text:
Belgian King tours DRC on the backdrop of 'colonial wounds'
Belgian King Philippe and his wife, Queen Mathilde, arrived in the DRC's capital, Kinshasa, on Tuesday afternoon for a visit that is of historical importance but also intended to ease some tension in relations between between the two countries.
The royal couple were welcomed at Ndjili International Airport by President Félix Tshisekedi and First Lady Denise Nyakeru, along with several other senior officials of the country.
The trip eventually matured after several shifts. The visit is at the invitation of the Congolese President, according to the Presidency in Kinshasa.
King Philippe's trip to the Democratic Republic of the Congo is also considered historic. Philippe, who has ruled Belgium since 2013, has never visited the Congo, Belgium's former colony and perhaps the most significant territory the European country controlled in Africa.
Philippe was born in April 1960, just two months earlier Belgium granted independence to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, then known as the Belgian Congo.
The era of colonialism by the Belgians has been documented with brutality, including mass killings and massive looting of the country's resources and cultural artifacts. Some commentators and even Congolese politicians have called for a formal apology in the past. Other colonial rulers, such as the UK, have expressed "regret" over the past decade at the brutality inflicted on Kenya's freedom fighters Mau Mau, for example, including a reparation package. The Germans also offered a range of social rehabilitation programs in Namibia for abuses committed against the local Herero.
Despite the dark colonial past, however, the Belgian monarch traveled to Kinshasa to herald a new era Relations between his country and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, acknowledging for the first time in history the "wounds" his country inflicted on the Congo during colonization.
In June 2020, the Belgian king had on Félix Tshisekedi wrote: "I would like to express my deepest regret for these wounds of the past, the pain of which is being revived today by the discrimination that still exists in our societies."
On the occasion of his visit to the Democratic Republic of the Congo said the Belgian monarch is expected to deal with repairing the "wounds of the past". His official program includes a speech at the People's Palace, the seat of Parliament, on Wednesday. On Friday, King Philippe will deliver another speech to Congolese officials and students at the University of Lubumbashi in southern DRC.
The monarch will complete his stay in the DRC with a visit to the Institute of Tropical quit farming, and the Panzi General Hospital, where Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Denis Mukwege treats women, mainly victims of sexual abuse, in Bukavu, South Kivu (eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo).
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Christophe Lutundula said that Belgium has already 250 million euros (267.8 million US dollars) provided to support the DRC in various sectors from next year to 2027.
"This amount will go to health, agriculture, rural development, institutional support, infrastructure, strengthening Women, energy production, among others," Mr. Lutundula said Tuesday before the trip.
Previous EALA is not an employment bureau for electoral rejects and political job seekers
Next Ishimwe reflects on society and disability in debut show


Cornish Mini Club Riviera Run understands that your privacy is important to you and that you care about how your personal data is used. We respect and value the privacy of everyone who visits this website and will only collect and use personal data in ways that are described here, and in a way that is consistent with our obligations and your rights under the law.
Our Site is owned and operated by the Cornish Mini Club.
Supplying you with information by email that you have opted-in to (you may unsubscribe or opt-out at any time by emailing cmcrivierarun@gmail.com.


text:
Search for Event by:
Dates: From: Select M/d/yyyy To: Select M/d/yyyy « Change Dates »
Category: Any Category Community Continuing Education
Month: Any Month 2022 - January 2022 - February 2022 - March 2022 - April 2022 - May 2022 - June 2022 - July 2022 - August 2022 - September 2022 - October 2022 - November 2022 - December 2023 - January 2023 - February 2023 - March 2023 - April 2023 - May 2023 - June
Results Found: 29 View Full Calendar
Monday Aug 31, 2020
Categories: Community
Wednesday Sep 2, 2020
Spectrum Health Community Blood Drive
Friday Sep 4, 2020
Saturday Sep 5, 2020
Monday Sep 7, 2020
Saturday Sep 12, 2020
Monday Sep 14, 2020
Tuesday Sep 15, 2020
Saturday Oct 3, 2020
Monday Oct 5, 2020
Wednesday Oct 7, 2020
Now I Know My CBD's
Thursday Oct 8, 2020
CBD, Education, Seminar, Pain, Inflammation, Anxiety, Sleep, Disease. ... read more
Categories: Community, Continuing Education
Monday Oct 12, 2020

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Get all 237 Glitch Hop Community releases available on Bandcamp and save 85%.
Includes unlimited streaming via the free Bandcamp app, plus high-quality downloads of Mitsuki - Faker EP, SGV - Revenant, Iii - Turn The Lights On EP, Mr. Ours & AK Sediki - Lazy Sunday Remixes EP, Ben Fox & Bright Idea - Ignition, Particle Farm - Iridium, N3t1x - Rolling Tumbleweed, Ninjula - Underground Swing Hustle, and 229 more. , and , .


text:
Billion-Dollar Blowout: The Numbers Are in for Bloomberg's Campaign Flush, I Mean Spending
By Alex Parker | 6:15 PM on April 21, 2020
(AP Photo/ Cheryl Senter)
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg takes questions after speaking at a Moms Demand Action gun safety rally at City Hall in Nashua, N.H. Saturday, Oct. 13, 2018. (AP Photo/ Cheryl Senter)
It seems a high price to pay, but maybe when you're worth $54.8 billion, there's no such thing.
According to a report by Politico, former presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg dropped a cool 1 billion on his campaign, only to call it quits after 104 days.
On November 24th, 2019, Michael dropped the bomb: He's running for the highest office in the land.
It turned out to be a bomb in more ways than one, so he put away the notion on March 4th.
As noted by The Daily Wire, Bloomberg's final campaign finance disclosure forms were filed Monday, giving us a view into how much a campaign can cost — and a losing one, at that.
Not that he was tight with this spending — the guy seems like a "do it right or not at all" type.
But money, as it turns out, wasn't enough to do it right.
As per documents submitted to the Federal Election Commission, in March alone — again, a month in which he dropped out on the fourth day — Michael blew through $176 million.
As pointed out by Politico, comparatively, Biden might as well be Shoeless Joe:
Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has not yet filed his campaign finance report covering March, but through the end of April the former vice president spent just under $76 million on his campaign.
But let's not forget: That's still millions and millions by a guy who — with complete respect — has no chance of winning due to an obvious medical issue. As correctly conveyed by fantastic podcaster Joe Rogan, "Trump is going to eat him alive. He's going to eat that guy alive."
Chomp.
Back to Bloomberg, here's a bit more of a breakdown:
For his 55-delegate, 104-day run, the businessman forked over $1,221,777,405.26.
TDW observes that's $11,747,859.66 per day and $22,214,134.64 per delegate.
And despite the carloads of cash, he purportedly left employees shortchanged.
More from Politico:
Bloomberg's campaign paid out $23.3 million in salary, fringe benefits and payroll taxes and fees in March alone, according to the campaign finance filing. However, the billionaire also left many former staffers furious by cutting them loose last month. Bloomberg's campaign enticed Democratic operatives across the country with promises of a paying job through the November election, regardless of whether he ultimately won the nomination or not.
But Bloomberg reneged on that promise, scrapping plans to form his own super PAC and eventually transferring $18 million to the Democratic National Committee instead to bolster the party committee's field program. Staffers who wanted to work at the DNC had to reapply for jobs, with some staffers getting paid through the first week in April and getting full benefits through the end of the month, according to a release at the time.
In March, thanks to the alleged shady move, a group of laid-off staffers filed suit against the former NYC mayor for fraud, claiming they'd been promised employment 'til just near the year's end.
I suppose when you're that rich, no lawsuit's gonna rattle you. But if you can flush over a billion down your (solid gold?) toilet, why not just pay the people through November?
Michael's billion-dollar blowout reminds us of a few things: Pursuing the political Gold Ring is a phenomenally expensive endeavor, but money can't buy you everything. Donald Trump surely spent like Midas on his 2016 victory, but it was his persona that snagged him the White House. The guy got people fired up, and they showed it at the polls.
If Bloomberg had wanted to excite people, he might've done better to have just mailed all that cash straight to the citizenry.
138 million voted in 2016. 1,221,777,405.26 divided by 138,000,000 = a little over $8. Actually, nevermind — by November, that may only buy a single sheet of toilet paper. Maybe he could've sent the eight bucks in singles — at least then, it's 8 DIY sheets.
Sounds like that's how he uses 'em, too.
See 3 more pieces from me:
The NFL Drops New Guidelines for Thursday's Draft, and They Aren't Colin Kaepernick-Friendly
Do You Know Homeschooling Supports Racism, Sexism, and Child Abuse? Co-Sponsor of Harvard's Homeschooling Summit Does
A Hoarder Tried to Return 4,800 Rolls of Toilet Paper, the Supermarket Director Gave Him the Finger
Find all my RedState work here.
And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.
Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.
Tags: FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION MICHAEL BLOOMBERG POLITICO THE DAILY WIRE


Namesilo proclaims itself to be one of the top domain registrars in the world, being in possession of over 2 million active domains.
The site also offers an interesting range of management tools and claims that it delivers outstanding deals on pricing.
But after conducting my Namesilo review, does it prove worthy of its domain dominance?
Namesilo brands itself as a cheaper alternative to some of the more established domain registry sites. There is a bit of a bargain basement feel to the Namesilo website, but this is clearly deliberate.
Branding is extremely important for businesses, and there is nothing wrong with the approach that Namesilo has taken. However, they're working on their front end - a new website is in beta version and looks more professional and polished.
More important from a user perspective is being able to access the key information required, and Namesilo makes this pretty straightforward. The search facility on the site is easily accessible from the front page, while fees and information related to TLDs are also easily accessible.
All in all, Namesilo delivers on the main features that you want from a domain registrar.
Pricing on Namesilo is exceptionally reasonable - I don't think there is a cheaper solution available, to be honest.
I have also tried entering an array of different website names into the search facility and found that all of them offer plenty of cheap options. It is simply not possible to fault Namesilo in this area.
Namesilo also fully supports domain transfers, and again, they come at a great price - .com transfers are $8.39.
If you purchase a transfer, they also offer an excellent deal of adding a free year to the time remaining on your existing registration. The site also includes a list of FAQs which help you to complete the domain transfer process satisfactorily.
Furthermore, Namesilo offers free WHOIS Privacy Protection for all domain holders without limitation. This helps keep your personal details private, and makes the process of registering your website considerably more secure.
Namesilo reviews have focused on the trustworthiness of this provider, and I certainly found that it values transparency.
One important thing to note is that they are an ICANN accredited registrar, and this is outlined explicitly on the site.
Namesilo supports domain catching but only through their API. However, the majority of conceivable TLDs are offered, along with a simply vast number of other possible web extensions.
I found the Namesilo domain checker to be straightforward to use, powerful in terms of the results that it delivers, and transparent in terms of the display of these results on its website.
There aren't too many bases that this site hasn't covered, and Namesilo does an excellent job with everything that it addresses.
Namesilo is undoubtedly one of the top domain registrars on the market, just as it promises to be. The website works extremely well and all of the options that you would expect from a domain registrar are present. Their pricing structure is also extremely competitive.
Another thing that I liked is that Namesilo obviously respects the privacy and security of its users, complying with all important legislation and outlining this on its website.
Do you agree with my Namesilo review? Feel free to let me know in the comments below.
They are a selective scammer. They can flag any accounts they like while near the payout days and then deadlocked you funds into their pocket. If your account is topped up by more than one PayPal accounts, you will probably been flagged. This will give them a very good excuse to scam you. They won't follow up your case and also will not refund them to your PayPal. Unless you file a claim, otherwise they will do nothing to rip off your money.
Paul, i disagree. I am a paying customer of Namesilo and I find their interface and console are NOT user-friendly. Knowledgebase and help files are mostly useless. Takes hours to figure out how to do something unless you're a pro.
The most frustrating part is they provide EMAIL SUPPORT ONLY as are NEVER ONLINE FOR CHAT – even in the middle of the day. No phone support whatsoever either. Even in a crunch when begging for help in email. Takes way to long to get responses.
I think others should go find another company who cares about their customers!


text:
Bhimbetka - The Unusual Rock Shelters
Madhya Pradesh has a rich history which dates back to the pre-historic era. In the lap of lush green forest covers, at the southern edge of the Vindhya Hills, there lies a shelter of close to 500 pre-historic rock caves called the Bhimbetka Rock Shelter. Discovered in 1957, these paintings were mainly created by ancient man, as a means to communicate with each other and have served as a record of their lives for generations to come.
The name 'Bhimbetka' is derived from the historic tale of Mahabharata. Legends have it that Bhim, one of the Pandavas sat ('baitha' in Hindi) in this place during their exile, and thus, the place got its name 'Bhimbetka', the sitting place of Bhim.
An excavation by Dr. Vishnu Wakankar in 1957-58 brought him to this historic masterpiece. In an accidental trip to the sanctuary of Ratapani, he came across these caves, and hence, Bhimbetka was discovered. Dr. Wakankar compared these caves to those he saw in Spain and France.
These caves are an invaluable chronicle of history. Made in different periods of history, some paintings are around 30,000 years old. The paintings are an insight into the first traces of pre-historic mankind like lifestyle, festivals, hunting and agriculture. Out of the many, however only 12 caves are open for public viewing, and have been a topic of interest for several archaeologists since its discovery.
Declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 2003, it is home to more than 500 caves and rock shelters, all of them adorned with paintings.
The use of natural colors has ensured that the paintings have endured better over time.
Once in Bhimbetka, the rich verdant and scenic beauty around the area will leave you spellbound.
This is a must-visit town near Bhimbetka. Major attractions in Hoshangabad include the Salkanpur temple Bijasan Mata which is at a distance of 35 km from the city. It is a sacred shrine with more than 1000 steps. Another site worth visiting is The Hoshang Shah Fort. It is an ancient fort, built by the Malwa ruler Hoshang Shah, adjacent to the river Narmada.
The temple of Bhojpur is an ancient Hindu temple in the village of Bhojpur, near Bhimbetka. The temple is dedicated to Lord Shiva and houses a 7.5 feet high lingam in its sanctorum. It is believed that the construction of the temple started in the 11th century during the reign of King Bhoja, but the structure and its construction was forsaken for reasons still unknown.
By Air: The nearest airport is Raja Bhoj Airport, Bhopal, which is approximately 45kms away. One can hire taxis from there to Bhimbetka.
By Rail: The nearest railhead is Bhopal Jn., at a distance of approximately 37kms from Bhimbetka.
By Road: Bhimbetka is connected to all the nearest towns and cities like Bhopal, Hoshangabad etc. by accessible roads and taxis are readily available.


The Sounders FC will start their journey for a fourth consecutive US Open Cup on Wednesday at Starfire.
The Sounders have not been strangers to establishing new standards since joining Major League Soccer in 2009.
They have already been the first expansion side to reach the playoffs in each of their first three seasons. They smashed league attendance records in each of those seasons, too.
In 2010, they were the first MLS club to repeat as US Open Cup champions, then last year they became just the fourth club in history to win the title three years in a row.
This year, they look to become the first to win four successive titles and they start their journey toward that goal on Wednesday when they meet the Atlanta Silverbacks at 7 p.m.
The Sounders have had different heroes on each of their runs through the tournament, with Kasey Keller, Nate Jaqua and Fredy Montero each getting Player of the Tournament honors along the way.
The squad rotation utilized by Schmid as the Sounders balance the Open Cup schedule with their MLS calendar and, in the last two years, the CONCACAF Champions League has allowed the club to succeed across the three competitions.
This year, Schmid will be faced with another conundrum altogether. With injuries leaving the back line thin, he has much fewer options than he has in past seasons. And with the Sounders just completing a stretch in the schedule that saw them play eight matches in 29 days, fatigue throughout the lineup is also a factor.
In previous years, the Sounders have also had a good mixture of MLS veterans and young players that gelled well in the tournament. With a new blend of players, though, the mentality hasn't changed, as players are still vying for playing time in the regular season.
Some who may see playing time include rookies Andy Rose and Andrew Duran, MLS newcomers Christian Sivebæk and Cordell Cato and MLS veterans new to the Sounders like Andrew Weber.
Combined with the mix of players who returned from last year's team, the group is aware of the club's history in the tournament and the value placed on winning it.
"Coming in and knowing the legacy of Seattle and the Open Cup, it's our duty to keep it going," said newcomer Alex Caskey, who played last year with the Charleston Battery in the USL.
A win on Wednesday would set up a fourth-round meeting with the winner of the match between the Portland Timbers and USASA club Cal FC. If the Timbers win, the match will be at Jeld-Wen Field in Portland, which would mark the third time in four years that Seattle will have traveled to Portland in the Open Cup. If Cal FC can pull off the upset, Seattle would host the match at Starfire next week.
Both would provide unique challenges, but challenges the Sounders have conquered along the way in previous years.
The US Open Cup is the longest standing soccer tournament of its kind in America. Started in 1913, the cup has been awarded to teams of various levels in the American soccer pyramid, but has been dominated by MLS sides for the last 12 competitions. The last time a second division club won was when the Rochester Raging Rhinos won the 1999 title and only one other team, the 2008 Charleston Battery, has reached the final.


text:
PARIS RECORD STORE - SINCE1985
M O N S T E R M E L O D I E S
Monster Melodies Records releases the psychedelic rock album "Robert Wood & Woodlands"
Live at Lons Le Saulnier, 1974
An exceptional recording, dating from September 1974, live, with an exceptional sound, featuring a band that has never released an album up to now.
Robert Wood, an English vibraphonist, guitarist and singer, born in Bournemouth in 1949, is a veteran of the jazz scene, free jazz, jazz and experimental rock (among others he has played with Alan Silva, Don Cherry, Gong, Marc Bolan, Sam Gopal, Kent Carter, Bernard Vitet, Lard Free, Christian Vander, Fred Frith, Yannick Top) spending the major part of his career in France. Woodlands, the band accompanying him here, was formed in 1973 with Olivier Didier (ex-Herbe Rouge) on drums and Simon Wheatley on electric bass. Patrick Fontaine (ex-Ame Son and ex-Bananamoon Band) replaced Simon Wheatley a few months later and it is this second line-up we can hear for the first time live thanks to this album. In 1974 Robert Wood & Woodlands played more than forty concerts in France. Magical moments still remembered with emotion forty years later by concert-goers. This is because the group's music is bursting with energy.
Robert Wood, a protean musician strengthened by all his different musical experiences, plays his Deagan Electravibe and Premier Vibraphone in a manner which is both extremely personal and relentlessly perfectionist, producing a unique sound enveloped by the bass and the drums of his two accomplices at the summit of their musicality.
Using a technique which includes as Robert himself explains: "My own choice of mallets, sticks, different types of pieces of wood, finger cymbals, the palms of my hands, the soft tips of my fingers and the harder attack of my finger nails! Each of these different types of attack engendered their own characteristic sound parameters which could naturally be played in a myriad of intermingling sound colours. I have always strived to open the range and flexibility of expression of the vibraphone as an instrument complete in itself and not simply an extension of the percussion family. On the "Robert Wood & Woodlands" album I have kept this method on the Premier Vibraphone and developed it further on the Deagan Electravibe! Adding a JEM Cry Baby Wah Wah from the 60's and a legendary amp, the Mike Matthews Freedom Amp, which Ame Son had kindly lent me. So I could explore all the possibilities of Overdrive, Reverb and the mutational frequencies of the Wah to go even further into my "improvisational madness" as certain people called it.
On my Premier Vibraphone, I struck the key(s) at basically five different positions on each key, with a further four intermediate positions on each key which I would also strike for modelling the inherent harmonics. Applied to the Deagan Electravibe this technique literally exploded the conceived limitations of the vibraphone, and also created new soundscapes for my vocals, shooting us off into a cosmic voyage of time, sound and rhythm...with Patrick Fontaine and Olivier Didier, a permanent source of inspiration and musical happiness!"
(Extracts from an interview by Ron Kane)
A1 Woodlands Walk / Strength 6:21
A2 Pollution Boomerang 5:43
A3 Tombac 7:26
B1 Funny Fair 14:26
B2 Star 5:49
© Monster Melodies 2019 9 rue des Déchargeurs 75001 Paris France +33 1 40 28 09 39


text:
Upper + Lower Lakes Boardwalks
Plitviče Lakes National Park, Croatia
Amber McDaniel
Adventure Guides » Croatia » Ličko-senjska županija » Hiking + Backpacking
148.00 m (485.56 ft)
8.00 km (4.97 mi)
Plitviče (pronounced PLEET-veet-seh) Lakes is the largest and oldest (and most popular, for that matter) of Croatia's eight national parks. This incredibly unique place consists of a limestone canyon carved out by the Korana River, with a network of boardwalk trails meandering up a chain of 16 turquoise-blue terraced lakes joined together with stunning waterfalls. It's no surprise this national park, and, since 1979, UNESCO World Heritage Site, often finds itself on "Must See Places" lists, and now sees upward of 1 million visitors per year.
Park Topography
From the uppermost lake to the lowermost, a distance of about 8 kilometers, the water of the Korana River drops from 636 meters to 594 meters of elevation. Fun fact: Since the basins for the lakes are all made of limestone, same as the cliffs surrounding the park, the constantly flowing water is actually contributing to the continual growth of the basins, meaning it gets a little taller each and every year.
The park is divided into roughly two sections, the 12 Upper Lakes and 4 Lower Lakes, separated by the largest lake over which you can take an electric shuttle boat to get from one section to the other. In general, the Upper Lakes are more condensed and intimate while the lower lakes are more open, with rising cliffs and dark, yawning depths that beg to suck you in from the boardwalks. As tempting as the deep teal waters are on a hot summer day, no swimming is permitted within the park. In general, the best vistas are found in the Lower Lakes section of the park.
However, depending on the season, this section is also subject to flooding and some trails may be closed, though park officials are not strict about enforcing these closures and rather seem to uphold an "enter at your own risk" philosophy. In fact, many of the flooded boardwalks will actually be made passable by park staff through the placement of raised wooden ladders on which to walk. This is typical for spring and periods of high-volume rain, but it's actually a great time to visit those trails if you don't mind wet feet, because most other visitors do!
Entrance Restrictions
Plitviče is open year round and each season has something different to offer. Summer is high season, meaning high traffic. If you want to escape the crowds, go in the off seasons. Winter can be chilly, but the contrast of white snow with the teal water is truly spectacular. As far as scenery is concerned, spring is the least desirable season because the bare deciduous trees are not yet leafed out but are also no longer covered in snow.
Before going in, you'll need to purchase a pass at either of the two entrances. Rates vary by season. For an adult day pass, which includes any shuttle (bus or boat) within the park, costs per season are:
Winter (November-March): 55 kuna ($8)
Spring/Fall (April-June/September/October): 110 Kuna ($16)
Summer (July-August): 180 kuna ($26)
There are two entrances to the park: Entrance 1 is positioned at the north park border, providing closer access to the Lower Lake trails. Entrance 2 is positioned midway down the park close to the Upper Lakes trails.
The Trail System
All in all, there are seven trails (which for some reason skip letters), as outlined by the official park guide, along with their mileage and entrance point.
A (3.5 km, Entrance 1): Travels the full Lower Lakes loop as far as the tip of Kozjak Lake.
B (4.0 km, Entrance 1): Same as Trail A but continues with a ferry ride across Lake Kozjak and a bus shuttle back to Entrance 1.
C (8.0 km, Entrance 1): Travels the full Lower Lakes loop, takes the ferry across Lake Kozjak, makes almost the full Upper Lakes loop (leaving out a small section around Milino Lake that could easily be detoured in) and takes the shuttle back to either Entrance 1 or 2.
E (5.2 km, Entrance 2): Travels the almost the full Upper Lakes loop with a bus shuttle back to Entrance 2.
F (4.7 km, Entrance 2): Begins with a ferry ride across Lake Kozjak for a full Lower Lakes loop hike with a bus shuttle back to Entrance 2.
H (9.0 km, Entrance 2): Travels most of the Upper Lakes loop, takes the ferry across Lake Kozjak, makes the full Upper Lake loop (leaving out a small section around Milino Lake that could easily be detoured in) and takes the shuttle back to either Entrance 1 or 2.
K (18.5 km, Entrance 2): Basically a hike around the full park, heading south along the west shore and moving counterclockwise without the use of any shuttles. Alone, it does miss some cool parts of both Upper and Lower Lakes.
However, many of these trails overlap each other, and the park as a whole is so small (a mere 295 sq km), it's perfectly doable to hit all the best sights in a day if you're super motivated, or a maximum of 2 days to really get the full experience. The best way to see the majority of the park in a single day is by doing a modified version of C and E (making the full loop around Galovak Lake, which each one shortens in opposite ways), ensuring you get the full experience of the area.
If you have time, by the time you reach the top of the Upper Lake trails, a lake called Ciginovak, detour briefly along the K route to get some spectacular vistas of the Upper Lakes from the top of the west canyon walls. If you're following the general C route, you'll know if you have time because all that's left by the Ciginovak Lake is a quick shuttle bus ride back to whatever entrance.
Must See Sights
Vidikovak Sightseeing Point (Lower Lakes): The "postcard viewpoint" of the park with an excellent view of the tiers of the Lower Lakes from the very bottom.
Veliki Slap (Lower Lakes): At 78 meters tall, this is the largest waterfall in the park, and with reddish limestone behind the gushing waters it really is a beautiful sight to behold.
Superla Cave (Lower Lakes): Literally "hollow cave," which is essentially a vertical passage with no floor or ceiling. Descend down the slick limestone steps until the cave spits you out right into a boardwalk practically floating in the middle of a deep turquoise pool.
Sastavci Slap (Lower Lakes): Another beautiful waterfall 26 meters tall at the edge of Novakovica brod.
Galovachi But (Upper Lakes): A wide and sprawling waterfall series pouring into Galovac Lake.
Veliki Prštavac Slap (Upper Lakes): One of the taller falls in the park with water pouring off a lush knoll into Gradinsko Lake.
Park entrance fee
Easy to navigate. Helpful staff. Unique views. Big vistas. Lake views. Unique geology.
Peak season crowds. Seasonal trail flooding.
Flushing toilets
Near lake or river


Y'all, robots are so cool and you know, I will pretty much read anything with adorable pictures and robots. ALSO!�Sometimes I Forget You're A Robot�by Sam Brown took me like five minutes to read, but in those five minutes, I was able to figure out who this book would appeal to as far as kids go and who to recommend it to. ALSO, this is my first picture book review, but not my last because you know I want to have all this knowledge about picture books before I pop kids out.
Sometimes I Forget You're A Robot by Sam Brown is about a little boy who wishes so hard for a real robot just like the robot toy that he has. One day, he gets his wish and a real robot shows up in his yard. He is so excited. So, he asks the robot to go on all of these adventures with him but the robot can't. The robot does not meet the boy's expectations for space and deep sea adventure. Yet, instead of getting what he wants, the little boy gets what he needs with the robot and the results are very cute, adorable and heart warming.
In addition to being the author, Sam Brown is also the illustrator of the book and has even hand lettered the text. The illustrations are deceptively simplistic. Like there's stick figures and crayon-like outlines. However, the illustrations fit perfectly with the text. I liked that the colors were pretty primary and bright — lots of reds and blues and greens. The more you look at the art, the more complex it becomes. Yet, at the same time, I think that it looks simple enough that it could inspire children to draw their own robot friends, if that makes sense.
I would say this book would work best for children 4-6 years of age. If you are someone who does storytime, you could probably pair Sometimes I Forget You're A Robot by Sam Brown with a craft from this Pinterest board: R Is For Robot.
I love that you're reviewing picture books!
Of course, I'm all about finding a variety of books for Lucy to read. Sure, we have the girly books like the Jane Austen Baby Lit (OBVIOUSLY) but we also have Batman and stuff about mice and bears and ballerinas and all sorts of stuff. Gender balance, you know?
Anyway, this sounds amazing because you already know Robots are the BUSINESS and how what we want and what we need are two different things is a great message to share with children (and remind ourselves as adults).
Relatedly, Lucy has a print on her wall of a robot family with a robot dog. Just thought you should know.
This looks so cute! If I had a kid this would definitely be on their shelf.
Basically, folks send him titles, and he draws pictures to accompany them. His robots were always my favorites, so I'm excited to check out this story!


Join The People's Tribune Tuesday (1/22/19) for TribCast coverage of the 94th Annual Bowling Green Invitational Basketball Tournament. Boys opening round games include (1)Bowling Green vs. (8)Silex and (4)Elsberry vs. (5)Winfield in the High School Gym and (2)Van-Far vs. (7)Louisiana and (3)North Callaway vs. (6)Clopton from the Middle School Gym. Coverage begins at 5:15 PM with the Cuivre River Electric Cooperative/TribCast Pregame.


