage them to give your their very own email address; you need to have their particular permission to send them several article content about the merchandise over a period of period. It may have a variety of threads to create a sale, but the fact of the matter is that repeated articles do business lead to larger sales.
your five. You can possibly will need to generate a internet site and post your touchdown pages on it, or perhaps start a blog website and host all of them about that.
six. You will today spend the many the time driving traffic to the lead capture page. Primarily you are heading to want to credit an individual sort of traffic generation. To carry out that you'll be wanting to master a bit regarding many, which include marketing with articles, pay-per-click advertising, blogging, ezine advertising, traffic exchanges, and therefore on.
This will give you a very good system for creating traffic, subscribers for near future follow-up, and ultimately, earnings. This is usually the proper way to begin an internet affiliate marketing organization with regards to long-term accomplishment.


We've released a new song, and we're going on a little tour to celebrate. If you're in Sydney, Melbourne, or Brisbane, you'll have a chance to see us over the next few weeks.
Listen to The Day We Almost Died below.


When I was Attorney General, people would frequently ask me to investigate charities they had reason to believe might be ripping off consumers. While my budget didn't allow me to investigate each case, I could at least tell people to check whether the charity was registered with the Secretary of State as a good indicator of legitimacy. If it was not registered, chances were good it was a fraud!
Until 2013, it was a crime in Arizona for a charity to raise money in our state without first registering with the Secretary of State. But, not anymore!
This registration requirement was designed to prevent scams and provide a paper trail for consumers deciding whether or not to donate to a purported charitable organization. Fraud still existed, but tracking it and being able to hold those committing it accountable was at least possible.
Today, unfortunately, no such information or consumer protection measures exist. Last year, the Legislature stripped the Secretary of State of the authority to make charities register -– a move my opponent supported and the Arizona Nonprofit Alliance opposed. For consumers that repeal meant much greater exposure to fraud and fewer ways to fight it.
Ending the requirement for charities to register with the Secretary of State also created an opening for yet another form of fraud: Dark Money.
Dark Money groups present voters with information – oftentimes distorted or outright false – that neither a candidate, nor a candidate committee is accountable for. To me, that's election fraud.
The unfortunate decision to abolish charity registration is one reason why Arizona has become the Cayman Islands for Dark Money. Charity registration was one of the few abilities we had in Arizona to track down the source of the anonymous corporate cash flooding into our state to influence elections. Other states have used charity regulations to curb dark money. Arizona no longer can.
Allowing dark money groups to hide their donors is a clear violation of the disclosure guidelines laid out in the Citizens United decision, lenient as they may be. Arizona isn't just tolerating Dark Money groups that operate in our state; it's empowering them.
We must stop Dark Money from hijacking our Democracy. My plan to stop Dark Money is on my websiteterrygoddard.com. Bringing back the registration requirement for charities would be a big step in the right direction.
Terry Goddard is the Democrat candidate for Secretary of State.


text:
PC market
Data center growth drives Intel's Q4 revenue
Revenue from the data center business rose 8.4% to $4.67 billion in the fourth quarter, while revenue from its traditional PC business rose 4.3% to $9.13 billion.Reuters | January 27, 2017, 15:02 IST
Intel reported better-than-expected quarterly revenue and profit driven by a stabilizing PC market and growth in its data center business, which offers cloud-based software services.
Revenue from the data center business rose 8.4% to $4.67 billion in the fourth quarter, while revenue from its traditional PC business rose 4.3% to $9.13 billion.
Intel continues to expect a similar growth rate in the cloud segment, but does not expect an improvement in its enterprise unit, the company said on a call with analysts.
The PC unit includes sales of chips for mobile phones and tablets. Worldwide PC shipments - which consist of laptops, desktops and workstations - fell by 1.5% in the fourth quarter, compared with a 3.9% decline in the preceding quarter, according to research firm IDC, continuing the recent trend of stabilizing demand.
"In the data center group, it seems that cloud is still an area of strength, offsetting the weakness in enterprise," Stifel Nicolaus analyst Kevin Cassidy said.
Cassidy added that at some point in the future, the enterprise clients would upgrade their data centers, leading to further growth in the business.
Intel has been building its data center, Internet of Things and automotive businesses, to reduce dependence on the PC market, which has been roiled by users' shift to mobile phones for their computing needs.
The Santa Clara, California-based company's net revenue rose 9.8% to $16.37 billion, beating the average analysts' estimate of $15.75 billion, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.
However, the company said its net income fell to $3.56 billion, or 73 cents per share, for the fourth quarter ended Dec. 31, from $3.61 billion, or 74 cents per share, a year earlier.
The company's revenue forecast for the year 2017 was flat, which according to Cassidy, pleased investors as they would rather have conservative estimates for the year, and then have it go up, rather than give aggressive estimates.
Intel said it expects first-quarter revenue of $14.8 billion, plus or minus $500 million. Analysts on average were expecting $14.53 billion. Shares of the world's largest chipmaker were little changed in extended trading on Thursday.
Up to Thursday's close, Intel's shares had risen 25.5% in the last 12 months, falling short of the 60% rise in the broader semiconductor index.
Intel CEO resigns from Trump's manufacturing council over Charlottesville
Apple to launch watches that can make calls
Samsung ends Intel's 20 year reign in microchips
Intel Q2 revenue up 9%, lifts forecasts as driverless tech, AI add to PC gains
Samsung set to unseat Intel's 20 year reign as king of microchips
Intel chips in with Xeon to take on competitors
Tags : Corporate, Intel, PC market, earnings, Data center, Computer Sales

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Your Cosmic Bowling Experience In Canton!
Super Bowl Cosmic Bowling is your Cosmic Bowling experience in Canton. Black Lights and LOUD heart pounding music. You'll love our Glow Events!
Times may vary due to special events.


text:
Q: Scroll to the end of the background So i have a page with a big background 1920*3500 and i used this :
background-image: url(Images/Background%20work/Background-Liquified-home2.jpg);
    background-size: cover;
    background-repeat: no-repeat;

to make it auto-resize when somebody open it on a monitor with a lower resolution , the thing is that if i dont put an image or a text at the end i cant scroll to there, so i inserted an image to the end of it and it was ok, but when i switched to a monitor with a lower resolution the 1920*1080 the image was out of the background.
So, can i make it scroll just to the end of wallpaper?

A: Use media screen, and put the background-size:auto for lower resolution.
@media (min-width: 1280px) and (max-width: 1979px) { ... }

A: no name
Images/Background%20work/Background-Liquified-home2.jpg
change
this is generated if a space %20
Images/Background/Background-Liquified-home2.jpg
background-image: url(Images/Background/Background-Liquified-home2.jpg);
background-size: 100% 100%;
background-repeat: no-repeat;
background-attachment:fixed;

A: Marco Pellicciotta: If you use a script, you can call the document.body.clientWidth property to get the specific width of the client browser, and dinamically change the background image.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Meet Maoyi Tian, Program Head of Digital Health at The George Institute China.
Improving community health care in China through the study of affordable, sustainable, mobile health (mHealth) interventions.
Established in 2014, the China Center for mHealth Innovation is hosted by The George Institute for Global Health at Peking University Health Science Center and funded by Qualcomm Wireless Reach.


As an entrepreneur, it's often very easy to get so caught up in the day-to-day whirlwind of business that there is little time for reflection. That's why I so enjoyed my recent interview with Chris Beier of Inc. magazine.
The interview offered me a chance to revisit the early days of Edible Arrangements. It was a time when we were experiencing dramatic growth and I, as is not uncommon for anyone trying to build a business, was experiencing self-doubt about whether I was the right person to lead the company forward at such an important time.


On 6th June 1944 there took place the greatest seaborne invasion in the history of mankind. The Allies, who had been planning and preparing for that day for over four years, launched a massive assault on the northern shore of France. It was on a scale which is never likely to be repeated, for the development of weapons of mass destruction has made it unlikely that such a large, vulnerable concentration of force would ever be assembled again. In a war which saw one massive military action after another – the blitzkrieg, the German invasion of Russia, Stalingrad, the Italian campaign – D Day stands supreme. It has been celebrated as a triumph of planning, of international co-operation, of combined operations, of political foresight. In this maelstrom of analysis, self-congratulation, and euphoria one fact seems to have been glossed over. It was made possible by the ordinary man. Much of this book consists of the recollections of these unassuming men. They found themselves on that day and the succeeding days in extraordinary situations, performing deeds of which they did not even know they were capable, and which in retrospect seem so fantastic as to be scarcely believable. For the facts of D Day are that it was such an enormous and unique occasion that even though a man had been a soldier, sailor or airman most of his adult life and had exercised his skills in similar though lesser events, the assault was on such a scale that it made everyone a novice, whether general or private, whether pilot flying high over the battlefield or private crawling over it and digging in.


EC Works supports the talent needs of employers, and maximizes and aligns investments in the career goals of individuals to fuel a thriving economy.
· We embrace equity and inclusion.
· We are experts in workforce development and rigorous stewards of public funds.
· We are collaborative neutral conveners.
· We inspire a call to action.
· We are innovative problem-solvers.
Bringing together business, labor, education and economic development to focus on workforce issues and promote strategic alignment.
Developing, disseminating and assisting with the analysis of current labor market and economic information and trends in industry sectors.
Bringing together community stakeholders to solve common problems; aligning systems and strategies; forging new relationships between business and education.
Articulating the issues for the needs of a skilled workforce. Demonstrating and speaking to the effectiveness of training programs.
Enhancing the region's ability to meet the workforce needs of local employers through the utilization of federal and state funds.
EC Works is an equal opportunity employer/program. Auxiliary aids and services, and alternate formats are available to individuals with limited English proficiency free of cost upon request. Support for workforce services in the East Cascades area are primarily funded through the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the U.S. Department of Labor and Oregon's Higher Education Coordinating Commission.
We envision an East Cascades region with thriving communities where residents have access to education and training which leads to living-wage jobs, and businesses find the qualified talent they need to succeed.
Copyright 2013. East Cascades Workforce Board. All Rights Reserved.


