text:
Home/Certificate of Analyst, Challenge for Cause, Charter 10(b), Choice of Counsel, Impaired Operation, Juries, Racial Bias Instructions, Stand-Aside/The Defence Toolkit – August 14, 2021
This week's top three summaries: R v Sandhu, 2021 ABQB 615: 10(b) and #translation, R v Martin, 2021 ONSC 5333: #jury selection, and R v Szpejer, 2021 ABPC 198: #service of certificate.
R v Sandhu, 2021 ABQB 615
[August 4, 2021] Charter s.10(b): Translation Effects on Rights to Counsel [Madam Justice A. Loparco]
AUTHOR'S NOTE: Some police officers often appear to dislike the necessity of reading Charter rights to the accused. This is particularly so when the accused does not appear to understand. Often, that appearance is treated as a form of obstruction to a proper investigation in the attitude of the police officer responsible. Here this attitude came up against a recent immigrant who was not fluent in English. His repeated attempts to contact his English-fluent sister to facilitate contact with counsel were thwarted ultimately by redirection to Legal Aid duty counsel. In the end, this re-direction resulted in an exclusion of his statement
[2] The Accused has been charged with sexual assault under s. 271 of the Code, as a party to sexual assault under s. 272(1)(d) and with kidnapping under s. 279(1.1)(b). The events leading to the criminal charges allegedly occurred on August 26th , 2019.
[4] The Accused argues that the police failed in their informational and implementational duties guaranteed by s. 10(b) of the Charter. The issue in this case concerns whether the police fulfilled their duty to ascertain that the detainee understood his s. 10(b) rights in light of his apparent language barriers.
[5] An analysis of the progression of the discussion between the Accused and EPS members is key. In my review of the transcript, along with the testimony of Detective Vallee, Constable Patenaude and Constable Sidhu, I conclude that the Accused's s. 10(b) constitutional rights were breached as a result of the police's lack of consistent and clear communication. In essence, it failed to properly interpret the Accused's requests for a conduit and take reasonable steps to ensure that the Accused understood his rights to counsel.
[6] The Accused was arrested at his home on May 22nd, 2019 at 8:41am by two members of the EPS, Constables Patenaude and Salame. After one of the officers read part of the Charter Rights and Caution, the Accused stated: "I don't speak English, I only speak Punjabi." The officers sent out a call for a Punjabi translator through their radio network and Constable Sidhu, who speaks Punjabi, volunteered to assist.
[7] The arresting officers determined that it would be most time efficient to meet Detective Vallee, who was in charge of the investigation, and Constable Sidhu, at EPS Headquarters. The arresting EPS members advised the Accused he would be transported to police headquarters where a Punjabi translator would assist in explaining the arrest process. Nothing further was said in the patrol car during the transport.
[8] The Accused arrived at the station at 9:06am and was placed in a holding cell. At 9:33am he was placed in a private telephone room with his personal cell phone. At 9:43am he indicated he was finished by knocking on the door and he was returned to his holding cell. This occurred before the Charter Rights and Caution were read to him.
[9] Constable Sidhu arrived at 10:10am and spoke with the Accused in Punjabi. At 10:14am, the Accused was taken into an interview room with Constable Sidhu and Detective Vallee and provided an explanation of the charges in Punjabi. From 10:16am to approximately 10:40am, Constable Sidhu read the Charter Rights and Caution, a secondary Caution in English and Punjabi, and the Accused used the telephone room. Upon exiting the telephone room, the Accused confirmed that he had spoken to a lawyer with a Punjabi-speaking translator. An audio and video recorded interview followed with Detective Vallee and translator Constable Sidhu from approximately 10:41am to 12:45pm.
[10] The interaction from 10:14am until 10:40am forms the basis of this Charter application. I have highlighted the relevant portions of the transcript below and added any oral testimony that assisted in my assessment. The chronology of events along with my commentary on each step is as follows:
At 10:14:30 the Accused makes it clear he does not understand why he was arrested even though Constable Patenaude testified that it was her belief that the Accused understood because he was cooperative and nodded.
At 10:18:06 the Accused asks how he will call a lawyer in English and is told he can request a Punjabi translator. I note that this could only have related to the use of Legal Aid and did not assist in advising Mr. Sandhu of how he could speak to a lawyer of choice in light of his language barriers.
At 10:18:10 the Accused asks if his sister can call and he is advised that he may consult anyone and that the police will give him his phone if he wants to call, but that if he does not have a lawyer, he may call Legal Aid and request a Punjabi translator. The concept of Legal Aid is not explained to him nor is his question answered regarding whether he can use his sister to call a lawyer. It was evident that the question asked by the Accused was not about whether he could call a lawyer himself, since it appears that he was not sure he had the language ability to do so, but about whether he could use his sister as a conduit to do so. The Constable's answer missed this language nuance in his response to the accused.
At 10:18:26 when asked if he understands, the Accused replied: "that I call my sister?" This appears to be indicative of a lack of understanding in relation to his right to contact a lawyer either of his choice or through Legal Aid. Read in combination with the previous comments, it should have raised a red flag that the Accused still did not understand how he could contact any lawyer and was preoccupied with his inability to communicate. Only the Legal Aid option would have allowed him to do so through a Punjabi speaker.
At 10:20:21 the Accused is asked if he wants to call a free lawyer or any other lawyer and the Accused responds again that he wants to call his sister. The concept of a 'free lawyer' is not explained to the Accused who is a recent immigrant from India where such service may not exist. Moreover, the concept of Legal Aid is not explained to the Accused even though it is evident that he was not familiar with the Canadian legal system. ...
At 10:24 Constable Sidhu explains to Detective Vallee that the Accused is concerned because he does not understand the legal process as he came from India only last June. She would have been likely aware of his lack of history with the legal system from her prior CPIC search and investigations of him, which she testified she conducted before his arrest.
At 10:24:43 Detective Vallee asks the Accused directly whether he wants to talk to a lawyer and receives no answer. Given that the Accused was cooperative throughout, this ought to have been another indication that the Accused did not understand his rights. When the question was followed by Constable Sidhu asking if he wants to use the phone, the Accused repeats that he wants to call his sister.
At 10:25:03 Detective Vallee states that before calling his sister, the Accused needs to call a lawyer, first and foremost. It should have been obvious that the Accused could not call a lawyer of choice on his own because of the language barrier and thus the emphasis on calling a lawyer first and foremost and before his sister essentially funneled him to Legal Aid as the only option. Further, this contradicts what Constable Sidhu advised him previously- that he could call his sister first. ...
At 10:25:09 Constable Sidhu states: "Okay like it is your right, she said if you want to call a lawyer first at this number, you can and get a Punjabi speaker. You can use this phone, you call them first and then call your sister, however you want to." This would have created even more confusion. The addition of 'however you want to' seems to suggest that he could also make the calls in the reverse order.
At 10:25:23 this confusion is further evidenced when the Accused states, attempting to clarify what he now believes is his only option, which is to call Legal Aid: "I will call sister and she can call this number." Again, here, it is clear the Accused is seeking to use his sister as a conduit.
At 10:25:26 the Accused is then advised that his sister cannot call and that the Accused must call because he is under arrest. In response to my question as to why the Accused's sister could not call Legal Aid, the Crown explained the implausibility of having third parties call Legal Aid. However, I remain unconvinced. In my view, a third-party conduit should be entitled to contact counsel (whether Legal Aid or otherwise) on behalf of a person who requires assistance for any reason such as a language barrier, capacity issues, or for a person with a disability where clear communication by phone might be hindered (e.g., a person with hearing loss). Given the fact that the Accused was able to access Legal Aid quickly, any concerns about significant delays that might arise as a result of the use of a conduit do not appear to be the issue in this case....
At 10:28:25 Detective Vallee responds to Constable Sidhu outside the presence of the Accused. In her testimony in the voir dire, she was honest in describing her response as "frustrated" and was evident in her voice when she stated: "He needs to call a lawyer. This isn't the time to be phoning all family members. It's a lawyer right now or nothing. Because we have to move on, we have other people that need to use the phone room." It is unclear why Detective Vallee becomes frustrated since it had been under 15 minutes since the Charter Rights and Caution process commenced. Moreover, Detective Vallee testified that she spoke loudly and that she "is not a wall flower." However, in cross-examination, Detective Vallee confirmed that there really was no urgency and that if the Accused required even up to two hours to contact a lawyer through a family member, it would not have created any hardship to the police to give him that time.
At 10:28:34 Constable Sidhu explains to the Accused that it is time sensitive because others need the phone and that it is only for calling a lawyer, even though it would have been obvious that he could not call any lawyer without calling his sister first since he could not read the phone books that were in the room. Moreover, even though it was known the Accused needed his cell phone to call his sister, it was not provided to him.
At 10:28:44 Detective Vallee states that he can call his sister after, which is repeated by Constable Sidhu. This now clearly contradicts the previous information the Accused was provided.
Section 10(b) and "Special Circumstances"
[11]A proper analysis of s. 10(b) rights includes the consideration of an accused's understanding of their rights and any steps taken by police to facilitate this understanding. As stated by McLachlin J, as she then was, in the decision of R v Evans, 1991 CanLII 98 (SCC), 1991 CarswellBC 417 (SCC) at 39, [1991] 1 SCR 869 at 890:
A person who does not understand his or her right cannot be expected to assert it. The purpose of s. 10(b) is to require the police to communicate the right to counsel to the detainee. In most cases one can infer from the circumstances that the accused understands what he has been told. In such cases, the police are required to go no further (unless the detainee indicates a desire to retain counsel, in which case they must comply with the second and third duties set out above). But where, as here, there is a positive indication that the accused does not understand his right to counsel, the police cannot rely on their mechanical recitation of the right to the accused; they must take steps to facilitate that understanding. [emphasis added]
[12] As provided by Lamer CJ in the decision of R v Latimer, 1997 CanLII 405 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 217 [Latimer], special circumstances may require police to take additional steps to comply with their informational duties under s. 10(b). Such special circumstances include young persons, individuals with visual impairments, individuals with limited intellectual capacities, and those with a lack of proficiency in the English language (Latimer, at para 38).
[13] In R v Vanstaceghem, 1987 CanLII 6795 (ON CA), 1987 CarswellOnt 100, 36 CCC (3d) 142 (ONCA) the Court highlighted language as one special circumstance which attracts a heightened police obligation to ensure that an accused is informed. In that case the accused was not informed of his constitutional rights in French, leading to his breath sample being excluded under section 24(2). As it relates to language, the Court stated, at para 20:
It is not sufficient for a police officer upon the arrest or detention of a person to merely recite the rights guaranteed by s. 10 of the Charter. As section 10(b) stipulates, the accused or detainee must be informed. This means that the accused or detainee must understand what is being said to him or her by the police officer. Otherwise, he or she is not able to make an informed choice with respect to the exercise or waiver of the guaranteed rights.
If the rights are read in English only, and the accused's or detainee's knowledge of the English language does not allow sufficient comprehension of the matter, those are "special circumstances" which alert the officer and oblige him to act reasonably in the circumstances. [emphasis added]
[14] In my view, the police did not discharge their informational and implementational duties properly as they did not take proper steps to facilitate the Accused's understanding of the options available to him to contact counsel. Rather, it appears Constable Sidhu and Detective Vallee conveyed conflicting messages to the Accused. Mr. Sandhu clearly did not understand the distinction and difference between his right to call a lawyer of choice and Legal Aid and whether he could use his sister to assist him. The obligation to ensure that comprehension exists on the part of the detainee is heightened when special circumstances exist, which I find were present here.
[15] The Accused was a recent immigrant. Despite his cooperation and nodding, it ought to have been clear to police that he did not understand English. While this alone is not a reason to take additional steps, in this case, the Accused's need for his sister's assistance in order to exercise his rights was made manifest by his repeated attempts to advise the police that he wanted to speak to her first. Further, it could not be assumed that he would trust the police referring him to a free lawyer, or understand that Legal Aid is an independent and free legal service provided to all detainees. No attempt to explain this legal concept was made even though, when he was asked to sign the Caution form, Constable Sidhu took the time to explain to the Accused that signing it would not result in an admission of guilt, that the police were not trying to trap him, lie to him, or play games.
Section 10(b) and Choice of Counsel
[16] In my view, the Accused's language rights and right to counsel are intrinsically linked and cannot be assessed separately. In examination of the totality of circumstances, the Applicant's repeated attempts to communicate the need to use his sister as a conduit were ignored. In the result, the Accused's misunderstanding of his 10(b) rights led to the denial of his right to meaningful access to counsel of choice.
[17] The purpose to a right of counsel under s. 10(b) is about providing detainees with meaningful choices: R v Bartle, 1994 CanLII 64 (SCC), 1994 CarswellOnt 100 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 173 at para 22. Defence counsel relies on the decision of R v Pita, 2013 ONCJ 716, in which the Court includes choice of counsel within the scope of the Accused's right to counsel (at para 70). Courts have recognized that special circumstances arise when it is clear that a detainee's first language is not English and that the individual has difficulty comprehending the information. In such cases, further steps must be taken by police to ascertain the detainee's understanding of these rights.
[18] It was known to both Constables Sidhu and Detective Vallee that the Accused needed his cell phone to call his sister and that going into a phone room with English phone books would not assist him in reaching his sister or a lawyer of choice. He was continually directed to use Legal Aid both in subtle and overt ways.
[28] I therefore distinguish this line of jurisprudence from the present situation on the basis that the police knew or ought to have known from the totality of the conversation with Mr. Sandhu that he needed his sister's assistance to facilitate his access to a lawyer.
[30] Contrary to the Crown's assertion that asking the Accused why he wanted to contact his sister would breach his privacy rights, it would not have been necessary to do so. Rather, once there were sufficient grounds to form the belief that the detainee wished to use a third party for assistance, the duty would have easily been met by simply advising him that if the reason he wanted to speak to his sister was to use her as a conduit to counsel, that he would be permitted to do so. No such attempt to clarify his rights was made. In my view, this breached the heightened police duty in this case where special circumstances were present.
[31] Moreover, one cannot expect the Accused in this situation to know what questions should be asked. Mr. Sandhu was unable to articulate his wishes as he did not know the law or the language. However, there were positive indications that he lacked the understanding to comprehend his rights. A mechanical recitation of his rights would have been insufficient since it is obvious from the circumstances that further assistance in clarification was needed. The explanation of the Accused's Charter rights should not be reduced to a formulaic checkbox exercise; rather, it should be seen as a fluid discussion that ought to be responsive to the Accused's apparent needs and barriers to communication.
[32] Moreover, this situation is exacerbated by the fact that Detective Vallee became perceptibly frustrated with the time it was taking to get the Accused to exercise his right to counsel. He was first granted broad permission to call 'anyone he wants', then he was told he could call his sister first, then only a Legal Aid lawyer, and finally he was told to call the Legal Aid number as this was how he would get a Punjabi interpreter.
[33] There is an unsatisfactory explanation as to why he could not use his sister as a conduit in either case. It appears by the progressive sequence of the dialogue, which was hindered by interpretation and comprehension issues, that he was unsure whom he can call, how it would impact his rights, and how he would be able to communicate.
[34] In R v Hughes, 2014 ABQB 166 [Hughes] Bast J held that where there is a legitimate request to contact a third-party conduit, a detainee may use one in the course of exercising his or her right to counsel. In finding that the accused's s. 10(b) rights had been infringed, Bast J stated, at para 11: "[t]he refusal of the officer to respond or seek clarification of the question from the appellant had the effect of misleading the appellant as to who he could call. As a result, the officer interfered with the appellant's right to counsel of choice."
[35] In conclusion, I find that an analogous situation has occurred here. The Accused made a legitimate request to speak to his sister, which was accepted at first. The question from the Accused at the outset of the discussion did not specify whether he wanted his sister to call a lawyer of choice or Legal Aid. There appears to have been an inappropriate assumption made that the Accused was not using his sister to contact a lawyer of choice and that he wanted her only for hand-holding. Although he may not have articulated his exact reason for wanting to call his sister first, after he was advised that he could do so, no further obligation on the Accused to explain the reason why would have arisen.
[37] It is not only the exact words used that reveal a detainee's intentions; meaningful communication of the Accused's rights requires an attempt to appreciate any miscommunications that might have occurred as a result of deficiencies that occur in translation. Unfortunately, at the point when Detective Vallee put the pieces together and became aware of the possibility that the Accused may have wanted to use his sister as a conduit for a lawyer of choice, no further steps were taken to clarify this apparent confusion with the Accused. Constable Sidhu proceeded to the interview once it was determined that the Accused spoke to a Legal Aid lawyer.
[38] I note that the Accused repeated that he did not speak with his sister when he exited the phone room, which seems to indicate that he continued to be preoccupied with the fact that he needed his sister's assistance.
[39] As mentioned, I find this case analogous to Hughes. Although in Hughes, the failure was based on the officer's misapprehension of the law on the right to use a conduit, in this case, the failure is more pronounced as it is based on a denial of the accused's expressed desire to use a conduit to connect with a suitable lawyer.
Exclusion of Evidence - Section 24(2)
a) Seriousness of the state infringing conduct
[42] I find the breach to be serious. The police conduct, while not in bad faith, was deficient in ensuring that the Accused understood the options available to him. I also find that not allowing the Accused to use his sister as a conduit for any lawyer, whether a lawyer of choice or Legal Aid, was improper.
[44] Moreover, I find that the Accused was misled, albeit not deliberately, and funnelled to use Legal Aid as a result of the Detective's frustration that the process was taking too long. There was no justification for her concern of urgency. Moreover, the power imbalance between Detective Vallee and Constable Sidhu, and Detective Vallee's frustration with the process, likely contributed to a sudden change of instructions to the Accused and the misunderstanding of the reason why the Accused's wished to contact his sister.
[45] As stated by Bast J in Hughes, at para 16:"[e]ven if the conduct of the officer was not deliberate or intentionally misleading, ignorance of Charter standards must not be rewarded or encouraged, and negligence or wilful blindness cannot be equated with good faith."
b) Seriousness of the impact on the interests of the appellant
[47] In Berger, the Court of Appeal stated at paras 24-25:
While any lawyer contacted by the appellant would have told him that his options were limited with regards to non-participation in the face of a breathalyzer demand, that does not excuse a Charter violation. The lawyer could have provided other critical advice, including the importance of remaining silent, strategies for interrogation and practical advice about securing release from custody.
More importantly, to accept the argument that the Charter breach would not have mattered because both refusing to blow, and achieving a fail rating after blowing result in a criminal consequence, would be to insulate s. 10(b) Charter breaches in the course of an investigation of an over .08 charge from any consequence because the accused person has little choice but to eventually provide a breath sample in any event. That is not the law. [citations omitted]
[48] Similarly, in this case, the lawyer of choice could have provided strategic advice and so the failure to ensure the Accused knew he had the right to a lawyer of choice resulted in an interference with his right to counsel and had a serious impact on his Charter protected interests. This factor favours the exclusion of the statement.
[53] After balancing all three factors, I conclude that the admission of such evidence would seriously affect the repute of the administration of justice. It would result in a lack of assurance that the process in obtaining the Accused's statement was fair. I therefore order that the Accused's statement to police be excluded.
[54] The application is allowed and the statement of the Accused is inadmissible.
R v Martin, 2021 ONSC 5333
[August 3, 2021] Jury Selection: Charge on Racial Bias, Challenge for Cause (Offence Based Challenges) and the Stand Aside Power [A. J. Goodman J.]
AUTHOR'S NOTE: With the constitutionality of the peremptory challenge now decided with finality by the SCC, the judicial disputes in jury selection are moving to the remedial powers granted to judges under the new legislation and the various interpretations of R v Chouhan. In this decision, