text:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 348 › Shomberg v. United States
Shomberg v. United States, 348 U.S. 540 (1955)
Shomberg v. United States
An alien who filed his petition for naturalization two days before the effective date of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 cannot compel a final hearing on such petition before the determination of deportation proceedings instituted against him after the effective date of the Act and based solely on grounds initiated by that Act. Pp. 348 U. S. 541-548.
(a) The "priority provision" of § 318 of the 1952 Act, that "no petition for naturalization shall be finally heard . . . if there is pending against the petitioner a deportation proceeding," specifically excepts rights under the prior law from the protection of the savings clause of § 405 when these rights stem from a petition for naturalization or from some other step in the naturalization process. Pp. 348 U. S. 542-545.
(b) Congress did not intend § 318 to apply only to deportation proceedings based on grounds existing under the prior law. P. 348 U. S. 546.
(c) The contention that a change in the punctuation of § 318 resulted in the application of the "notwithstanding" clause to final findings of deportability, but not to pending proceedings, is rejected. P. 546, n4.
(d) The "notwithstanding" language in § 318 clearly manifested the intent of Congress that certain policies should override the otherwise broad and pervasive principle of the savings clause of § 405. Pp. 348 U. S. 546-548.
210 F.2d 82 affirmed.
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.
The precise issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner, who filed his petition for naturalization two days before the effective date of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., may compel a final hearing on the same before the determination of deportation proceedings instituted after the effective date of the Act and based solely on grounds initiated by that Act. The "priority provision" of the Act, § 318, states "no petition for naturalization shall be finally heard . . . if there is pending against the petitioner a deportation proceeding." 66 Stat. 244, 8 U.S.C. § 1429. [Footnote 1] But petitioner claims that the savings clause of the Act, § 405, 66 Stat. 280, 8 U.S.C. § 1101, note, which we considered in United States v. Menasche, ante, p. 348 U. S. 528, preserves his eligibility for citizenship under prior law, and that final hearing thereon cannot be delayed by reason of the pendency of the subsequently instituted deportation action. Both the trial court, 115 F.Supp. 336, and the Court of Appeals, 210 F.2d 82, decided against the petitioner. We granted certiorari, 348 U.S. 811, in order to determine the relationship between § 318 and § 405 of the 1952 Act.
On October 1, 1952, petitioner submitted to the Immigration and Naturalization Service a preliminary application to file a petition for naturalization, Form N-400.
Following a preliminary examination, he filed his petition for naturalization on December 22, 1952, two days before the effective date of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The pre-naturalization investigation disclosed that petitioner had a criminal record; he had been convicted of grand larceny in 1913, and of manslaughter in 1915. Section 241(a) of the 1952 Act subjects aliens to deportation if they are convicted "at any time after entry . . . of two crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct." 66 Stat. 204, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(4). On June 22, 1953, a warrant of arrest was issued against petitioner, based on his 1913 and 1915 convictions, charging as grounds for deportation petitioner's presence in the country in violation of § 241(a)(4). The deportation proceedings were in progress when, on July 28, 1953, petitioner, through an order to show cause filed in this case, moved to compel a final hearing on his petition for naturalization, and, in the interim, to stay the deportation proceedings. Relying on § 318, supra, the district judge denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Petitioner's main argument is that, under § 405(a), nothing contained in the new Act,
"unless otherwise specifically provided therein, shall be construed to affect . . . any status, condition, right in process of acquisition . . . done or existing at the time this Act shall take effect."
Petitioner was eligible for citizenship under the prior law, and remains eligible under the new Act. But, under the prior law, petitioner was not deportable. Petitioner argues that the deportation proceeding, based solely on § 241(a) of the new Act, [Footnote 2] is adversely affecting a right protected by § 405(a), to-wit, his inchoate right to citizenship.
This, he claims, is in direct contravention of the terms of § 405(a) unless some other section in the Act "otherwise specifically provide[s]." Section 318, advanced as just such an exception, says, "[n]otwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b) . . . ," and makes no mention of § 405(a). Thus, petitioner concludes, § 318 is not a specific exception to the protection afforded his rights by § 405(a), and, if he is to vindicate his rights under that section, he must prevail in the present proceedings.
We agree with petitioner that, absent a specific provision to the contrary, he has rights protected by § 405(a). These stem from the filing of his Form N-400, from his petition for naturalization, and, perhaps, from his fulfillment of the five-year residence requirement. United States v. Menasche, supra. But we hold that § 318 specifically excepts rights under the prior law from the protection of § 405 when these rights stem from a petition for naturalization or from some other step in the naturalization process. [Footnote 3]
The practice previous to the enactment of a priority provision in the immigration and nationality laws was for both the deportation and naturalization processes to proceed along together until either petitioner's deportation or naturalization, ipso facto, terminated the possibility of the other occurring. See United States v. Waskowski, 158 F.2d 962. And, in the few instances where deportations were stayed in order to permit aliens to obtain a
hearing under a recently enacted naturalization provision, the remedy was by habeas corpus after the termination of the deportation proceedings and after a stay had been denied in those proceedings. United States ex rel. Walther v. District Director of Immigration and Naturalization, 175 F.2d 693; Petition of Kavadias, 177 F.2d 497. But, as a general rule, stays were not utilized, cf. Klig v. Watkins, 84 F.Supp. 486, and there ensued a race between the alien to gain citizenship and the Attorney General to deport him. If the alien was successful in forcing a final hearing and the granting of his naturalization petition, the deportation proceedings were completely nullified. To remedy this situation, the Congress incorporated § 27 in the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 1015, 8 U.S.C. (1946 ed., Supp. V) § 729(c). This section prohibited naturalization or the holding of final hearings on naturalization petitions where deportation proceedings were instituted "under the provisions of this or any other Act." The 1950 Act took effect immediately, and contained no savings clause, although it introduced new grounds for deportation which were to be retroactively applied. See Galvan v. Press, 347 U. S. 522. And, in United States ex rel. Jankowski v. Shaughnessy, 186 F.2d 580, the priority provision -- § 27 -- was held to apply to naturalization petitions filed before the effective date of the Act even though the deportation proceedings were commenced, as here, under the new statute.
Section 318 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 reenacted § 27 in substantially the same form, retaining the language of its predecessor in suspending final hearings on naturalization where deportation proceedings were instituted under this or any other Act. But petitioner contends that this plain language does not apply to his case, because Congress did not specifically
exempt § 318 from the operation of the savings clause embodied in § 405(a), under which his inchoate right to citizenship is preserved.
It is true that § 318 begins with the phrase, "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b)," which, at first glance, might indicate that it was intended not to apply to § 405(a). But further analysis renders this position untenable. The same priority section had been inserted as an emergency provision in the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, and had been given immediate prospective and retroactive effect. It was carried forward almost verbatim as § 318 in the 1952 Act. And, to make certain that it would apply to rights existing under petitions for naturalization, the Congress added to § 318 the phrase "[n]otwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b)," referring to the only part of the savings clause which deals explicitly with the law applicable to naturalization petitions. The congressional purpose must have been to have § 318 supersede rights stemming from such petitions, for, under any other interpretation, its previous approach under the 1950 law is unexplainedly reversed, and the "notwithstanding" clause is rendered meaningless. It may be that the draftsmen could have been more exact in their language, since § 405(a), as well as § 405(b), embraces rights under pending petitions, see United States v. Menasche, supra. But we think their intent is plain enough.
Petitioner contends that this application of § 318 will have the result of affording more protection to pre-petition rights of the Menasche-type than to inchoate rights under a petition for naturalization itself, since the former are not embraced within § 405(b). But we do not believe § 318 differentiates between these steps in the process of naturalization. Each is but part of the whole process leading to citizenship, and each is subject to the provisions of § 318.
Nor can we accept petitioner's argument that Congress intended § 318 to apply only to deportation proceedings based on grounds existing under the prior law. In making this contention, petitioner gives away nothing and gains nothing. If the groups for deportation are the same under the prior law as under the new Act, then nothing in the new Act affects petitioner; it is clear that rights under the savings clause have not been infringed, even if there is no specific exception. Only where something in the new law introduces a change, thereby affecting one's status under the old law, is the savings clause called into play. Only then is a specific exception to § 405 required. Thus, if petitioner's construction were to prevail, the "notwithstanding" language in § 318 would be as meaningless as under the interpretation previously advanced and rejected. The "notwithstanding" clause takes on meaning only when we assume that the new Act has made some change in the law to which the "notwithstanding" statement is noting a specific exception. That is this case. [Footnote 4]
The role thus played by § 405(b) is in substantial accord with the operation of its predecessor, § 347(b) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1168, 8 U.S.C. (1946 ed.) § 747. It was pointed out in Menasche, supra, that § 347(b), with its two-year limitation, was considered to be a special limitation on the rights preserved by subsection (a) of that savings clause. The two-year period has been deleted in § 405(b), but the subsection
remains a special limitation on the broad savings provision, bringing to bear the specific exceptions found in § 318 and other provisions of the new Act whenever the protection of § 405(a) is sought for rights connected with the naturalization process. [Footnote 5]
In our view, § 405[b] is the vehicle for applying each of these exceptions to the rights and liabilities emerging from naturalization proceedings under prior law and otherwise preserved by § 405(a). In using the "notwithstanding" language in these sections, Congress clearly manifested its intent that certain policies should override the otherwise broad and pervasive principle of the savings clause. In United States v. Menasche, supra, we recognized the wide scope to be given the savings clause. We would be lax in our duty if we did not give recognition also to the congressional purpose to override the savings clause when other considerations were thought more compelling
than the preservation of the status quo. If we are not to nullify this clear legislative purpose and render meaningless the "notwithstanding" language of § 318 and the other sections, we must find for the Government and hold that § 318 bars petitioner's attempt to compel a hearing on his naturalization petition while the deportation proceeding is pending.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The text of this provision, in material part, is as follows:
"SEC. 318. . . . Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b), and except as provided in sections 327 and 328, no person shall be naturalized against whom there is outstanding a final finding of deportability pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under the provisions of this or any other Act, and no petition for naturalization shall be finally heard by a naturalization court if there is pending against the petitioner a deportation proceeding pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under the provisions of this or any other Act. . . ."
It is assumed for the purposes of this proceeding that petitioner is deportable under § 241(a). See note 3 infra.
This is not to say that petitioner cannot challenge the authority of the Attorney General to deport him under § 241(a) of the 1952 Act. We express no opinion as to whether such a challenge, grounded on the savings clause or otherwise, might succeed if made in the deportation proceedings. Whether the question of deportability could be raised in a naturalization proceeding was expressly waived by the petitioner. See Petitioner's Brief, p. 7.
Petitioner's further argument, that a change in the punctuation of § 318 resulted in the application of the "notwithstanding" clause to final findings of deportability, but not to pending proceedings, must be rejected. When viewed against the purpose of the clause, the circumstances surrounding the controverted change, and the usual rules of proper punctuation, the contention is shown to be without substance.
Section 311 provides that the right to naturalization shall not be abridged because of race, sex or marriage, and,
"[n]otwithstanding section 405(b), this section shall apply to any person where petition for naturalization shall hereafter be filed, or shall have been pending on the effective date of this Act."
66 Stat. 239, 8 U.S.C. § 1422.
Section 313(a) states: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b), no person shall hereafter be naturalized" who engages in specified subversive activities or who is a member of described subversive organizations. 66 Stat. 240, 8 U.S.C. § 1424(a),.
Section 315(a) provides: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b)," one who claims or has claimed his alienage and "is or was" thereby relieved of service in the armed forces, "shall be permanently ineligible to become a citizen." 66 Stat. 242, 8 U.S.C. § 1426(a).
Section 331(d) provides for the ending of enemy alien status, and states:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b), this subsection shall also apply to the case of any such alien whose petition for naturalization was filed prior to the effective date of this Act and which is still pending on that date."
66 Stat. 252, 8 U.S.C. § 1442(d).