1. Designers consider high-definition over normal definition displays. Sketch provides the facility of resizing objects, therefore minimizing this problem. Vector based graphics don't pixelate where as others do.
2. Sorry Windows users, but Sketch is only available for Mac OS X. On the other hand, Adobe's Photoshop Creative Cloud can be used by both Mac and PC users.
3. We can create and use multiple art boards and work simultaneously on Sketch, while in Photoshop we can only work on a single canvas at a time.
4. Pencil tool is not an alternate to brush tool in Sktech.
5. Another feature that stands out in Sketch is it's built-in layout grid. Unlike Photoshop, the use of plugins, series of guidelines and separate layers have a makeshift grid which is tough to edit. With Sketch, pinning a transparent layout guide and changing the column and gutter sizes is a piece of cake.
6. Sketch is lighter than PSD, this minimizes the concern of file size.
7. Photoshop has an upper hand over Sketch in terms of variety of zooms.
8. Sketch doesn't have 3D tools, but Photoshop does.
9. Sketch is a blend of Illustrator and Photoshop. Logos can be designed easily.
10. Keyboard shortcuts make life much easier for regular designers. Sketch being new, doesn't have many.
11. Wireframes are necessary for designing apps and websites. Sketch has an upper hand here due to the availability of UI kit.
12. Sketch has a user friendly interface. While, Photoshop has a high cognitive load, which requires practice.The size of the SCG file is less than the PSD file.
Nalini Kher, Social Media Manager at Sirez Group said, photoshop is easy to implement your imagination and has image editing tools unlike sketch which is only compatible to Mac.
Alpana Chhibber, Product Manager @Uberstarter said, she prefers to use sketch for UX and simple graphic designs but photoshop has its own pros too.
Mayukh Choudhary co-founder at Milaap said, Sketch is best for UI design, it massively expedites interaction design process.
Surhab Sahni, Independent Design Consultant, said, Sketch is for product designing and photoshop is for image and art editing.


The United States is seeing the worst times in its history.
From the settling of Jamestown, Virginia in 1607 until now, we have never known such bad times. Yes, there was the Civil War, in one sense the worst time the nation has experienced. The two world wars were not far behind that in tragedy and suffering. But when we faced tragedy then, we were a different nation. Although it may not have been more than skin deep, America was outwardly Christian.
Now America's president has declared that America is not a Christian nation. He declared June as national Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Month. He recently publicly observed the start of Ramadan, although most Americans can hardly spell it. So even if America is by preference still nominally Christian, it is the intention of America's rulers to forcibly change that. That's what makes this the worst of times.
In the face of that, what should a Christian homeschool family do?
First of all, face reality. They are after you. Socialists do not believe in freedom of individual choice. The whole basis of their approach is that government – them – knows how to run your life better than you do. Christian homeschoolers are now a large, nationwide force, mostly out of the government's control. In fact, the government does not even know exactly who the homeschoolers are, since many are not on any government list. We can expect a push by the national socialists to first of all get your name on a government list, that all homeschoolers must register. They will say that they do not at all intend to use that list for any purposes other than for clerical. They will say sweet, smooth things, to soothe the anxiety of the homeschool families.
(5) for God knows that in the day you eat it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."Has god said that you should not eat of that tree? You will not surely die."
"You will not surely die," they will say. At some point they will push to get you to accept the premise that government has the right to control the education of all children in America. Once you accept that premise, you have accepted the premise that God is not your ruler and they are, because ultimately they will require that you do not teach your children about God.
We now see examples in the US of liberal school personnel and court judges moving to do just that. In a recent case, a girl who was being homeschooled was also participating in public school activities. While at the public schools, which are anti-God by judicial definition, the girl talked enthusiastically about Christ. Because of that she was taken to the school counselor and the case wound up in court, where the judge decreed that the girl cannot be homeschooled because teaching her about Christ is creating a parallel society. In other words, the judge is decreeing that she cannot be taught to believe in Christ. This and other similar cases in the US are complicated by the fact that the parents are divorced and are conflicted over their child's education, getting the judges involved. But these cases show exactly what the liberal thinking is. Just as Obama said, they want to make America not a Christian nation. As soon as they have the power, they will forbid God in America, just as they have forbidden him in their classrooms. The public schools themselves are the main base for this increase in power.
However, there is power greater than political power. Winston Churchill said, "…he must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below." That purpose is the training of God's people.
(4) Come to Jesus Christ. He is the living stone that people have rejected, but which God has chosen and highly honored.
(5) And now you are living stones that are being used to build a spiritual house. You are also a group of holy priests, and with the help of Jesus Christ you will offer sacrifices that please God.
Our book The Jubilee Principle shows how much God wants to spend time with us. The bottom rung of that time is daily devotions. Just as many things in our society are configured to keep parents apart from their children, such as government schools, after school jobs and activities, and electronic gadgets, so almost everything in our society is also configured to keep you from giving God His time. In fact, if you will spend time with God every day, as you should, you have to fight to do that. You have to deliberately structure your life and your schedule to have the freedom to follow the highest purpose in your life. It is not enough to just want to spend time with God. You must deliberately plan how you will do that and then forcefully execute that plan. While you are trying to do that, many things will interfere with your plan. The whole basis of each day and the whole basis of each life must be the time you spend with your Creator. Vince Lombardi was the greatest football coach in the National Football League and his philosophy was to stick to the fundamentals. With a follower of Christ, it is fundamental that we go to God, a long time each day, every day.
(2) and he went out to meet Asa, and said to him, Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: Yahweh is with you, while you are with him; and if you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will forsake you.
God allows His people to be tried to see which are His people. Those who go to God continually will have the faith to endure the trials. Those who do not will not. It is not enough to want to be close to God, any more than it is enough for parents to want to spend time with their children. As you can see with the homeschooling experience, those parents who actually spend gobs of time with their children actually see the results with their children. So it is with spending time with our Heavenly Father.
The reality is the national socialists will try to save you from God. The higher reality is that God can save you from them. Go to Him, every day, with that in mind.


text:
Staind, Godsmack and Halestorm Announce Plans For US Tour
A few days ago, we announced dates for a huge tour featuring Nickelback, Bush, Seether and My Darkest Days; today, we're able to bring you news of another tour with some more huge names! Staind, Godsmack, and Halestorm have announced that they'll be teaming up for a US tour. While dates still haven't been announced, you can bet that rock fans across the US are eagerly awaiting news.
Fans aren't the only ones excited, Halestorm's frontwoman Lzzy Hale had this to say about the tour:
I am stoked to be supporting Godsmack and Staind on this tour! To be touring with the two bands of my generation that paved the way for modern rock is an honor! This line up will crush your skulls!
With a lineup like that, the tour needs an awesome name, and that's where the fans come in. If you think you've got a killer name for the tour, post your suggestion on the official Godsmack Facebook page, and this Thursday, the top 5 tour names will be revealed. After that, it'll be put to a vote with the winner being announced on Monday, January 23, 2012.
As soon as the tour dates are announced, we'll have them here on UpVenue. If you plan on attending any of the shows, don't forget to share your concert pictures with the world on UpVenue!
Staind - Not Again
Godsmack, Staind, & Halestorm Announce Mass Chaos Tour Dates
Halestorm Announce 2012 Tour Dates
2012 UPROAR Festival Tour Dates Announced
2013 HeavyMTL Lineup
Can't Miss Bands At Heavy MTL 2013
HeavyMTL
Heavy MTL


Vladikavkaz -Private Russian schools, lesson, teachers, tutors. Russian teaching jobs in Vladikavkaz.
Find your ideal private Russian language schools, teachers or tutors in Vladikavkaz, Russian Federation.
Contact Vladikavkaz Russian language teachers or schools and meet for customised one to one Russian lessons in Vladikavkaz, Russian Federation, alternatively start on-line Russian lessons using SKYPE or Webcam.
Even if you live just outside of Vladikavkaz, we may have Russian language schools, teachers or tutors in the region surrounding Vladikavkaz and right across Russian Federation. Search from our Russian schools, teachers data base using the search engine on the left.
If you are a freelance Russian language teacher, tutor or run your Russian language school in Vladikavkaz, and looking for great students/or Russian teaching jobs in Vladikavkaz, just create your professional profile and advertise yourself.


text:
Home / Jamaica / Hospital sued for negligence
Hospital sued for negligence
KINGSTON — The mother of the week-old baby who was breast fed by a mentally ill woman infected with HIV/AIDS in the nursery of the Victoria Jubilee Hospital last September has filed a negligence lawsuit in the Supreme Court.
The suit was filed after the hospital, in keeping with a court order, released to the family the medical record of the baby who was breastfed.
The family was forced to make the application for the record, through attorney Chukwueneka Cameron, after writing letters last September to the South East Regional Health Authority, Victoria Jubilee Hospital and the Ministry of Health in an effort to obtain the medical record, but in vain.
The South East Regional Health Authority, Victoria Jubilee Hospital and the Attorney General are named as defendants in the lawsuit.
The breast feeding incident occurred on September 3, 2011 after the mentally ill woman, who was at the hospital to deliver her own child, made her way into the nursery and proceeded to breastfeed the baby.
A nurse on the ward intervened in the matter and the baby was taken from the woman.
The baby was treated with antiretroviral drugs.
The downtown Kingston-based hospital has since implemented procedural security changes. (Observer)
← Windies ahead
Goodluck to visit T&T →


"Research that arrives!" Under this motto, institutes of the Industrial Research Association Konrad Zuse (www.zuse-gemeinschaft.de) demonstrated their capabilities at the ZUSE-TAG REGIONAL on 20.09.2018. The ZUSE-TAG REGIONAL 2018 was attended by more than 60 research institutes throughout Germany, as well as the Paper Technology Foundation (PTS) at the Heidenau site.
On ZUSE-TAG REGIONAL 2018, PTS presented the diversity of its products and developments to experts and decision-makers from politics and society.
Starting with the presentation of the ZUSE community and the PTS, the four exciting topics "Is paper flat? - Deep-drawing paper", "Paper and digitalisation", "Coloured packaging coding" and "Glykopack - biobased adhesive" from PTS's everyday practice were vividly presented.
For the guests to touch, the PBS, test utensils for food conformity and the aircraft tailgate with sandwich core structures were available for research up close.
During the concluding guided tour of the institute, PTS opened the doors of the laboratories for materials testing and packaging coding and showed the guests the pilot plant with its diverse facilities for paper production and processing.


text:
What is gold? Why is gold used in jewelry? What is pure gold? What is a gold alloy?
Gold, in its most pure form, is 24 karat, meaning 24 parts out of 24 are gold or 1000 parts our of 1000 as many Europeans tend to calculate it. In its purest form, gold is quite soft, so it is often mixed with other metals in order to make it stronger. In order to make durable and long lasting gold, jewelers combine gold with other alloys that strengthen the metal and change its color. To achieve a balance between the strength of each alloy and the value of gold, jewelers have standardized several different karat gold combinations. All karats are available in white gold, yellow gold, rose gold, and green gold with the exception of 22k and 24k which are only available in yellow.
24k Gold: 99%-100% pure gold. Gold in its purest form. This is, quite literally, pure gold, and is only available in a very rich yellow color. Often times found in jewelry made in Asia and the Middle East.
22k Gold: 90% pure gold. Gold slightly diluted. Often used in gold coins for stability also very rich in a yellow gold and only available in that color. Often times found in jewelry made in Asia and the Middle East.
20k Gold: 83% pure gold. Used previously in historic times, sometimes made in a white form or rose form. In modern times 20k is not used as there is not an advantage to working in a metal this pure, in time this purity often become brittle and 18k is preferred. Historically used in items found made in New England and Europe circa 1880-1940
18k Gold: 75% gold and 25% alloy. 18k gold is one of the most expensive types used in jewelry today because of its high gold content. Typically used in higher-end jewelry like diamond rings or platinum. Although 18k gold will show wear sooner, it is still the preferred quality of gold in most of the world. It can be mixed into any color gold!
14k Gold: 58.3% gold and 41.7% alloy. Considered the standard for pieces made in the United States. It still has a good mix of safety, beauty, and durability and can be mixed into any color gold!
10k gold: 41.7% gold and 58.3% alloy. As the only karat gold that contains more alloy than gold, 10k gold is the least pure and therefore the most affordable of the karat grades. Typically the preferred metal for lower cost pieces. Good for lower cost and durability and can be mixed into any color gold!
Other purties seen: 12 karat, 9 karat or 33.3% pure, 8 karat, 16 karat (usually used in gold teeth! And other purities used from five 9's (99999 to 01) gold can be mixed many different ways to create different things!
Gold Colors
Yellow:
Yellow gold can be mixed with alloys to bring the purity down. This is generally done for strength reasons.
White:
White gold is generally yellow gold mixed with nickel. The use of nickel does two things:
Makes the color white and makes the gold harder and more durable.
After alloying gold with nickel in any purity, it is still not completely white and will have a slight yellow color to it as gold comes out of the ground yellow! Often times a metal called rhodium is plated over the gold alloy to make the final product look super bright white. White gold gives off a similar shine as platinum for a fraction of the cost. However for a stronger, whiter, hypoallergenic metal, try platinum or palladium.
Rose:
Rose Gold is generally yellow gold mixed with copper. The use of copper does make the color a pinkish to reddish color.
After alloying gold with copper in any purity, it is still not complete red or pink and will still have a yellow color to it.
Green gold is achieved by mixing gold and silver together. Although silver does not have a green color by itself, when mixed with gold it creates a greenish color. It is actually more of a greenish-yellow color.
Cadmium in small amounts can also be added to gold to make gold have a greenish color. Green gold does exist naturally and its use in jewelry has been around for almost 3,000 years.
There are also specialty formulas such as black gold, blue gold, red gold, and gold that has been coated with other metals!


text:
Archives Results: 1 to 10 of 1202
1895 U.S. National Championship (Tennis)
List of Champions of the 1895 U.S. National Championships (now known as the US Open):
Wikipedia Tennis 1895 U.S. National Championship (Tennis) Archives
The inaugural U.S. National Championship was a tennis tournament that took place in August 1881 at ...
The 1962 U.S. National Championships (now known as the US Open) took place on the outdoor grass ...
Videos Results: 1 to 3 of 1270
1881 U.S. National Championship (Tennis) 1889 U.S. National Championship (Tennis) 1965 U.S. National Championship (Tennis)
Tennis Videos Tennis Videos Tennis Videos
List All Videos>
Blogs Results: 1 to 0 of 0 Click here to Follow this Blog!
Sorry, no matches for any Blogs.
Please check Category and Year Drop-Downs Above.
We've been informed, please try again later.
Audios Results: 1 to 3 of 67
Roger Federer - Aim For Gold Roger Federer - All over Roger Federer - Come back
SoundBoard Audio SoundBoard Audio SoundBoard Audio
List All Audios>
Photos Results: 1 to 3 of 184
1913 U.S. National Championship (Tennis) 1920 U.S. National Championship (Tennis) Li Na (Tennis)
Tennis Photos Tennis Photos Tennis Photos
List All Photos>
Quotes Results: 1 to 3 of 155
Mary Wittenberg
"Our races are to our sport what Wimbledon and the Australian, U.S., and French Opens are to tennis, ..."
Quotes Daddy Mary Wittenberg Quotes
"Kim is playing the best tennis right now coming into the U.S. Open."
Quotes Daddy Tracy Austin Quotes
"James Blake's playing tennis for the right reasons. He's playing to have fun and to find out about ..."
Quotes Daddy Mats Wilander Quotes
List All Quotes>
Click on the Merchant's Logo for direct access to Merchandise for criteria: 1895 U.S. National Championship (Tennis)
Statistics Results: 1 to 3 of 394
Roger Federer Stats
Wikipedia Roger Federer Stats Statistics
2012 Us Open (Tennis)
Wikipedia 2012 Us Open (Tennis) Statistics
Wikipedia Wimbledon Championships Statistics
List All Statistics>
Brent Abel's www.WebTennis.net. Brent analyzes the great Rod Laver's ...
Trivia Timeout
Q: In 1988, name the player that won all 4 (Womens) Grand Slam tournaments (singles)?
The Sports Archives ©


text:
R. Kelly Faces New Bribery Charge in Brooklyn Criminal Case
in Entertainment, World Buzz
by How Africa December 6, 2019, 11:38 am
Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn on Thursday unveiled a new criminal charge against singer R. Kelly, accusing him of arranging to bribe an official as part of a scheme to recruit underage girls for sex.
The 52-year-old R&B singer, known for such hits as "I Believe I Can Fly" and "Bump N' Grind," was arrested in Chicago in July on separate sets of charges brought by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn and Chicago. He has pleaded not guilty.
ALSO READ: North Korea's Kim Jong-un Makes First Official Mention of US Talks
The new charge came in an indictment unsealed in the Brooklyn case. Prosecutors said that in 1994, Kelly caused another person to offer a bribe to an official to create a fake identification document for a person identified by the pseudonym "Jane Doe #1."
The indictment did not say whether the bribe was actually paid or the document created. It also did not accuse Kelly of sexually abusing Jane Doe #1.
ALSO READ: FIFA Disciplines Maradona for His Middle Finger Gesture During Nigeria Match (Details)
A lawyer for Kelly could not immediately be reached for comment.
The singer, whose full name is Robert Kelly, is scheduled to go to trial in Brooklyn in May 2020. He has been jailed in Illinois since his arrest.
R. Kelly appears for a hearing at Leighton Criminal Court Building in Chicago, Illinois, U.S., June 26, 2019. [E. Jason Wambsgans/Chicago Tribune/Pool via REUTERS]
Kelly had denied abuse allegations for decades before the latest charges. In 2008, he was tried on child pornography charges and found not guilty.
The Brooklyn prosecutors have charged Kelly with racketeering, accusing him and his entourage of inviting women and girls backstage after concerts, keeping them from friends and family and making them dependent on him financially.
The Chicago prosecutors said Kelly had sexual contact with five minors and recorded sexually explicit videos of some of them. They also accused Kelly of obstructing justice by using threats and bribes, including payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to keep his victims quiet.
A trial in Chicago has been scheduled for April 27.
In addition to the two federal cases, Kelly is facing charges from state prosecutors in Illinois and Minnesota. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges as well.
Previous article Kim and Kanye Will Make it to the White House – Close Friend
Next article Riches to Rag: These Five African Soccer Stars Went Broke After Retirement from Football
Written by How Africa
Imprisoned R. Kelly Releases New Album 'I Admit It' On Spotify And Apple Music
R. Kelly Ordered To Pay Victims At Least $300K In Restitution
'They Only Married For 12 Days', But Pamela Anderson's Ex-husband, Jon Peters, Is Leaving Her $10M In His Will
Pastor Claims He Went To Hell And Heard Demons Torture Sinners By Singing Rihanna's "Umbrella"
11 + fifteen =
Kim and Kanye Will Make it to the White House – Close Friend
Riches to Rag: These Five African Soccer Stars Went Broke After Retirement from Football


text:
656 F. 2d 1137 - Jones v. Texas Tech University
656 F2d 1137 Jones v. Texas Tech University
656 F.2d 1137
John Paul JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Fifth Circuit.
Marvin Rogers, West Texas Legal Services, Stephen C. McIntyre, Lubbock, Tex., William L. Garrett, Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert A. Doty, James H. Milam, Dr. Marilyn Phelan, General Counsel, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Tex., Laura S. Martin, Lonny F. Zwiener, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before AINSWORTH, CHARLES CLARK and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
JERRE S. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge:
Appellant John Paul Jones, a former Texas Tech University (University) student and campus activist, was charged by a University official with possession of marijuana at an April 1, 1978 campus demonstration, a violation of the University Code of Student Affairs. A University discipline committee found Jones guilty of the charged offense and recommended that he be placed on probation and restricted from leadership in any campus organization for one year. The recommended penalty was imposed after the committee's decision was upheld on appeal. On May 1, 1979, Jones filed this suit against the University and several of its officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining that the procedures pursuant to which he was placed on probation and restricted from campus leadership activity violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The district court dismissed the suit as res judicata on the basis that Jones had waived his due process claims in a valid, binding consent judgment in his prior suit involving the same defendants. Alternatively, the district court determined that Jones' due process rights had not been violated. Finally, the court awarded attorneys' fees to the defendants in the stipulated amount of $2,500.00 on the basis that Jones' suit was frivolous. After carefully reviewing the record, we affirm the district court's ruling that res judicata bars this lawsuit, but we reverse the attorneys' fees award against Jones.
I. THE FACTS
A. Disciplinary Proceedings
Appellant Jones is a former Texas Tech University student who played an active leadership role in a student organization, Concerned and Political Students (CAPS). On April 1, 1978, Jones participated in a campus demonstration sponsored by CAPS, the central purpose of which was to protest all anti-marijuana laws. At the demonstration, Moses Turner, the University's Dean of Student Life, observed Jones smoking a cigarette which Turner suspected was marijuana. Turner summoned Jones to his office on April 3, 1978, where Jones was furnished with written notice that the charge against him was possession of marijuana on April 1 in violation of the University's Code of Student Affairs. On April 7, University staff member George Scott conducted a taped interview with Jones concerning the April 1 incident. During the interview, Jones refused to answer questions with respect to his use or possession of marijuana at the demonstration without his attorney present. Scott informed Jones that he had a right to an adviser or attorney who could be present and advise him at any hearing but who could not participate as an advocate therein.
On April 13, 1978, a hearing was held before the University Discipline Committee (UDC), chaired by defendant Dr. Robert Marlett. Jones made no effort to contact a lawyer between April 7 and April 13, and he therefore appeared at the hearing without counsel. At the hearing, three items of evidence were introduced: the tape recording of the meeting with Scott; a one-paragraph memo from Dr. Turner stating that he had observed Jones in possession of marijuana on April 1; and an envelope containing a cigarette which appeared to contain marijuana. Jones was the sole live witness. He answered some of the committee's questions, but in response to other questions he pled the Fifth Amendment or refused to answer without a lawyer present. Although he was offered the opportunity to do so, Jones presented no evidence in his own behalf. On April 20, 1978, Jones was notified that the UDC had found him guilty of the charged offense and recommended that he be placed on probation and restricted from leadership in any campus organization. The probationary period was to remain in effect until May of 1979.
Jones was notified of his right to appeal the UDC's decision, and he filed a timely appeal with the three-member University Appeals Committee (UAC), chaired by defendant Dr. Robert Pinder. The evidence presented to the UDC was transferred to the UAC for review. Due to a tape recorder malfunction, no taped or written transcript of the UDC hearing was available to the UAC. After considering the notice of appeal filed by Jones and the evidence introduced at the UDC hearing, the UAC voted two-to-one to uphold the UDC's decision. One member of the committee, however, felt that "further clarification" was necessary before a proper result could be reached, so the committee requested additional information. Jones was not notified of the UAC's original vote.
Pursuant to requests for "further clarification" by the UAC, the committee was furnished with three additional documents: a letter from Mr. Scott stating the charge against Jones; a letter from Dr. Turner detailing the circumstances surrounding his observation of Jones' April 1 conduct; and a letter from Matt Matthews, a campus police officer, stating Matthews' professional opinion that the cigarette introduced into evidence before the UDC contained marijuana. On June 20, 1978, the UAC met to consider Jones' appeal for the second time. Since two of the original members of the committee were absent for the June 20 meeting, they were replaced by alternates; Dr. Pinder was the only member of the UAC who participated in both votes. The reconstituted UAC unanimously affirmed the decision of the UDC.
Jones filed a timely appeal with Dr. Ewalt, Vice President of Student Affairs. On August 11, 1978, Dr. Ewalt notified Jones that he found no grounds for reversing the decision and penalty imposed, and placed Jones on probation.
B. The First Lawsuit
During the summer of 1978, Jones, acting on behalf of CAPS under the designation of "non-leader," requested and received the University's permission to hold another on-campus demonstration on September 16, 1978 to protest government regulation of use and possession of marijuana. Dissatisfied with certain restrictions contained in the demonstration permit, Jones contacted and enlisted the aid of West Texas Legal Services in filing suit against the University. On September 14, 1978, Jones filed a complaint in federal district court against four University officials. The complaint alleged that the officials, acting under color of state law, had deprived Jones and other members of CAPS of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of speech and due process of law.
The complaint was accompanied by an affidavit signed by Jones detailing the factual allegations supporting the complaint; the complaint specifically incorporated the affidavit into the complaint. The affidavit described the circumstances surrounding the April 1 CAPS demonstration and Jones' dealings with the University concerning the planned September demonstration, noting the restrictions contained in the September demonstration permit. In addition, the affidavit contained an account of the disciplinary proceedings that led to Jones' probation and restriction from campus leadership. The complaint requested, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the defendants' actions as described in Jones' affidavits were unconstitutional; a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from enforcing discriminatory policies and restrictions concerning campus demonstrations, and from interfering with and intimidating persons who sought to exercise their First Amendment rights; and a temporary restraining order allowing CAPS to hold the planned September demonstration free of the restrictions contained in the demonstration permit. In addition, the complaint asked the court to award Jones damages in the amount of $11,000.00 for the defendants' violation of his constitutional rights.
On September 15, 1978, the district court entered a consent judgment, signed by all attorneys involved in the proceeding, based upon an agreement between the parties. The court's order amended two paragraphs of the demonstration permit, and closed with the following notation:
Upon further stipulation and agreement of the parties, this is a final order in this case. The Plaintiff waives all other claims for relief. Costs of court shall be paid by the party incurring the same.
(Emphasis added).
C. The Second Lawsuit
On May 1, 1979, Jones filed the instant suit against the University and several of its officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988 and the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jones alleged that the defendants had violated his right to due process at his disciplinary proceedings by, inter alia, preventing him from cross-examining his accusers; failing to notify him of the opportunity to present an adequate defense because of "secret" evidence and testimony; disciplining him on insufficient evidence; failing to provide him with written findings of fact concerning the factual basis of the disciplinary decision; and violating the rules and procedures of the Code of Student Affairs. He requested declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages and attorneys' fees. After filing an initial answer to Jones' complaint, the defendants raised the affirmative defense of res judicata and filed a counterclaim for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The defendants filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss, but the district court ordered the motion carried with the case and held a full trial on the merits.
D. The District Court's Opinion
On September 19, 1979, the district court rendered judgment and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law. First, it dismissed the suit with prejudice on the ground that the valid, binding consent judgment in the first suit under which Jones knowingly waived all claims for relief arising out of the actions complained of in the first suit, other than the relief granted in the consent judgment, barred as res judicata a second suit involving the same parties and the same cause of action. The court rejected Jones' argument that the requisite identity of parties was not present because he claimed the first suit was brought solely in his capacity as representative for CAPS. The court concluded that Jones brought the first suit in both his representative and individual capacities. In addition, the court refused to accept Jones' theory that the causes of action involved in the two suits were not the same, finding that the due process violations alleged in the second suit were raised in Jones' complaint in the first suit and were covered by his broad waiver of "all other claims for relief" in the settlement of that suit. The court accordingly dismissed the suit with prejudice.
The court went on, however, to consider Jones' allegations of due process violations on the merits. Analyzing Jones' allegations under the standards set out in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975); and Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 930, 82 S.Ct. 368, 7 L.Ed.2d 193 (1961) governing student suspensions and expulsions, it found that the minimum requirements of due process had been fulfilled and that Jones' rights had not been violated. Finally, finding the suit frivolous, the district court awarded the defendants attorneys' fees in the stipulated amount of $2,500.00.
II. THE MERITS
On appeal, Jones attacks all three findings of the district court, contending that the court erred in finding that the suit was barred by res judicata, holding that his due process rights were not violated in the disciplinary proceedings, and assessing attorneys' fees against him. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the district court that the consent judgment in the first suit bars the instant suit under the doctrine of res judicata. Accordingly, we need not consider the merits of Jones' due process claims. Nevertheless, we reverse the attorneys' fee award against Jones, finding that the district court was in error in finding Jones' lawsuit frivolous.
A. Res Judicata
Our cases set out the prerequisites for application of the doctrine of res judicata:1
For a prior judgment to bar a subsequent action, it is firmly established (1) that the prior judgment must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) that there must have been a final judgment on the merits; (3) that the parties, or those in privity with them, must be identical in both suits; and (4) that the same cause of action must be involved in both suits. Wasoff v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 451 F.2d 767 (5th Cir. 1971). If these elements are established, then the judgment or decree upon the merits in the first case is an absolute bar to the subsequent action or suit, not only in respect of every matter which was actually offered and received to sustain the demand, but also as to every ground of recovery which might have been presented.
Stevenson v. International Paper Co., 516 F.2d 103, 108-09 (5th Cir. 1975). See also Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979); Gregory v. Mitchell, 634 F.2d 205, 206 (5th Cir. 1981); Kemp v. Birmingham News Co., 608 F.2d 1049 (5th Cir. 1979); Blanchard v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 341 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 829, 86 S.Ct. 66, 15 L.Ed.2d 73 (1965).
Jones contends that the district court erred in ruling that the judgment in his first suit bars the instant suit under the doctrine of res judicata.2 He admits that the first two requirements for invocation of the doctrine were fulfilled by the consent judgment in the first suit, conceding that the consent judgment should not be given res judicata effect because the other two requirements identity of causes of action and identity of parties are not present. We consider each of these arguments separately.
1. Identity of Causes of Action
The district court found that the allegations of procedural due process violations in Jones' disciplinary proceedings raised in Jones' second suit were substantially the same as those alleged in the first suit. This meant that Jones' waiver of "all other claims for relief" extended to all of the allegations of his complaint in the first suit, including the procedural due process claims. Accordingly, the court determined that the second suit involved the same cause of action as the first.
Jones recognizes that if his cause of action in the first suit included the factual allegations of due process violations contained in his affidavit, the causes of action in the two suits would, beyond question, be the same. Jones' argument is that the factual allegations of the affidavit which detailed the circumstances surrounding his disciplinary proceedings did not raise a cause of action based on procedural due process violations but, rather, were merely inserted in the affidavit for the purpose of providing factual support for the First Amendment claims concerning the planned September demonstration. Jones contends that one of the restrictions contained in the September demonstration permit was a requirement that Jones provide the names of five CAPS members to serve as monitors for the demonstration. According to Jones, CAPS members were fearful that if their names were revealed, they would be subject to intimidation and reprisals by the University. He argues that the details of his dealings with the University were supplied to the court solely for the purpose of making a case under NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958). If this case controlled it would mean that it was unconstitutional, because of legitimate fears of intimidation and retaliation, to require disclosure of the names of CAPS members as a precondition for granting the demonstration permit. Thus, Jones claims that the allegations of his affidavit detailing the circumstances of his disciplinary proceedings did not constitute the assertion of a separate claim of due process violations in his disciplinary proceedings.
After reviewing the complaint and affidavit from the first suit, we are convinced that the district court properly determined that the first suit raised a cause of action based on alleged due process violations in Jones' disciplinary proceedings. Several considerations support our conclusion. First, the alleged irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings pointed out in the affidavit are, for the most part, precisely the same as those complained of in the second suit. Second, the complaint in the first suit specifically alleges a violation of Jones' personal Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Although it is arguable that this due process claim referred merely to the allegedly unconstitutional restrictions contained in the demonstration permit, the district court properly concluded that the complaint's specific reference to violations of Jones' personal due process rights was intended to encompass the affidavit's allegations of irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings. Finally, the complaint in the first case requested that the court award Jones damages of $11,000 for the defendants' violation of his personal constitutional rights. Counsel for Jones admitted at oral argument that the $11,000 in damages was to be awarded to Jones personally and not to CAPS. Counsel asserted that the requested amount of damages was intended only to compensate Jones for the restrictions placed on the September demonstration permit by the University and not to compensate him for procedural due process violations at his disciplinary proceedings.
In light of the fact that the first suit requested damages for Jones but not for CAPS, we think that the record clearly supports the district court's conclusion that Jones was pursuing a claim in addition to the one he was pressing for CAPS, a personal claim for due process violations in his disciplinary proceedings. Under the circumstances, we hold that the district court properly found that the suit raised a cause of action based on alleged due process violations in Jones' disciplinary proceedings which were substantially the same as those raised in the second suit. It follows that the waiver of "all other claims for relief" necessarily extended to Jones' personal due process claim.
2. Identity of Parties
Jones also contends that the doctrine of res judicata does not bar the instant suit because the parties in the first and second suits were not the same. Jones' argument flows from the general "rule of differing capacities," which provides that "a person who is a party to a suit solely in a representative capacity is not concluded by the judgment when, in a later action, he appears in his individual capacity or as a representative of a different interest." 1B J. Moore Federal Practice P 0.411(1), at 1253 (2d ed. 1976). Jones asserts that the consent judgment in the first suit does not bind him because he appeared in the first suit solely in his capacity as representative for CAPS and not in his individual capacity. He disputes the district court's finding that he filed the first suit in both his capacity as representative of CAPS and his individual capacity. In our view, the district court's determination was correct.
As the district court noted, the caption of the complaint in the first suit identified John Paul Jones as the plaintiff. Although the general rule is that the caption of a complaint is not necessarily determinative with respect to whether the plaintiff is acting in a representative capacity, see generally 1B J. Moore Federal Practice P 0.411(3), at 1424 (2d ed. 1976), the district judge properly considered the caption's designation of Jones as the sole plaintiff in the suit as one factor to be taken into account. Jones correctly points out that the complaint referred in several instances to his capacity as representative for CAPS, but we think it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that Jones was acting in a representative capacity for CAPS solely for purposes of the First Amendment claims involving the September demonstration permit. As the district court noted, the most telling evidence that Jones sued in his individual capacity as well as a representative for CAPS was that the complaint alleged violations of Jones' personal due process rights and requested damages to be paid to him personally. In sum, the district court's finding that Jones brought the first suit both in his individual and representative capacities is amply supported by the record.3
Because we have disposed of the arguments against the application of res judicata in this case, we affirm the district court's ultimate conclusion that the consent judgment in the first suit embodying Jones' waiver of "all other claims for relief" bars the instant suit. Having once asserted a cause of action based on procedural due process violations involving his disciplinary proceedings, and having waived all claims for relief other than the relief ordered in the consent judgment in the first suit, Jones cannot now maintain this action based on substantially identical allegations of procedural due process violations. Jones had full opportunity to pursue his due process claims, and he settled them clearly and completely in an agreed judgment in court. Because res judicata is an absolute bar to this suit, we have no occasion to review the district court's finding on the merits of Jones' due process claims.
B. Attorneys' Fees
The remaining issue in this case is the propriety of the district court's award of attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 against Jones in the stipulated amount of $2500.00 based upon its finding that the suit was frivolous. Jones challenges both the finding that the suit was frivolous and the amount of attorneys' fees awarded. As to the amount of the fee, he urges the district court erred by basing the amount of the award on the stipulation between the parties without considering the Johnson4 criteria and by failing to consider whether, in light of Jones' limited financial resources, a smaller award would have fulfilled § 1988's purpose of deterring frivolous suits.5 For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the district court erred in finding that the suit was frivolous, and we therefore reverse the attorneys' fee award. Our disposition of this issue renders unnecessary discussion of Jones' arguments concerning the amount of the fees awarded.
In Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978), the Supreme Court held that the defendant in an action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., may recover attorneys' fees from the plaintiff only if the court finds "that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith." Id. at 421, 98 S.Ct. at 700. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the Christiansburg standard also governs fee awards to prevailing defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 101 S.Ct. 173, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980). See also Lopez v. Aransas County Independent School District, 570 F.2d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 1978) (correctly concluding, prior to Hughes, that the Christiansburg standard is applicable to fee awards under § 1988).
The district court's award of attorneys' fees to the defendants in this case appears on the surface to be in conformity with the Christiansburg standard because it is based upon the court's finding that Jones' lawsuit was frivolous. However, an examination of the district court's reasons for characterizing the suit as frivolous reveal that the court did not adequately apply the Christiansburg standard to the facts of this case.
In its findings of fact, the district court set out two primary reasons for its finding that Jones' lawsuit was frivolous. First, with respect to Jones' claim that the suit was not barred by res judicata, the district court found that Jones or his counsel knew prior to trial that:
A previous lawsuit filed by plaintiff Jones contained factual allegations concerning the same incidents which are the subject of this lawsuit. A Memorandum Order, entered by this court and approved by plaintiff's counsel, contains a waiver of all claims alleged in that cause of action, excepting those adjudicated in the Order itself.
Second, with respect to Jones' due process claim the court found that Jones or his counsel knew prior to trial that:
(Jones) was given the procedural rights enumerated in the Code of Student affairs, i. e.:
1) Notice of Charges,
2) Explanation of potential penalties,
3) Explanation of right of appeal and procedures,
4) Right to adviser during hearing,
5) Access to evidence to be used at hearing,
6) Time to prepare defense, and
7) Opportunity to offer any evidence or other information.
These findings are not sufficient to support the court's conclusion that Jones' suit was frivolous within the meaning of Christiansburg. In Christiansburg, the Court specifically warned district courts to "resist the understandable temptation to engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or without foundation. This kind of hindsight logic could discourage all but the most airtight claims, for seldom can a prospective plaintiff be sure of ultimate success." 434 U.S. at 421-22, 98 S.Ct. at 700. Last year in Hughes v. Roe, 449 U.S. 5, 101 S.Ct. 173, 178, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that "(t)he fact that a plaintiff may ultimately lose his case is not in itself a sufficient justification for the assessment of fees." According to the Court, in order to meet the Christiansburg test, "(t)he plaintiff's action must be meritless in the sense that it is groundless or without foundation." Id. Thus, Christiansburg and Hughes make it clear that in determining whether a plaintiff's action is frivolous or meritless, a district court must focus on the question whether the case is so lacking in arguable merit as to be groundless or without foundation rather than whether the claim was ultimately successful.
In this case the district court's findings focused upon the ultimate merit of Jones' arguments that his suit was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata and his underlying due process claim. There is no indication in the court's findings of fact or elsewhere in the record that the court made the inquiry required under Christiansburg whether Jones' claim was void of arguable legal merit or factual support. Because the court's findings appear to be no more than reiteration of its ultimate conclusions on the merits of Jones' claim and because the record does not indicate that the court conducted the inquiry mandated by Christiansburg and Hughes, the court's findings of fact fall short of supporting its legal conclusion that Jones' lawsuit was frivolous.6
The question remains whether Jones' lawsuit was frivolous under a proper application of the Christiansburg standard. We conclude that as a matter of law Jones' case, while weak, was not so devoid of arguable legal merit or factual support as to be frivolous within the meaning of Christiansburg. First, the careful consideration given to the case by the district court is some indication that the suit was not frivolous. It is important to note that the court did not dismiss the case prior to trial on the basis of the threshold issue of res judicata; rather, it held a full-blown trial on the merits of Jones' underlying claims of due process violations in his disciplinary proceedings. Nor does the district court indicate that it regarded Jones' arguments on the res judicata and due process issues to be legally barren or factually insubstantial. Rather, the opinion, which is twelve typewritten pages long, reveals that the court, while ultimately rejecting each of Jones' arguments, gave them thorough and serious consideration. As the Supreme Court recently noted in Hughes, the fact that a plaintiff's claim received careful consideration by the district court may properly be taken into account in determining whether the claim was frivolous. 101 S.Ct. at 179.
The second and most important reason supporting our conclusion that Jones' lawsuit was not frivolous is that Jones proffered at least two contentions of some arguable merit, one concerning res judicata that his second lawsuit did not involve the same cause of action as the first and one concerning his underlying due process claim that the UAC violated his due process rights by seeking and considering, without his knowledge, evidence in addition to that presented at his original hearing. As we noted above, Jones' contention that the two lawsuits did not involve the same cause of action rested on his argument that his affidavit's description of the circumstances of his disciplinary proceedings was included for the purpose of showing that other CAPS members would be harassed if their names were revealed to the University and not for purposes of establishing a cause of action based upon due process violations in his disciplinary proceedings. After carefully reviewing Jones' affidavit and his complaint in the first suit, we think that while the district court acted correctly in rejecting Jones' explanation of the presence of the description of his disciplinary proceedings in the affidavit, Jones' version of the reasons those details were included in the affidavit is not entirely unreasonable or implausible.
We also think that Jones raised at least one issue of arguable merit with respect to his underlying claim of due process violations. Jones asserted that the UAC violated his due process rights by seeking and considering, without his knowledge, damaging evidence in addition to that presented at his original hearing before the UDC. The district court rejected this claim on the basis that the UAC's original two-to-one vote against Jones prior to the receipt of the additional evidence "was the decision of the committee and that it was only because of one member's desire to lean over backwards to be fair that the additional clarification was requested." The court, however, recognized that the committee had in fact taken additional evidence which Jones did not have the opportunity to controvert, and that the situation raised "a possible denial of constitutional due process."
At trial and on appeal, Jones maintains that it is the UAC's second vote, which occurred after the receipt of the "secret" evidence, and not the original two-to-one vote that must be considered in determining whether a due process violation occurred. Jones emphasizes that the committee did not inform him of its original vote, that it met a second time with new members, and that it was only upon the basis of the second vote that the UDC's decision was formally affirmed. Although the district court may have been correct in concluding that the original vote of the UAC was binding and that the committee was merely attempting to be fair to Jones, we think that Jones' argument had at least some arguable merit. In the absence of squarely controlling precedent, we cannot say that Jones' contention that the UAC violated his right to due process was frivolous, assuming res judicata did not control.
Because Jones' case, although not ultimately successful, had some arguable merit, the district court's finding that the suit was frivolous cannot stand. It follows that the district court's judgment awarding attorneys' fees against Jones should be reversed.
The portion of the judgment granting the defendants' motion to dismiss is AFFIRMED. The portion of the judgment awarding attorneys' fees against the plaintiff is REVERSED.
In this opinion, we use the term res judicata to refer to claim preclusion as opposed to collateral estoppel (or issue preclusion). See Kaspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Leco Engineering & Mach., Inc., 575 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1978) (discussing the distinctions between the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel). Because we hold that res judicata bars the instant suit, we need not determine what collateral estoppel effect, if any, should be given to the consent decree in the first suit. See generally id. at 537-39
The principles of res judicata come into play in this case because Jones' waiver of "all other claims for relief" in the first suit was embodied in a consent judgment, which was a binding court order. See Kaspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Leco Engineering & Mach., Inc., 575 F.2d 530, 537-38 (5th Cir. 1978). Because the waiver was part of a court order, and because we hold that all of the prerequisites for application of res judicata have been fulfilled in this case, we need not consider whether the same waiver, if executed merely as an extrajudicial settlement or compromise, would have been enforceable as a contract between the parties to the first suit. We note, however, that "(w) hen fairly arrived at and properly entered into, (settlement agreements) are generally viewed as binding, final, and as conclusive of rights as a judgment." Thomas v. Louisiana, 534 F.2d 613, 615 (5th Cir. 1976). See also Strozier v. General Motors Corp., 635 F.2d 424 (5th Cir. 1981); Pearson v. Ecological Science Corp., 522 F.2d 171 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 912, 96 S.Ct. 1508, 47 L.Ed.2d 762 (1976); Cia Anon Venezolana De Navegacion v. Harris, 374 F.2d 33, 35 (5th Cir. 1967)
In his brief on appeal, Jones also argues that the requisite identity of the parties was lacking because the defendants were not the same in the two suits. This is true, according to Jones, because he sued the defendants solely in their official capacities in the first suit but sued them in both their official and individual capacities in the second suit. Jones thus asserts that res judicata does not bar a second suit against the defendants as individuals
Our examination of the record reveals that Jones has raised this argument for the first time on appeal. With certain exceptions, we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Budge v. Post, 643 F.2d 372, 375 (5th Cir. 1981); Matter of Novack, 639 F.2d 1274, 1276-77 (5th Cir. 1981); Martin Oil Co. v. Gulf Insurance Co., 605 F.2d 197, 199 (5th Cir. 1979). As none of the exceptions to the general rule apply in this case, we do not rule on Jones' contention.
It would be a disservice to the district court and to the total evaluation of this case, however, if we did not record our view that Jones' argument has little merit, at least under the facts of this case. First, Jones' assertion that he sued the University officials solely in their official capacities in the first suit is questionable. The caption of the complaint in the first suit is the only record evidence of the capacity in which the defendants were sued in the first action. But the caption's meaning is ambiguous, for it merely lists the name of each defendant followed by his or her University job title; it simply does not specify in what capacity the defendants were sued. Under these circumstances, we would be most reluctant to conclude that the individual liability of the defendants was not at stake in the first action.
Second, Jones' assertion is a novel application of the law concerning the role of differing capacities in the context of res judicata. Our research reveals that the general rule of differing capacities that a judgment for or against a person in one suit is no bar to a second suit by or against the same person appearing in a different capacity has never been applied in the context of a § 1983 suit against a public official.
Third, we have grave doubts about the wisdom of extending the general rule of differing capacities to encompass § 1983 suits against public officials. In our view, a rule that would view a public official sued in his individual capacity as a different party for res judicata purposes than the same public official sued in his official capacity has little to commend it in terms of the concerns for finality and certainty that underlie the doctrine of res judicata. Moreover, we are skeptical as to whether the reasons favoring the general rule of differing capacities support the rule's extension to civil rights suits against public officials. See generally 1B J. Moore Federal Practice P 0.411(3) (2d ed. 1976) (discussing considerations favoring the general rule).
In any event, we think that application of the rule argued for by Jones is inappropriate where, as here, the plaintiff's intent to sue a public official solely in his official capacity does not clearly appear in the complaint or other portions of the record of the first suit.
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974)
Jones was granted in forma pauperis status by the district court on the day he filed his complaint. Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 24(a), the district court's original grant of permission to proceed in forma pauperis allowed Jones to retain this status for purposes of appeal
In the fact findings supporting its conclusion that Jones' suit was frivolous, the district court also noted that Jones' probationary period had ended prior to trial and that he had never been suspended from classes at the University. Neither of these findings supports a finding that Jones' suit was frivolous. Even if the termination of Jones' probation rendered his claim for injunctive relief moot, his claim for damages was enough to keep the case alive. See, e. g., H. K. Porter Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 650 F.2d 778, at 782 (5th Cir. 1981). And even if, as claimed by the defendants, the act of placing a student on probation does not rise to the level of a denial of the student's Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest, the additional requirement of Jones' probation restricting him from campus leadership activity clearly implicated his liberty interest in free speech and association


The ever growing deluge of both state and federal regulations that have a direct impact on businesses is staggering. One person, trying to deal with the demands of managing a business on a daily basis can be overwhelmed. Unfortunately, there is no way around the impact these thousands of laws and regulations have on you and your business.
These links are only a few of the most current and pertinent, for your convenience. We will be adding more as new laws and regulations take effect.
When you begin to feel overwhelmed, remember that Phoenix Payroll Solutions is your one source for eliminating these worries.


class="post-template-default single single-post postid-358840 single-format-standard custom-background group-blog header-image full-width singular wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.7 vc_responsive"
Omaha, Neb. — The remains of a sailor from Nebraska killed in the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor have been identified.
The Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency said Friday in a news release that the remains of Navy Fireman 1st Class Grant Cook, of Cozad, had been accounted for on Aug. 27.
Cook was 20 and assigned to the battleship USS Oklahoma when the ship was attacked by Japanese planes on Dec. 7, 1941. The attack on the ship resulted in the deaths of 429 crewmen, including Cook.
Cook was among the unidentified remains buried in 46 plots at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, known as the Punchbowl, in Honolulu.
In 2015, agency personnel began exhuming the remains for analysis, using new DNA technology, to identify those lost.