These low-top leather trainers by The Kooples are modern and comfortable. Complete with thick soles, these trainers can be worn as part of a casual mid-season outfit. The palm-tree print down the sides gives them a summery California-style touch. Made from high-quality leather, their low-top shape provides stylish versatility. Wear these white shoes for men with a pair of rolled-up chinos and a shirt from our new collection for a truly contemporary casual-chic look.


Many people have expressed their appreciation with how problems are handled in a timely friendly manner. The Live Chat and also the GM's who help with the tickets go out of their way to help fix issues, and answer questions, and help players.
Well, I'm not satisfied. And I'm not the kind of guy who bashes on maplestory without a reason.
Ever since Shade came out, I have not been able to make any new ghost character. Between the Beast Tamer and Shade release, they ended up changing the character name filter to not allow "ghost". I've sent in a ticket, I've talked to GMs, I've reached out to the MLC about this, but nothing is being done about it for the past year. It's frustrating since even a mediocre programmer could fix this issue. It's not that's something difficult to accomplish, it's that there's someone at the company that's saying no to fix this. I know customer support doesn't make all the decisions, but I wonder if they're actually passing down what the players want in individual tickets like these. I just hate how such a simple and consequence-free request is that means a lot to the player is being denied for whatever reason. Customer support may not be the one to blame, but my rage is blinding me to a point where I can't be satisfied with any part of Nexon.
P.S. To provide more insight, ever since I start playing maple almost 9 years ago, I have always made a character with it suffix as "ghost", and I have made a lot of characters since I began. For Nexon to filter the name out makes me feel like I've been banned to make any new characters. And in a way I'm letting that happen by refusing to make anymore new characters until this is fixed. So this isn't just a "it would be nice if Nexon did this" request to me, it's something that means a lot for me. I would love to make a Shade and a Kinesis this winter (not to forget all the NX I would spend should I be able to make those characters).
For those who have previously exchanged maplestory Leaves for 10th Anniversary Coins, we will be providing compensation next week on May 20.


1. Insert coin, press "Start?button.
2. Push "Right?and "Left?button tocontrol the pinball to get score.
3. The more score players get, themore ticket he will gets.
4. When the pinball drop down, gameover.
1. Hit the bar to get mission, you will get 50000 score after complete all the missions.
2. Complete 3 missions will get 1 pc pinball and related scores.
3. Complete 12 missions will get 4 pcs pinball and related scores.
When typhoon running, hit the treasure box within 10 seconds and you will get 20000 scores.
When shark go out, hunting it and will gets 30000 scores.
Enter into deep dockyard, your current scores will increase to double, as 10000 to 20000.
Address:Zhangban Village, Yingbin Road, Shiqiao, Panyu, Guangzhou, China.
Copyright (C) 2009 Guangzhou Unique Top Electronic Co., Ltd. All rights reserved.


text:
Biography Iziane Castro
Iziane Castro
by Vineet 22 Nov,2019
Body Stats
Weight 140 lb (64 kg)
Famous Name
Birth Name Iziane "Izi" Castro Marques
Birth Place São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil
Famous Name Iziane Castro
Birth Date March 13, 1982
Net Worth $800 thousand
Salary $145,000
Nationality Brazilian
Ethnicity African American
Profession Coach
Started career as Basketball Player
Iziane "Izi" Castro Marques is a former guard and small power guard who has been the part of many WNBA teams like Miami Sol, Phoenix Mercury, Seattle Storm, Atlanta Dream, Washington Mystics and the Connecticut Sun. She is the Brazilian basketball player who was retired in 2017 and now is serving as a technical director in Sampaio Basquete of the Brazilian Women's Basketball League.
Born on March 13, 1982, in São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil, she completed her High School from Universidade Ceuma, Brazil. She has represented Brazil 6 different in Olympics games.
How much does she earn annually?
Iziane Castro has an estimated net worth of $800 thousand. She has been the player of many WNBA teams and currently serves as a technical director for Sampaio Basquete of the Brazilian Women's Basketball League where she is earning around $45,000 a year.
Iziane Castro SOURCE: Facebook @iziane Castro
The 6-foot tall former point guard has earned good fortune and fame from WNBA. While she signed a contract with Atlanta Dream in 2008 along with LaToya Thomas and Ivory Latta, she earned around $95,000. In 2012 when she signed an agreement with Washington Mystic she pocketed $71,400 and Mystic had also signed Katie Smith, Noelle Quinn in the same year.
The Brazilian player is in a relationship for a long time but his boyfriend's name and details are not revealed by Castro yet. She often shares her picture with her boyfriend on facebook and recently they often are seen going for the vacations.
Iziane Castro kissing her Boyfriend SOURCE: Iziane Castro Facebook Post
Its seems world-famous former WNBA player wants to keep her personal details secret but it is confirmed that her current boyfriend is the same one who was the reason for Castro banned from the 2008 Olympic. He reportedly was with Castro in the hotel room before the game.
Brazilian Star Cut off 2 times from Olympics
The Brazilian basketball player Castro was removed from the Brazil Olympic team in 2008 because she refused to play overtime in a game during a pre-Olympic qualifying tournament.
The reputed point guard and a small guard was also banned from the 2012 Olympic while She was found for violating the rules of Olympic. She was found with her boyfriend in her hotel room during the tournament due to which she got banned from the whole tournament.
Career Overview
Castro was leading league scorer in Paulista League of Brazil for BCN Osasco in 2001 and after the tournament, she was immediately picked up by Miami Sol and in the same year, she became the second-youngest player in the WNBA whereas Lauren Jackson was the best youngest player. After that, Castro has been part of many recognized WNBA teams.
She has also been the part of many overseas leagues such as Spain, Russia, Poland, France, and Turkey. She has also played in 2006 FIBA World Championship for Women, 2011 Pan American Games where she won a Bronze medal and in 2016 she was the team captain of Brazil in the Summer Olympics, it was the last season of Castro.
WNBA Summer Olympics Small Forward And Power Forward Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) Iziane Castro
Playerswiki
Home Profile News MMA NBA
Privacy Policy Advertise with us About Us Terms of Use


text:
// Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
// found in the LICENSE file.

#include "ash/display/mouse_cursor_event_filter.h"

#include "ash/shell.h"
#include "ash/test/ash_test_base.h"
#include "ash/test/cursor_manager_test_api.h"
#include "ash/display/display_layout_store.h"
#include "ash/display/display_manager.h"
#include "ui/aura/env.h"
#include "ui/aura/window_event_dispatcher.h"
#include "ui/gfx/display.h"
#include "ui/gfx/screen.h"

namespace ash {

class MouseCursorEventFilterTest : public test::AshTestBase {
 public:
  MouseCursorEventFilterTest() {}
  ~MouseCursorEventFilterTest() override {}

 protected:
  MouseCursorEventFilter* event_filter() {
    return Shell::GetInstance()->mouse_cursor_filter();
  }

  bool WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(aura::Window* target_root,
                                  gfx::Point point_in_screen) {
    bool is_warped = event_filter()->WarpMouseCursorIfNecessaryForTest(
        target_root, point_in_screen);
    event_filter()->reset_was_mouse_warped_for_test();
    return is_warped;
  }

  bool WarpMouseCursorIfNecessaryWithDragRoot(
      aura::Window* drag_source_root,
      aura::Window* target_root,
      gfx::Point point_in_screen) {
    gfx::Point location = drag_source_root->bounds().CenterPoint();
    ui::MouseEvent pressed(ui::ET_MOUSE_PRESSED, location,
                           location, 0, 0);
    ui::Event::DispatcherApi(&pressed).set_target(drag_source_root);
    event_filter()->OnMouseEvent(&pressed);
    bool is_warped = event_filter()->WarpMouseCursorIfNecessaryForTest(
        target_root, point_in_screen);
    event_filter()->reset_was_mouse_warped_for_test();

    ui::MouseEvent released(ui::ET_MOUSE_RELEASED, location,
                            location, 0, 0);
    ui::Event::DispatcherApi(&released).set_target(drag_source_root);
    event_filter()->OnMouseEvent(&released);
    return is_warped;
  }

 private:
  MouseCursorEventFilter* event_filter_;

  DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(MouseCursorEventFilterTest);
};

// Verifies if the mouse pointer correctly moves to another display when there
// are two displays.
TEST_F(MouseCursorEventFilterTest, WarpMouse) {
  if (!SupportsMultipleDisplays())
    return;

  UpdateDisplay("500x500,500x500");

  ASSERT_EQ(
      DisplayLayout::RIGHT,
      Shell::GetInstance()->display_manager()->layout_store()->
          default_display_layout().position);

  aura::Window::Windows root_windows = Shell::GetAllRootWindows();
  EXPECT_FALSE(WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[0], gfx::Point(11, 11)));
  EXPECT_FALSE(WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[1], gfx::Point(11, 11)));

  // Touch the right edge of the primary root window. Pointer should warp.
  EXPECT_TRUE(WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[0], gfx::Point(499, 11)));
  EXPECT_EQ("501,11",  // by 2px.
            aura::Env::GetInstance()->last_mouse_location().ToString());

  // Touch the left edge of the secondary root window. Pointer should warp.
  EXPECT_TRUE(WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[1], gfx::Point(500, 11)));
  EXPECT_EQ("498,11",  // by 2px.
            aura::Env::GetInstance()->last_mouse_location().ToString());