On Thursday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that the Atlantic could see another above-normal hurricane season this year.
In a statement, NOAA explained that its forecasters predict a 45% chance of an above-normal season, a 35% chance of a near-normal season and just a 20% chance of a below-normal season, which runs from June 1 through November 30.
According to the NOAA forecasters, there could be between 11-17 named storms, which only qualify for naming if winds are 39 mph or higher. Of those, an estimated 5-9 could become hurricanes, including 2-4 major hurricanes, which means winds would be at or above 111 mph. That's potentially far greater than the average hurricane season, which produces 12 named storms.
And, rather unusually, the 2017 hurricane season has already begun, thanks to Tropical Storm Arlene, which is only the second April storm in the satellite era, according to Scientific American.
"The outlook reflects our expectation of a weak or non-existent El Niño, near- or above-average sea-surface temperatures across the tropical Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, and average or weaker-than-average vertical wind shear in that same region," Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricane forecaster with NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, said in a statement.
In a press conference Thursday, Mary Erickson, deputy director of the National Weather Service, explained that the increased accuracy of hurricane forecasts is a direct result of investments into improving models, Scientific American reported.
As NOAA explained, the upgraded Hurricane Weather Research Forecast model adds "better representation of storms at higher vertical resolution, and has advanced data assimilation and improved physics." With the upgrades, NOAA added, it can improve forecasts by as much as 10%.
In addition to improved models, NOAA also said its National Hurricane Center will be providing a plethora of new forecast and communication tools including a new experimental visualization tool allowing the public to easily see when damaging winds are forecasted to reach their community and a new hurricane track cone graphic, to help people get a better understanding of how hurricane and tropical-storm-force winds really work.
Alerting the public of potentially harmful storms and educating them on exactly how they work could prove incredibly beneficial in saving and protecting lives.
"Regardless of how many storms develop this year, it only takes one to disrupt our lives," Acting FEMA Administrator Robert J. Fenton Jr. said in a statement. He noted that being prepared for hurricane season should start now with having a family discussion about what you will do in case of an emergency. He added, "Know your evacuation route; tune into your local news or download the FEMA app to get alerts, and finally – listen to local authorities as a storm approaches."
And all this incredible technology from NOAA may be worth protecting from President Donald Trump's proposed budget, in which he calls to drastically cut the agency's climate research budget, including a 17% cut to its weather-satellite budget, according to the Atlantic. And as Accuweather reported, even with improved satellite technology and modeling, an Atlantic hurricane that hits land in the United States costs $1.8 billion. That number doesn't even include the damage a storm inflicts once it moves inland.


The Democratic Party of Sebastian County invite you to join us for our second healthcare forum. We have invited several experts in the healthcare field to join us for this conversation. We encourage you to join us for this meeting, and have the opportunity to ask questions that you may have toward the healthcare issue as it now stands in America. We will meet at 6:00 pm in the West Room of Riverfront Park, 121 Riverfront Drive, Fort Smith, AR 72901.
Our first speaker this evening will be a representative of the US Marshal's Museum who will be giving an update on the progress of the building of the museum, and detailing the upcoming special lecture series.
We encourage you to come join us for both of these informative presentations!


This Android tablet sports 4G connectivity and a large 10.1 inch screen — a great setup for browsing the web, gameplay, making full use of your apps and social media. The tablet even comes with two SIM card slots, so you can easily use it as a smartphone, making and receiving calls. Android 5.1 offers an intuitive interface and easy access to the Play Store. With 2GB of RAM and the powerful MTK6592 Octa Core CPU, the tablet PC comes with fast and seamless performance, enabling multitasking with no lagging or glitches to slow you down. You will getb16GB of internal storage and the tablet additionally supports 32GB externally. So, you will have plenty of space to keep your apps and media. The 4G tablet comes with two cameras as well — 3MP front camera and 13MP rear camera — great for snapping quick selfies or taking photos when you see something interesting. The 4500mAh battery offers up to 3 hours on non-stop talk time and up to 60 hours on standby.
A great tool for both work and fun, this 4G tablet will bring you entertainment, on-the-go productivity and lightning fast web speeds.
The Android OS version on this device cannot be upgraded or flashed and any attempts to modify the default OS will void the warranty. As a wholesaler C.T.S SYSTEMS provide no software support, advice, or training regarding the Android operating system and software.


text:
/**
 * Custom network throttling for Lighthouse Testing using Puppeteer.
 *
 * Chrome gets launched by Puppeteer (normally done by LH) and custom network
 * conditions are established through Puppeteer's APIs. Lighthouse then audits
 * the page with those settings.
 *
 * The flow is:
 * 1. Disable Lighthouse's default throttling settings.
 * 2. Launch Chrome using Puppeteer. Tell Lighthouse to reuse that chrome
 *    instance instead of launching it's own.
 * 3. Hand the url to Lighthouse for testing.
 * Puppeteer observes the page opening, then sets up emulation.
 */

const puppeteer = require('puppeteer');
const lighthouse = require('lighthouse');
// const ReportGenerator = require('lighthouse/lighthouse-core/report/v2/report-generator');
const fs = require('fs');
const {URL} = require('url');

(async() => {

const url = 'https://www.chromestatus.com/features';

// Use Puppeteer to launch headless Chrome.
const browser = await puppeteer.launch({headless: true});
const remoteDebugPort =(new URL(browser.wsEndpoint())).port;

// Watch for Lighthouse to open url, then customize network conditions.
// Note: re-establishes throttle settings every time LH reloads the page. Shooooould be ok :)
browser.on('targetchanged', async target => {
  const page = await target.page();

  if (page && page.url() === url) {
    const client = await page.target().createCDPSession();
    // await client.send('Network.enable'); // Already enabled by pptr.
    await client.send('Network.emulateNetworkConditions', {
      offline: false,
      // values of 0 remove any active throttling. crbug.com/456324#c9
      latency: 800,
      downloadThroughput: Math.floor(1.6 * 1024 * 1024 / 8), // 1.6Mbps
      uploadThroughput: Math.floor(750 * 1024 / 8) // 750Kbps
    });
  }
});

// Lighthouse opens url and tests it.
// Note: Possible race with Puppeteer observing the tab opening using `targetchanged` above.
const {report} = await lighthouse(url, {
  port: remoteDebugPort,
  output: 'html',
  logLevel: 'info',
  disableNetworkThrottling: true,
  //disableCpuThrottling: true,
  //disableDeviceEmulation: true,
});

// Save html report.
fs.writeFileSync('results.html', report);
console.log('Results written.');

await browser.close();
})();

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Connor Cruise, the 13-year-old adopted son of Tom Cruise and ex-wife Nicole Kidman, will have a minor non-speaking part in Sony's upcoming Will Smith drama "Seven Pounds".
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Connor Cruise shot his part over two days more than a month ago, playing Smith as a young man and mostly shown in photographs.
The drama, directed by Gabriele Muccino ("The Pursuit of Happyness"), follows the story of a man who affects the lives of seven strangers. Rosario Dawson also stars.


text:
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fifth Circuit › 1951 › Boylan et al. v. Detrio et al
Boylan et al. v. Detrio et al, 187 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1951)
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 187 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1951) March 9, 1951
Amy Burkett, Ocean Springs, Miss., for appellants.
L. K. McIntosh, Moss Point, Miss., R. W. Thompson, Jr., Gulfport, Miss., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and McCORD and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
HUTCHESON, Chief Judge.
In the course, and as a part, of their efforts to obtain satisfaction of their judgment entered July 1, 1949, in their suit against appellants,1 plaintiffs, appellees here, applied in that suit for, and obtained, an order upon defendants below, appellants here, to show cause why they should not be fined and punished for civil contempt. The petition, or motion, purported to review at great length the history and course of plaintiffs' efforts to obtain an accounting and satisfaction, and set out at equal length the many instances of contempt of court claimed to have been committed by defendants in resisting these efforts.
Their motion to quash the order to show cause overruled, defendants categorically denied all the charges of contempt, and, in answer to each and all of them, pleaded that they had never at any time willfully, knowingly, or intentionally: done any act or thing in contempt of the court's orders; attempted to impede, or impeded, the administration of justice in the case or the receipt of justice therein by plaintiffs; sworn falsely to, or acted falsely in respect of, any matter or thing; and that they had truthfully accounted and truthfully made answer to all questions.
Defendants also moved to dismiss the petition because the motion to show cause, if taken as true, did not in law show the commission of a civil contempt. This motion denied, the court, on September 8, 1949, filed lengthy findings of fact and conclusions of law, that defendants, with the intention to obstruct and impede the administration of justice and in contempt of court, had committed many crimes, including false swearing and perjury. On the same day it entered a judgment, on the basis of these findings, adjudging both defendants guilty of civil contempt but ordering the cause continued for the imposition of a compensatory fine.
On December 21, 1949, the defendants were called up for sentencing, and each was sentenced to pay on or before January 20, 1950, a fine of $25,000 in the nature of a compensatory fine, to be applied on the judgments entered against them in plaintiffs' favor, and, in default of payments, defendants to stand committed.
On January 29, 1950, the judgment and order imposing these fines was set aside, and the defendants were granted a new trial as to them.
On April 12, 1950, the matter came on for final hearing, and on June 12, 1950, plaintiffs presented to the court for its adoption, and the court adopted, additional findings of fact and conclusions of law,2 and on the basis of these and its earlier findings, the court entered a final judgment, fining each of the defendants $25,000, and ordering each of them, on or before the 1st day of August, 1950, to pay the fine as follows: To Louis Detrio $19,105.24; to Sylvester Detrio, $5,894.76; or stand committed and imprisoned in a penal institution.
Defendants, appealing from this order, are here insisting that the judgment may not stand because the findings on which it rests are not fairly supported by evidence and are clearly erroneous, and further that none of the facts found constitute civil contempt or furnish any basis for the judgment appealed from.
We agree. The petition or motion for order to show cause charged the commission of a long list of acts, such as perjury, false swearing, concealment and covin, as done knowingly, willfully, corruptly and with the felonious intent and design to obstruct justice, but it did not allege, nor did the proof show, that appellants were damaged by any of said acts so as to justify the contempt order, nor did the petition pray that appellees be fined as compensation for damages caused to them by the contempts claimed.
We put to one side the question of the insufficiency of the evidence to support these findings other than to say that in the state of the proof as to the complete insolvency of defendants and their inability to pay any sum, the order should not have been entered except upon clear proof. It is sufficient to say that, whatever may be said of the findings, if correct as made, as a basis for a criminal contempt, they do not furnish any basis for an order in civil contempt. Civil contempt proceedings are remedial and coercive, not punitive, in their nature, they look only to the future. They are not instituted as punishment for past offenses, but to compel obedience to the orders and decrees of the court made for the benefit not of public justice but of parties to the litigation to compensate them for losses caused by defendants' disobedience of earlier orders and decrees made for their benefit.3
What plaintiffs have charged, and what the court has found, is obstruction of the administration of justice. This is not a civil but a criminal contempt. If proven, as required in such cases, it could furnish no basis for the order appealed from.
For example, the appellees charge, and the court finds, among other acts of contempt, that appellees were guilty of false swearing and perjury. These matters, if proven, would not constitute civil contempt. Indeed they would not, standing alone, constitute criminal contempts.
In United States v. Arbuckle, D.C., 48 F. Supp. 537, the court points out that, however much false testimony should be deplored and strongly dealt with, "a judge has no power to punish for contempt by reason of false testimony alone, otherwise [a judge] would be in a position to force his will upon witnesses and control their testimony." It further points out that, if the court could punish for contempt merely because it believed the witness was guilty of perjury: "* * * `it would come to pass that a potentiality of oppression and wrong would result and the freedom of the citizen when called as a witness in a court would be gravely imperiled'. Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378, 384, 39 S. Ct. 337, 340, 63 L. Ed. 656, 659."
The balance of the charges and findings are in substance the same. While some of them might be considered as furnishing a basis, within the rule of the Hudgings case, for a criminal contempt, none of them furnish any basis for the civil contempt order under review here. The authorities relied on by appellant4 do not all support the order. Indeed they are precisely to the contrary effect. They were all cases where the parties adjudged in contempt had violated a decree of the court directing them to take or not to take action, and this violation had caused damage and loss to the person for whose benefit and protection the decree had issued.
In these cases the requisites and conditions of civil contempt and of the remedial orders appropriate thereto were all present. These requisites are that a civil contempt exists only where there is a disobedience of court orders to the damage of the other party and the punishment is by imprisonment to coerce the performance of an affirmative act or by the imposition of a fine to compensate the injured party for actual loss or damage suffered because of the disobedience of an order or decree of the court made for his benefit.5
In Parker v. U. S., 1 Cir., 153 F.2d 66, 163 A.L.R. 379, one of the cases mainly relied on by appellees, it is said: "In civil contempt proceeding a punitive fine cannot be imposed upon respondent, and where a fine is imposed it must not exceed the actual loss to the complainant caused by respondent's violation of the decree in the main cause plus complainant's reasonable expenses in the proceedings necessitated in presenting the contempt for the judgment of court."
In U. S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 67 S. Ct. 677, 680, 91 L. Ed. 884, it was declared: "Where compensation is intended in civil contempt proceeding, a fine is imposed payable to complainant but fine must be based on evidence of complainant's actual loss (from the contempt), and his right, as a civil litigant, to the compensatory fine is dependent upon the outcome of the basic controversy."
All of the charges in the petition relate to past acts which if done cannot be undone or remedied by any order of the court. If these acts constituted civil contempt, and they do not, the only punishment which could be imposed would be a fine to compensate appellees for loss or damage actually suffered because thereof.
The appellees do not allege that they have suffered any loss or damage because of the acts of defendants charged, nor do they offer of evidence sufficient to prove that they have suffered any loss or damage because of any disobedience of any order or decree of the court. The order in civil contempt, therefore, may not stand.
Boiled down to its essentials, this proceeding and the judgment on it come down to this, that, apprehensive that defendants have become insolvent and that they will be unable to collect their judgment by ordinary court proceeding, appellants are trying to do what, in Walling v. Crane, supra, this court said could not be done in civil contempt proceedings, "collect the judgment through the device of `a compensatory fine in an amount equal to the underpayments,' which, stripped of its nomenclature and viewed in the light of reality, would show up simply as the imposition of punishment in an attempt to collect a debt."
The order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further and not inconsistent proceedings.
Cf. Detrio v. Boylan, 5 Cir., 169 F.2d 77; Boylan v. Detrio, 5 Cir., 187 F.2d 28
Plaintiffs' Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
The plaintiffs request the court to make the following findings of fact, and to draw therefrom the following conclusions of law, to wit:
That as a result of the actions heretofore found by the court to have been committed by the defendants, prolonged delays occurred in the obtaining by the plaintiffs of their judgments against the defendants in this cause; and that the said defendants willfully, deliberately and purposely, in contempt of this court, planned and performed the said acts for the purpose of causing said delays, in order to enable said defendants willfully and corruptly, and in contempt of this court, to convert to their own uses and to conceal the subject matter involved in this cause, i. e., the interests, and the values of the interests of the plaintiffs, respectively, in the said partnership Consolidated Tile and Deck Coverings, and the corporation Consolidated Tile Company, Inc.: and that during said delays, so corruptly and contemptuously caused by the defendants and each of them, the said defendants did destroy the value of, and convert to their own use, willfully, purposely, deliberately, and in contempt of this court, the value of the shares and interests owned by the plaintiffs, and each of them, in the said partnership, and the said corporation, forming the subject matter of this litigation
That the defendants' commission of the foregoing acts constituted a civil contempt, rendering them liable to the imposition of a compensatory fine payable to the plaintiffs, and each of them
That the value of said shares and interests of the plaintiffs, respectively, in the said partnership and the said corporation, at the time of the destruction and conversion thereof by the defendants, and each of them, were as follows: The value of the share and interest of the plaintiff Louis Detrio was $98,578.66; and the value of the share and interest of the plaintiff Sylvester Detrio was $23,243.93
That the plaintiffs have been damaged by the said civil contempt of the said defendants, and each of the defendants, in destroying and converting to their own use the value of the said shares, as follows: The plaintiff Louis Detrio has been damaged in the sum of $98,578.66. and the plaintiff Sylvester Detrio has been damaged in the sum of $23,243.93
That said defendants as a part of their said corrupt and contemptuous scheme to destroy the subject matter of this litigation, and to convert the plaintiffs' interests in said partnership and said corporation to their own use during said corruptly and contemptuously created delay of the plaintiffs in obtaining their said judgments in this cause against said defendants, have placed parts of the said interests of the plaintiffs in said shares in the defendants' wives' names, and otherwise concealed them; but each of said defendants now is able to obtain $25,000.00, and pay said amounts as a compensatory fine in this case
That said defendants each should be fined $25,000.00 for said civil contempt; said fine to be payable to the plaintiffs as follows: To the plaintiff Louis Detrio the sum of $19,105.24 by each of said defendants, and to the plaintiff Sylvester Detrio the sum of $5,894.76 by each of said defendants, as damage sustained by said plaintiffs from said civil contempt
12 Am.Jur., p. 392, "Contempt", Sec. 6. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 S. Ct. 492, 55 L. Ed. 797; Lamb v. Cramer, 285 U.S. 217, 52 S. Ct. 315, 76 L. Ed. 715; Walling v. Crane, 5 Cir., 158 F.2d 80; Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 45 S. Ct. 332, 69 L. Ed. 527
Walling v. Crane, 5 Cir., 158 F.2d 80; Parker v. U. S., 1 Cir., 126 F.2d 370; Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 S. Ct. 492, 55 L. Ed. 797; U. S. v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 67 S. Ct. 677, 91 L. Ed. 884; Rivers v. Miller, 5 Cir., 112 F.2d 439; Penfield Co. v. Securities and Exchange Com., 330 U.S. 585, 67 S. Ct. 918, 91 L. Ed. 1117
Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., supra, 12 Am.Jur., "Contempt", Sec. 62