  // Touch the left edge of the primary root window.
  EXPECT_FALSE(WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[0], gfx::Point(0, 11)));
  // Touch the top edge of the primary root window.
  EXPECT_FALSE(WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[0], gfx::Point(11, 0)));
  // Touch the bottom edge of the primary root window.
  EXPECT_FALSE(WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[0],
                                          gfx::Point(11, 499)));
  // Touch the right edge of the secondary root window.
  EXPECT_FALSE(WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[1],
                                          gfx::Point(999, 11)));
  // Touch the top edge of the secondary root window.
  EXPECT_FALSE(WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[1], gfx::Point(11, 0)));
  // Touch the bottom edge of the secondary root window.
  EXPECT_FALSE(WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[1],
                                          gfx::Point(11, 499)));
}

// Verifies if the mouse pointer correctly moves to another display even when
// two displays are not the same size.
TEST_F(MouseCursorEventFilterTest, WarpMouseDifferentSizeDisplays) {
  if (!SupportsMultipleDisplays())
    return;

  UpdateDisplay("500x500,600x600");  // the second one is larger.

  ASSERT_EQ(
      DisplayLayout::RIGHT,
      Shell::GetInstance()->display_manager()->
          GetCurrentDisplayLayout().position);

  aura::Window::Windows root_windows = Shell::GetAllRootWindows();
  aura::Env::GetInstance()->set_last_mouse_location(gfx::Point(623, 123));

  // Touch the left edge of the secondary root window. Pointer should NOT warp
  // because 1px left of (0, 500) is outside the primary root window.
  EXPECT_FALSE(WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[1], gfx::Point(0, 500)));
  EXPECT_EQ("623,123",  // by 2px.
            aura::Env::GetInstance()->last_mouse_location().ToString());

  // Touch the left edge of the secondary root window. Pointer should warp
  // because 1px left of (0, 480) is inside the primary root window.
  EXPECT_TRUE(
      WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[1], gfx::Point(500, 480)));
  EXPECT_EQ("498,480",  // by 2px.
            aura::Env::GetInstance()->last_mouse_location().ToString());
}

// Verifies if the mouse pointer correctly moves between displays with
// different scale factors. In native coords mode, there is no
// difference between drag and move.
TEST_F(MouseCursorEventFilterTest, WarpMouseDifferentScaleDisplaysInNative) {
  if (!SupportsMultipleDisplays())
    return;

  UpdateDisplay("500x500,600x600*2");

  ASSERT_EQ(DisplayLayout::RIGHT,
            Shell::GetInstance()
                ->display_manager()
                ->GetCurrentDisplayLayout()
                .position);

  aura::Window::Windows root_windows = Shell::GetAllRootWindows();
  aura::Env::GetInstance()->set_last_mouse_location(gfx::Point(900, 123));

  EXPECT_TRUE(event_filter()->WarpMouseCursorIfNecessaryForTest(
      root_windows[0], gfx::Point(499, 123)));
  EXPECT_EQ("500,123",
            aura::Env::GetInstance()->last_mouse_location().ToString());

  event_filter()->reset_was_mouse_warped_for_test();

  // Touch the edge of 2nd display again and make sure it warps to
  // 1st dislay.
  EXPECT_TRUE(event_filter()->WarpMouseCursorIfNecessaryForTest(
      root_windows[1], gfx::Point(500, 123)));
  EXPECT_EQ("498,123",
            aura::Env::GetInstance()->last_mouse_location().ToString());
}

// Verifies if MouseCursorEventFilter::set_mouse_warp_mode() works as expected.
TEST_F(MouseCursorEventFilterTest, SetMouseWarpModeFlag) {
  if (!SupportsMultipleDisplays())
    return;

  UpdateDisplay("500x500,500x500");

  aura::Window::Windows root_windows = Shell::GetAllRootWindows();
  aura::Env::GetInstance()->set_last_mouse_location(gfx::Point(1, 1));

  event_filter()->set_mouse_warp_mode(MouseCursorEventFilter::WARP_NONE);
  EXPECT_FALSE(WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[0],
                                          gfx::Point(499, 11)));
  EXPECT_EQ("1,1",
            aura::Env::GetInstance()->last_mouse_location().ToString());

  event_filter()->set_mouse_warp_mode(MouseCursorEventFilter::WARP_ALWAYS);
  EXPECT_TRUE(WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[0], gfx::Point(499, 11)));
  EXPECT_EQ("501,11",
            aura::Env::GetInstance()->last_mouse_location().ToString());
}

// Verifies if MouseCursorEventFilter's bounds calculation works correctly.
TEST_F(MouseCursorEventFilterTest, IndicatorBoundsTestOnRight) {
  if (!SupportsMultipleDisplays())
    return;

  UpdateDisplay("360x360,700x700");
  aura::Window::Windows root_windows = Shell::GetAllRootWindows();

  DisplayManager* display_manager = Shell::GetInstance()->display_manager();
  DisplayLayout layout(DisplayLayout::RIGHT, 0);
  display_manager->SetLayoutForCurrentDisplays(layout);
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[0] /* primary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("359,16 1x344", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("360,0 1x360", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[1] /* secondary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("360,16 1x344", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("359,0 1x360", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());

  // Move 2nd display downwards a bit.
  layout.offset = 5;
  display_manager->SetLayoutForCurrentDisplays(layout);
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[0] /* primary */);
  // This is same as before because the 2nd display's y is above
  // the indicator's x.
  EXPECT_EQ("359,16 1x344", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("360,5 1x355", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[1] /* secondary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("360,21 1x339", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("359,5 1x355", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());

  // Move it down further so that the shared edge is shorter than
  // minimum hole size (160).
  layout.offset = 200;
  display_manager->SetLayoutForCurrentDisplays(layout);
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[0] /* primary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("359,200 1x160", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("360,200 1x160", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[1] /* secondary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("360,200 1x160", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("359,200 1x160", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());

  // Now move 2nd display upwards
  layout.offset = -5;
  display_manager->SetLayoutForCurrentDisplays(layout);
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[0] /* primary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("359,16 1x344", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("360,0 1x360", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[1] /* secondary */);
  // 16 px are reserved on 2nd display from top, so y must be
  // (16 - 5) = 11
  EXPECT_EQ("360,11 1x349", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("359,0 1x360", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());

  event_filter()->HideSharedEdgeIndicator();
}

TEST_F(MouseCursorEventFilterTest, IndicatorBoundsTestOnLeft) {
  if (!SupportsMultipleDisplays())
    return;

  UpdateDisplay("360x360,700x700");
  aura::Window::Windows root_windows = Shell::GetAllRootWindows();

  DisplayManager* display_manager = Shell::GetInstance()->display_manager();
  DisplayLayout layout(DisplayLayout::LEFT, 0);
  display_manager->SetLayoutForCurrentDisplays(layout);
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[0] /* primary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("0,16 1x344", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("-1,0 1x360", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[1] /* secondary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("-1,16 1x344", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("0,0 1x360", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());

  layout.offset = 250;
  display_manager->SetLayoutForCurrentDisplays(layout);
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[0] /* primary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("0,250 1x110", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("-1,250 1x110", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[1] /* secondary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("-1,250 1x110", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("0,250 1x110", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  event_filter()->HideSharedEdgeIndicator();
}

TEST_F(MouseCursorEventFilterTest, IndicatorBoundsTestOnTopBottom) {
  if (!SupportsMultipleDisplays())
    return;

  UpdateDisplay("360x360,700x700");
  aura::Window::Windows root_windows = Shell::GetAllRootWindows();

  DisplayManager* display_manager = Shell::GetInstance()->display_manager();
  DisplayLayout layout(DisplayLayout::TOP, 0);
  display_manager->SetLayoutForCurrentDisplays(layout);
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[0] /* primary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("0,0 360x1", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("0,-1 360x1", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[1] /* secondary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("0,-1 360x1", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("0,0 360x1", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());

  layout.offset = 250;
  display_manager->SetLayoutForCurrentDisplays(layout);
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[0] /* primary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("250,0 110x1", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("250,-1 110x1", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[1] /* secondary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("250,-1 110x1", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("250,0 110x1", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());

  layout.position = DisplayLayout::BOTTOM;
  layout.offset = 0;
  display_manager->SetLayoutForCurrentDisplays(layout);
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[0] /* primary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("0,359 360x1", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("0,360 360x1", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  event_filter()->ShowSharedEdgeIndicator(root_windows[1] /* secondary */);
  EXPECT_EQ("0,360 360x1", event_filter()->src_indicator_bounds_.ToString());
  EXPECT_EQ("0,359 360x1", event_filter()->dst_indicator_bounds_.ToString());

  event_filter()->HideSharedEdgeIndicator();
}

// Verifies cursor's device scale factor is updated when a cursor has moved
// across root windows with different device scale factors
// (http://crbug.com/154183).
TEST_F(MouseCursorEventFilterTest, CursorDeviceScaleFactor) {
  if (!SupportsMultipleDisplays())
    return;

  UpdateDisplay("400x400,800x800*2");
  DisplayManager* display_manager = Shell::GetInstance()->display_manager();
  display_manager->SetLayoutForCurrentDisplays(
      DisplayLayout(DisplayLayout::RIGHT, 0));
  aura::Window::Windows root_windows = Shell::GetAllRootWindows();
  ASSERT_EQ(2U, root_windows.size());
  test::CursorManagerTestApi cursor_test_api(
      Shell::GetInstance()->cursor_manager());

  EXPECT_EQ(1.0f, cursor_test_api.GetCurrentCursor().device_scale_factor());
  WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[0], gfx::Point(399, 200));
  EXPECT_EQ(2.0f, cursor_test_api.GetCurrentCursor().device_scale_factor());
  WarpMouseCursorIfNecessary(root_windows[1], gfx::Point(400, 200));
  EXPECT_EQ(1.0f, cursor_test_api.GetCurrentCursor().device_scale_factor());
}

}  // namespace ash


text:
Australian minerals
Minerals Tertiary Education Council
Friends of Australian Mining Network
MCA Victoria
MCA NT
Community and social development
Workforce, innovation and skills
Submission to Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on proposed Pacific Alliance free trade agreement
Minerals Council of Australia
The Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) supports the negotiation of a high-quality free trade agreement (FTA) between Australia and the Pacific Alliance group of countries comprising Mexico, Chile, Peru and Colombia.
There are significant opportunities for greater trade, investment and economic engagement between the mining industries of Australia and the Pacific Alliance countries. Australia has a world-class mining and mining equipment, technology and services (METS) sector. Resources exports made up more than half of Australia's total exports of goods and services in 2017. Exports of mining services and mining-related equipment and technology are a growing opportunity for Australia. Countries developing their own mining sectors, such as the Pacific Alliance nations, are key markets for METS exports. Australian mining businesses are also major outward investors in minerals exploration and development in countries with significant minerals and energy resources and are active in all of the Pacific Alliance countries.
An FTA with the Pacific Alliance has the potential to advance the economic relationship between Australia and these Latin American countries. It can help realise future opportunities by building on Australia's existing bilateral FTAs with Chile and Peru, complementing the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP-11), which includes Mexico, Chile and Peru, and extending Australia's network of trade agreements to Colombia.
Mining is an area where an FTA with the Pacific Alliance can add value to Australia's existing trade agreements with these countries. This can be achieved both by seeking additional liberalising commitments in goods and services market access and investment disciplines, and by exploring opportunities to promote commercial linkages between Australia's mining sector and the mining sectors of the Pacific Alliance countries. Accordingly, the MCA supports the Australian Government addressing mining industry issues in the goods, services and investment provisions of the proposed FTA and by seeking to negotiate a separate chapter or annex to the agreement devoted to mining and mining services.
This submission outlines the Australian mining industry's broad interests in trade and investment negotiations and makes suggestions for issues which could be considered in a mining annex to the Pacific Alliance FTA.
Read the full submission here: MCA Pacific Alliance FTA submission.pdf
Darwin Mining Club Luncheon
Darwin Mining Club Charity Golf Day
Australian Mining Industry Annual Lecture 201...
Victorian Mine Rescue Competition 2019
57th Australian Export Awards National Ceremo...
Sign up for news, policies, updates and new publications.
info@minerals.org.au
GPO Box 510, Darwin NT 0801
info.nt@minerals.org.au
Level 8, 10-16 Queen St, Melbourne VIC 3000
info.vic@minerals.org.au
Workforce, education and skills
peter.fraser@minerals.org.au
© Minerals Council of Australia|Sitemap
Designed by 372 Digital


text:
Q: Getting Hash and Storing in Variable I'm trying to take the hashed value from an object. What I'm basically doing is this:
target = $('a[href^="#products"]');
targetHashed = target.hash;
$targetHashed = $(targetHashed);
console.log(targetHashed);

I'm putting the reference in "target", then getting the hashing and everything following it with ".hash" then converting the variable that contains the hashed value "targetHashed" to an object so I can do things like getting the offset, etc. Problem is that "targetHashed" is outputting undefined whenever I try to append .hash to it. Anyone know where I'm going wrong?

A: If you want to get the value of the href attribute of the selected elements you need to use attr so your second line would look something like.
targetHashed = target.attr('href');

But that only selects the first element, if you want to use all of them then you'll need to loop through that array.


In recent days, we have seen students and community members responding to, and talking about, the terrible act of violence that took place at a Parkland, Florida high school. For those who work and attend school in classroom environments every day – or send their students to school every day – we may find that events like the tragedy in Parkland feel close to home and raise intense emotions.
This weekend we talked with a student who reported overhearing two other students talking about general school attacks in ways that were perceived to be threatening to the Bend Senior High School learning environment. Bend Police Department and school administrators spent countless hours throughout the weekend attempting to follow up on this lead. The students who were said to have made these remarks were not identified and the single witness statement did not yield a viable lead. We will continue to investigate any new information that becomes available.
I share this with you tonight so that you are aware that we will have an increased police presence at Bend Senior High School tomorrow, which is the date that the reporting student said the two youth were allegedly discussing violence could take place at our school.
We and our partners at Bend Police Department have invested many resources into looking into this tip – all hours that we give willingly and with passion as we want to do everything we can to keep our students and schools safe.
That said, we have an opportunity for a 'teachable moment' where we can talk to our students about tone that is appropriate to use when having conversations with others about the tragedies that we are too frequently seeing on our mobile devices, on social media and on television.
This single incident is not indicative of the Bend Senior High School culture or students. We, and our law enforcement partners, believe that our school will be safe for all students tomorrow. Patrols and police presence will be increased in an abundance of caution. Additionally, we understand that in informing our community of this threat we run the risk of other students copying this behavior. However, we felt it was important to communicate with our parents about this situation tonight.
Thank you for your support of our Lava Bear community.


While people normally have a number of self esteem problems that are associated with having misaligned permanent teeth, standard metallic braces for your teeth often form the same sorts of worries. While they're only there for that relatively small amount of time, lots of dental care recipients are hesitant to hold out any amount of time for the apparatuses to be taken out. Fortunately, Colorado Clear Braces help lessen those types of common fears. The time period devoted to remedies using undetectable braces is similar to that surrounding the more common alternatives, yet rather than being forced to return to the actual dental specialist's clinic intended for continuous tightening as well as resetting, this unique modern technique is supplied in a number of straightening devices. They are swapped out around just about every single 14 days to produce a gradual straightening impact. The change is actually hardly apparent as it takes place, and the braces tend to be nearly imperceptible. This means peers generally have no idea when it comes to their presence except if the client tells them. They may also be taken off the teeth for having to eat and brushing and flossing the teeth, which is certainly a feature their brethren cannot boast. On www.coloradoclearbraces.com, you will discover more detailed information regarding the length of time these types of clear dental braces can be put aside on a daily basis. They could be especially removed to clean too. Basic tooth paste mustn't be applied to the braces since it is made up of rough materials which may harm your newer braces. ColoradoClearBraces.com offers more points about the structure of the aligners and also the accompanying solution that should be used to take care of them. Whilst the public mainly is convinced this treatment is way more expensive, the cost is normally in the identical price associated with traditional braces. Your length of therapies is additionally along the same lines compared to that relating to the other option, which is around 1 to 2 years in many instances. This may not be the right selection for anyone seeing that certain straightening issues will not be remedied with this technique, nevertheless it's great for countless patients. They're not restricted by age, either. Both teens and adults can benefit from clear braces along with their restorative rewards. The best way to determine whether it's the best plan in your case or your child is always to talk to an orthodontic professional. You can also visit http://www.coloradoclearbraces.com to learn more.
Next Next post: Can Probiotics Deliver the Results?


text:
Special Lecture March 17–"Kingdom of Shadows: The Birth of the Cinematic Vampire"
Grad Life, Upcoming Events March 11, 2014 Andre Dubois
Dr. Stacey Abbott returns to her alma mater for a special lecture, March 17th at De Sève.
The following is a summary of her illustrated lecture: "One of the most pervasive figures to haunt Gothic cinema is the vampire, appearing (and disappearing) on cinema screens in Méliès' The Haunted Castle (1896), one year before the publication of Bram Stoker's Dracula. Through a selection of film images from Nosferatu to Byzantium, Stacey Abbott will examine this uncanny synergy between monster and medium, defined by a shared liminality, co-existing on the boundaries between the physical and spectral, living and dead."
'A rare Film Studies homecoming:
One of our most successful Specialization in Film Studies graduates in the days before we initiated our M.A. programme, Stacey Abbott (BFA 1991), will be giving a presentation based on her lecture at the British Film Institute's National Film Theatre last year, "Kingdom of Shadows: The Birth of the Cinematic Vampire":
Dr Abbott's presentation will be given in the De Sève Cinema (LB-125) at 6:00pm on Monday, March 17. She is a Professor—Reader in Film and Television Studies—at the University of Roehampton, England. She is the Series editor for the "Investigating Cult TV" book series at I.B. Tauris and is the Vice-President of the Whedon Studies Association. She received her M.A. in Film Studies and Film Archiving from the University of East Anglia, and her PhD from Birkbeck College, University of London. She is a seminal scholar of contemporary vampire films, and her publications include three authored books, Celluloid Vampires (2007), "Angel": TV Milestone (2009), and TV Horror: Investigating the Dark Side of the Small Screen (2013), cowritten with Lorna Jowett.
All are invited to celebrate Stacey's return. Her presentation will precede Donato Totaro's regular class, and at its conclusion (at 7:15pm, approximately), there will be a break in the proceedings so that all non-members of the FMST 200 course may leave the room.'
alumniLecturestacey abbottvampires
Previous PostA look back at the 2nd CSGSCS ColloquiumNext PostLeçon de Cinéma avec Paule Baillargeon


Swedish fashion retailer Lindex is breaking new ground when it comes to embracing bloggers. The company has already created an affiliate programme for fashion bloggers and makes it easy for bloggers to link to individual garments via a "blog this" button (see below) which gives bloggers a code to copy a photo into their own blogs.
Today Lindex became the first e-commerce site to partner with Twingly, the Swedish-based company who's service shows which blogs that link to a specific page. In other words, not only does Lindex use blogs to drive traffic to their web shop but they are also able to send traffic back to bloggers by showing links to their blog posts, which in turn will encourage more fashion bloggers to link to lindex.se. This is a great way of building value for both the bloggers and the company, and hopefully also to other visitors to the site that are able to get more information and viewpoints on different clothes they might consider buying.
Tags: lindex, fashion, mode, twingly, modebloggar, lindex. Ping.