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


A sole proprietorship is the simplest form of business entity. There are no forms to fill out, and you do not file with the state to become a sole proprietor. Instead, the state will consider you to be a sole proprietor if you are an individual doing business. Although this is the easiest way to start doing business, because it allows you to move your own assets in and out of business as needed, it isn't necessarily the safest structure. Sole proprietors have no liability protection, meaning you, as the owner, can be held personally responsible for the debts and obligations of the business.
A general partnership is as easy as a sole proprietorship – it's just two or more people doing business. Again, there is no formal process of registration. Under a general partnership, all partners are jointly and severally liable for the obligations and debts of the business.
A limited liability partnership is a similar structure to the general partnership, except that it requires registering with the state. By registering, the partnership gains some protection and separation from the entity's liabilities. Under a limited liability partnership, partners can also shield themselves from one another's bad actions.
The LLC is the most popular business entity. It offers the liability protection of a corporation while remaining relatively simple. An LLC is controlled by members, rather than shareholders. To create an LLC, you must register with the state and file annual reports, but the documentation burden is less than a regular corporation. LLCs can choose to be taxed as a corporation or as a pass-through entity on the members' individual tax returns. A single member LLC is treated as a disregarded entity. While the member still retains the benefits of liability protection, the income is taxed as if it was direct income to the individual member.
A C-Corp is what you likely think of as a typical business. It is owned by shareholders, who hold stock certificates or shares. The corporate entity acts as a liability shield for individual shareholders; they are not responsible for the debts, actions, or obligations of the company. C-Corps are taxed independently from the shareholders, creating what some call "double taxation." This means that the corporation pays taxes on the income it makes. Then, it distributes the profits to its shareholders in the form of dividends, where the dividends are taxed at the individual shareholders' rates.
An S-Corp isn't an entity structure; rather it's a tax election. Another entity, such as a C-Corp or LLC, can elect to be taxed as an S-Corp. This means that the company can be treated as a pass-through entity. S-Corp small businesses may also pay reasonable compensation to owners and then treat the remainder of profit as a distribution. Because distributions are not subject to payroll taxes, this can result in significant tax savings. In exchange for the tax benefit, there are some restrictions on S-Corps. They can only have one class of stock, and may only have a limited number of shareholders. Failure to comply with the requirements of an S-Corp means that the entity will revert to a C-Corp for tax filing.
How Will Your New Business Be Taxed Under the New Law?
The TCJA was presented to the American public as a business-friendly, economy-boosting tax plan. To this end, there are some new tax benefits allotted for corporations. The TCJA divides businesses into two groups: corporations and pass-through entities. Each of these two groups is subject to different rules regarding taxation.
Under the TCJA, all corporations will now pay a flat 21% tax rate. This is significantly lower than the 2017 rates, which could be as high as 35%. When you are choosing which structure to use for your new business, this lower tax rate may be desirable. Most deductions for corporations have also been preserved in the new tax law, unlike the deductions that used to be available to employees. It is important to remember that C-Corps, that pay the 21% tax rate, are also subject to more intensive reporting requirements and the potential "double taxation" issue discussed above.
LLCs, S-Corps, and other pass-through entities will not receive the corporate tax cut. Instead, income to a pass-through entity is taxed at the personal rate of the member/owner/shareholder. You will want to take a look at the adjusted personal income tax brackets to see how your personal tax rate may have changed under the TCJA. Despite being taxed at the personal rate, income from a pass-through entity may be subject to s 20% business income deduction.
There are some restrictions to the 20% deduction based on what kind of business you own and how much income you and your spouse bring in. For any kind of business organized as a pass-through entity, there are threshold earnings limits of $157,500 for a single filer and $315,000 for those who file jointly. Taxpayers that earn less than these threshold limits will be eligible for the full 20% deduction, regardless of the kind of business they perform.
Businesses that involve the performance of services where the main asset of the business is the reputation of one or more owners/employees, the new tax law considers a "professional services" business. Examples of professional service providers include lawyers, consultants, architects, and financial advisors. If you fall into the category for professional services, and your income exceeds the threshold amounts, you may lose the deduction benefit. For earnings within the range of $50,000 above the threshold for single filers and $100,000 for joint filers, the deduction phases out from 20% to 0%. Taxpayers who own pass-through professional services businesses and have an income exceeding the allowed range (up to $207,500 for single filers and $415,000 for couples) will not be eligible to take the deduction at all.
If you own a pass-through entity that does not qualify as a professional services business, there is another formula to consider: businesses that surpass the threshold earnings limits will see their deduction limited to the greater of 50% of total wages paid OR 25% of total wages paid PLUS 2.5% of the cost of tangible depreciable property, such as real estate.
The benefits for pass-through entities under the new tax law are not simple, and your particular situation may create results that you do not expect. When choosing a business entity and electing how you want that business to be taxed (as a pass-through entity or as a corporation), there will be a lot to consider. Consult with an attorney and a tax professional to determine which is the best choice for you and your new business. Contact Faulkner Law at (770) 685-9501 to do a full analysis of how this bill will impact you and your business.


text:
US denies charges that it has violated WTO norm
New Delhi, Nov 22 | Updated: Nov 23 2005, 05:45am hrs
Denying allegations made by India, China and Pakistan, the United States has said that it has not violated any World Trade Organisation (WTO) norm while extending duty free treatment to apparel assembled in African countries under certain preference schemes.
The countries had alleged that the stipulation preventing the use of fabric or yarn of non-US origin in the apparel exported under the Caribbean Basin Economic and Recovery Act (CBERA) and the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) preference schemes may lead to non viability of exports for the beneficiaries due to difference in costs of the procured fabric or yarn of US and third party origin.
India had asked whether this would not be a constraining factor in the exports to be made by the beneficiaries under the preference schemes. It had further asked whether this would not be in violation of the commitment of the US at the WTO wherein it is stated that duty free treatment shall be designed not to raise barriers or create undue difficulties for the trade of other members.
In its response, the US said that the CBERA and ATPA contain provisions that provide benefits to apparel assembled using regional inputs. The success of the programmes was evident from the trade data available and the large increases in apparel imports from beneficiary countries do not support Indias premise that cost differences between US and third parties are a constraining factor, it said.
The US added that India was presuming that the duty-free treatment provided raises barriers or creates undue difficulties for the trade of other members.


Start your morning off right with this Pineapple Peach Sunrise Smoothie. Tropical and refreshing to brighten your day.
Smoothies are a favorite breakfast around here. I love getting a huge portion of fruits (and veggies sometimes) all in one shot. My kids love smoothies as well so they get a ton of servings of their necessary fruit too. Noah loves grabbing all the frozen fruit, yogurts and mix-ins out and creating his own. It's a great way to have fun in the kitchen while keeping it healthy.
I usually have a smoothie 2 or 3 times a week for breakfast and my favorite go to is this Peanut Butter and Jelly Smoothie but sometimes I like to mix it up. The weather has been unseasonably warm the past few days and I was feeling tropical so I decided to make up something new to satisfy my smoothie craving this weekend. In comes the Pineapple Peach Sunrise Smoothie.
Pineapple and a tangerine bring a bright, citrusy punch while peaches, bananas and vanilla Greek yogurt bring some sweetness and add a smooth texture. I always like to add chia seeds and flaxseed meal to my smoothies to bump up the fiber, protein and health factors.
If you don't have chia and flaxseeds, or don't want to add them you can go ahead and skip them as they don't add any flavor but I definitely recommend it. I used water to thin it out and keep the calories down.
This smoothie is just so sunshiny and puts you in a good mood. It will make you feel like you are on a tropical island sipping a healthy yet delicious drink.


With our all fiber network, your business will stay connected with faster speeds and the most reliable service.
*Offer valid now through December 31, 2019. Must sign a 3-year contract. Exclusions may apply and some limitations may occur based on service areas. Some restrictions may apply.


"Frozen 2" is gradually taking shape with a possible new song or two to set to be the new "Let It Go" already in place.
In an interview with Variety during the opening of the "Frozen" Broadway musical, director and screenwriter Jennifer Lee revealed that she is currently on the second draft of the highly-anticipated sequel.
She teased that her team has already done "amazing stuff" on "Frozen 2" and that they already have a couple of songs "that are blowing my mind."
"We do about six screenings that we hand draw, and so I'm on the second draft, second screening. There's no shortcut. What we have today hopefully will be 10 percent of what we have when it opens," she went on to say.
The new songs should give fans the opportunity to learn more about the Arendelle sisters in "Frozen 2" as well as their parents, who died at sea during the storm in the 2013 original.
Songwriter Kristen Anderson-Lopez teased, "We know the girls a lot better now. We've gone a lot deeper into their heads. We know the parents a lot better."
Together with fellow songwriter Robert Lopez, Anderson-Lopez has recorded a new song for "Frozen 2" with cast member Kristen Bell, who plays the role of Princess Anna.
Anderson-Lopez and Lopez understandably played coy about spilling details about the music or story in "Frozen 2," but they did reveal that the group of sylvan "hidden folk" inspired by Scandinavian folklore in the Broadway might be featured in the sequel as well.
"We've thought a lot more about those hidden folk," Anderson-Lopez said. "That's all I'm going to say," the songwriter added.
This is hardly the only influence of the stage musical to the movie though. Lee said that bringing the franchise to the theater has shaped they way they work on "Frozen 2" as well, especially their approach to the music.
"There's this really fluid thing going on that we didn't know about in the beginning as we were getting to know each other. We learned this wonderful sort of chicken-and-egg back and forth. Even for the film, we're building it like a musical, where the story and songs are intertwined and matter to each other," Lee, who also wrote the book for the musical, said.
The sweeping success of the original film, which is hailed the highest-grossing animated film of all time, has put pressure on the team to make sure "Frozen 2" is on par, if not even better.
After the standard set by "Let It Go," which went on to receive awards and be performed and played the globe years after the film's initial release, creating a new song that will be as big a hit as that is no easy feat, which is why Lee's team and the cast are taking their time.
Bell has said in the past that they are making the effort and time to put "Frozen 2" together because they want it to be live up to its predecessor.
"Frozen 2" is set to hit the cinemas Nov. 27, 2019.


Turkey's net global investment position (NIIP) recorded a recuperation in May, narrowing around 12.5 percent contrasted with the finish of 2017, as indicated by Turkish National Bank (CBRT) on Wednesday.
The nation's outer resources added up to $231.6 billion as of May this year, down 0.5 percent from the finish of a year ago, while liabilities against non-inhabitants totaled $632.5 billion, falling 8.6 percent over a similar period, the bank said.
As indicated by official information, the hole between Turkey's benefits abroad and liabilities - the NIIP - was less $401 billion in May while it was less $459.2 billion toward the finish of a year ago.
Demonstrating a depiction in time, the NIIP - which can be either positive or negative - is the estimation of abroad resources possessed by a country, short the estimation of residential resources claimed by outsiders, including abroad resources and liabilities held by a country's administration, the private segment, and its nationals.
The bank noticed that save resources - a sub-thing under resources - totaled $107.3 billion toward the finish of May, down 0.4 percent from the finish of 2017, while other investments were $74 billion, down 3.3 percent in a similar period.
Currency and the deposist of the bank, one of the sub-things of different investments, dropped 10.8 percent to $31.2 billion contrasted with the finish of a year ago, official information appeared.
On the liabilities side, direct investment - value capital in addition to other capital - as of May added up to $139.5 billion, down 26.3 percent from the finish of 2017 "with the commitment of the adjustments in the market esteem and outside trade rates," the bank said.
This January to May, the average U.S. dollar/Turkish lira conversion scale was around 3.98, while a year ago one dollar was traded for 3.65 Turkish liras when all things considered.
"Add up to outer advance load of the banks recorded $94.4 billion, diminishing by 0.4 percent contrasted with the finish of 2017, and the aggregate outside advance supply of alternate parts recorded $111 billion, expanding by 2.7 percent," the bank included.


text:
« The Pilgrim Premieres "Peace of Mind"; Walking into the Forest Available to Preorder
The Atomic Bitchwax Welcome Garrett Sweeny on Guitar; Announce Tour Dates with Black Label Society and Conan »
Review & Full Album Premiere: Hey Zeus, X
[Click play above to stream Hey Zeus' debut album, X, in its entirety. It's out this week on Argonauta Records.]
Hey Zeus have been kicking around Boston's heavy rock underground for last six years to some degree or other, following in a tradition of straightforward, catchy, well-composed heavy rock that's no less a cultural institution for the city than local-sports worship, yelling shit at pedestrians from moving vehicles and drinking. Signed early last year to Argonauta Records, their debut full-length, X, follows a 2014 split with White Dynomite (review here), and other tracks posted as singles such as "Caveman" (premiered here) and "Richard the Elder" (posted here) in 2016. A penchant for covering Deep Purple — legit — that manifests on X as a duly head-spinning take on "Bloodsucker" also goes back to the band's earlier days playing live, so it seems safe enough to argue that X is the realization of multiple years of putting the material together and refining it, and as the resulting nine-song/29-minute offering arrives nearly six years to the day from the band's first show, one can hear those efforts in the tightness of composition throughout.
Songs like "Richard the Elder," opener "These Eyes," "Save Your" (as opposed to "saviour") and careening speedsters like "I Don't Want It," "X Marks the Rocks" and closer "Queens" realize a hooky, engaging energy that vocalist Bice Nathan gleefully puts over the top, though in the company of guitarist Pete Knipfing, bassist Ken Cmar and drummer Todd Bowman, he's hardly the only one catching that charge. And as much as a comparison to erstwhile Beantown kingpins Roadsaw feels inevitable, perhaps even more relevant is the connection Knipfing and Bowman share from their prior outfit Lamont, whose dedicated sans-frills urgency seems as well to inform some of the writing in X. It should be to the surprise of no one that Hey Zeus can get the job done — the job, by the way, is kicking ass — given the time they've spent honing their approach, but that hardly makes the record a less impressive debut. Quite the opposite.
And though one might look at X and find it short at 29 minutes, it's not so much that there's anything lacking in terms of what the band wants to convey, but just that they've packed it all into that time. That's not just a question of speed. Even "Gilded," or "Caveman," which is the longest inclusion at 3:53, varies its tempo in order to find the right niche of groove that suits the song. They're not forcing that feeling of electricity to what they do — it's just there. No coincidence that the Deep Purple song they take on was from In Rock, which was arguably that band's most lethal of outings, but there's more to X than just rushing through a collection of songs. Nathan brings a subtle sense of arrangement to the vocals and finds melodies between the distorted lines of Knipfing's riffs. Cmar's rumbling bass proves essential early on to the drive of "I Don't Want It," and is unrelenting, and though Nathan adds percussion later in a break within "Save Your," Bowman's drumming is intermittently furious enough to cover that ground anyway, shifting fluidly from the swinging finish of "Richard the Elder" to the classic riff rock strut of "Caveman" and the starts and stops that permeate "Queens."
So what do we have? Rock album. Heavy. Rock and roll. Sharp songs. Crisp performances. Clear, full production value. Boot-meet-butt energy. Cool. What separates Hey Zeus from multitudes working from essentially the same elements, however, is the level of their craft and the way they use it throughout X. While I don't think it's anyone involved's first record, it's still the first record from the band, and their dynamic is not to be understated as a pivotal factor in their approach. The interplay between Knipfing and Cmar on guitar and bass during the former's solos alone stands as testament to the work they've done in terms of developing a conversation between players, and with Bowman as the grounding force, they're able to smoothly shift tempos and moods at a measure's notice, making their songs less predictable even as they're en route to an immediately familiar chorus. Throw in a healthy dose of attitude from Nathan and the chops to back it up, and X not only carries forward the legacy of Boston's heavy rock history, but seeks to find its own place and build upon it.
Or maybe they're just looking to down some beers and have a good time, blow off steam from hating their jobs and whatever else. That's no less valid a take. What's important are the results they get across this collection of songs, and one of the great strengths of X is the momentum Hey Zeus amass as they wind their way through the progression of tracks. Even the Deep Purple cover, which though lacking organ is otherwise pretty loyal to the spirit of the original, feeds into the thrust of the material surrounding, picking up from the breather ending of "Caveman" and leading the way into "Queens" at the finish. It's part of an overarching push that begins with "These Eyes" and continues through everything that follows; the classic "set the tone" spirit of the opener indicative of the proceedings on the whole, and though it's easy enough to tag the whole thing as straight-ahead, all-go, etc., Knipfing does find room to slide some Southern edge into his guitar on "Save Your," and the gang shouts behind Nathan on "X Marks the Rocks" is no less an important sonic detail.
What those convey, once again, is the work that's gone into this material. While not staid at all — shit, it barely stands still long enough to be heard — X has a foundation it's building from. As much as they might try to convince you otherwise, Hey Zeus didn't just throw these songs together and — whoops! — come out with an air-tight collection of tracks that just happen to throw a punch in the gut as they run past. But at the same time, they do successfully balance that level of songmaking with the vitality that's so central to making it all function. That might be the record's great accomplishment — it feels true to a live experience without losing hold of itself as a studio outing. And it may have taken Hey Zeus more than half a decade to get to this point, but it's hard to take X as a whole and not consider it worth the effort on their part.
Hey Zeus on Bandcamp
Hey Zeus on Thee Facebooks
Argonauta Records on Thee Facebooks
Argonauta Records on Twitter
Argonauta Records on Instagram
Tags: Argonauta Records, Boston, Hey Zeus, Hey Zeys X, Massachusetts, X
This entry was posted	on Wednesday, January 30th, 2019 at 11:03 am	and is filed under audiObelisk, Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


The Rocky Horror Show: Touch Me is a dance game with a tantalizing twist on the rhythm action experience.
Using the tactile pleasure of a touch screen, players will be able to feel the movements of their character by making gestures to make them move.
If you want something visual, share your dances with friends, for them to replicate or even improve and beat you at your own dance!
With content released regularly, there will always be something new to excite you!
The game is free to play and will be available on mobile and tablet, with iOS and Android versions.
The game is currently confirmed for mobile and tablet, so will be available on iOS and Android via the iOS App Store, Amazon Marketplace and Google Play.
Central to the joy of The Rocky Horror Show is the amazing audience participation experience. We want to bring that sensation into our game through the creative and social experience of creating your own dance routines and sharing them with friends.
SO HOW DO YOU ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME?
You start out with Riff Raff as your character on the stage set of a Hunting Lodge For Rich Weirdos (Yah Rich Weirdos!) with the music to that all time classic song, the Timewarp!
You dance by swiping on the screen in time with the music. You use various gestures including diagonal swipes to execute standard dance moves, and other gestures to execute special dance moves – for example a double finger swipes horizontally across the screen to make the pelvic thrust… which really drives you insane. And if you mess up too often, your character may fall over!
You will earn points for every dance you do. Those points fill up the biomechanical, audio vibratory rewards machine and, once it is full, you can throw open the switches on the sonic oscillator… and step up the reactor power three more points… which will dispense a new random reward.


Sincerely look for Rosy Rings Candles , rosy rings candles , Rose Music Candles , we sincerely welcome clients from home and abroad to cooperate with us and advance together to create a brilliant future.
We keep on with our business spirit of "Quality, Performance, Innovation and Integrity". We goal to create much more worth for our customers with our rich resources, state-of-the-art machinery, experienced workers and exceptional providers for Rosy Rings Candles , rosy rings candles , Rose Music Candles , To provide customers with excellent equipment and services and constantly develop new machine is our company's business objectives. We look forward to your cooperation.


Short intro on me and after some general advice to getting started.
Discussion in 'Are you new to aquatic plants? Start here' started by Barney, Jun 30, 2007.
As this is my first post I thought it would be an idea just to give a brief run down about myself too as I hope to be here for awhile and eventually be able to contribute.
Basically I have kepts tropical fish for a good 4 or 5 years now and while my fish have always been very healthy any plants I have had died rather rapidly. this of course was because I didnt have any idea how to keep them (not ferts, poor lighting, etc. no wonder they all died).
Anyway I have been reading up about doing a proper job of a planted tank for the last few months and I was planning to get started earlier this year. Unfortunetly I never got chance to due to a change in jobs but now everything is stable again I have just bite the bullet and ordered by stuff.
After reading through the various methods I decided to go the ADA route. Mainly because it is relativly simple (and I'm a simple kind of guy ).
(Because I'm new to this side of the hobby I have got a couple of "collections" coming which are mainly made up of fairlyu common fast growing easy to manage plants. I think I probably have enough to fill two tanks but it was a lot cheaper then buying single plants).
ADA Amazionia soil (seems to be the popular choice and apparently has the biggest PH dropping effect which if very good for my High PH/Hardness tap water). I'm hoping that it is effective enough to save me having to run all my water through a peat filter to soften it and drop the PH.
ADA power sand special S & ADA Tourmaline BC: from what I can gather this are the only addtional substrate ferts i will need (at least for the first 12 months). Please let me know if there is something more I should have though.
ADA Brighty K and The step ferts - This is what really attracted me to doing things this way. Very simple and easy to follow and I didnt have to change my normal fish keeping routines drastically.
JBL CO2 starter kit - CO2 is where I start to get unstuck. I'm sure once I actually get it going I will be able to figure it out but there are a couple of points I'm not 100% sure of (see below).
I dont have any firm ideas for the exact layout of the tank yet. I do have some interesting driftwood that will be a feature and I also plan to have clown loaches in the tank so will have a cave of some sort for them to hide in. Other then that I'm just going to "wing it" for this first one. I dont plan on having any fish in it for quite awhile (until i'm 100% confident that I know the water chemistry of the tank inside and out). so I have some freedom to alter things later down the line.
Any general advice you can give with setting up or general maintaince would be appreciated.
CO2 - I know how to check the CO2 levels in the water and understand how it all works but again some general advice would be great (just to confirm that I DO actually know what I'm doing ). I have a big fear of CO2 because the one time I used it I managed to kill a whole bunch of cardinal tetras (It was a crap cheap one from the LFS and didnt have good instructions, it increased the CO2 levels way too much and killed them all overnight).
The main thing in power sand is really NO3, you can add KNO3 and do the same thing. Then all you have is ADA aqua soil in there.
Don't beliebe the tourmaline stuff, that's homepathic baloney with far infra red energy emitting monkey business.
Quite popular in the homepathic I do not have prove anything just trust me it works crowd.
Brighty K and the traces...........well Tropica Master Grow and KCL or K2SO4 are much cheaper, work better if not the same.
pH and plants, they do not care, they d care about CO2 though, some species do better in softer water, but in fact most plants do better in harder water.
I think CO2 will be the biggest issue for you, or most anyone new.
Take a look at any and everyone' set up.
Nutrients etc are easy by comparison.
Finally all up and running, still waiting for a couple of bits to come through (Ricca for the slate and a replacment soleniod) and I need to cut down the filter pipes and make a reactor as a lot of CO2 is being wasted.
I think you would be surprised if you knew how many of us don't have an aquarium that looks that good. You have a great start there, so the next challenge is to keep it looking that good. Don't get disappointed if it takes awhile to learn how to do that.
That is a stunningly scaped tank. I love it. Its very hard to scape the longer, narrower tanks.. you have a very good eye for composition and planting.
I particularly love the slate, something that Im toying with trying at the moment actually.
Like Hoppy says, dont get discouraged about taking a good deal of time to learn how to keep it like that, once youve gotton your head around it you have all the hallmarks of a very talented scaper.
The JBL CO2 ladder was a bit rubbish so I now have the CO2 going directly into the outflow pipe of the filter which is working much, much better. I have built an external reactor but need some silicone sealant to finish it off.
I trimmed out all the dead leaves today (looks like one bunch of the Vallisneria died off but had new shhots growing so i cut all the dead leaves back to the substrate).
I also had a big puzzle in that the CO2 was obviously going through and the plants where using it but my drop checker was showing up blue! turned out the bottom of the drop checker had gotten blocked!
Couple of pics from today of the plants pearling like crazy (it has been a massive supprise to me how quickly plants react when you turn the lights on and get the CO2 going).
Can anyone tell me what this is? I think its Micranthemum Umberosum.
Now you are growing and have a standard to compare too.
This is a new tank, so plan on doing 2x a week 50-70% water changes, dosing after for the first 1 month.
You can work more on the scape, the pruning etc as you progress but you have some hardscape and can work with that or sloping the gravel etc.
You have time, main thing is to have the plants fill in more, grow them well, then garden.
Couple of small updates. I have now added some Riccia to the slate which is pearlying like crazy and I removed the dead hair grass from the back and move a few bots around.
Everything is growing really well. Pretty much everything has doubled in size over the course of just 1 week!
I have started seeing some brown algae and thread algae coming in but have just manually removed it at the moment and beleive this is common in the first few weeks? (its only showing on the slower growing plants and rocks).
Rotala Growing Short, Dense, Small And Slow.
What kind of nutrient shortage is this?
Black algae and trimming too short..or co2?


Casa de huéspedes en la hermosa Toscana Hills, Lago Elsinore. Separado de la casa principal con acceso al patio trasero!
Guest house in beautiful Tuscany Hills, Lake Elsinore.
separate from the main house with access to the back yard !
Hello, I am a retired hotelier, originally from El Salvador. who would like to share my beach house in El Salvador and/ or my guest house ,in the USA ;I ,will be readily available to make sure your stay in El Salvador, and in California will be secure, and comfortable.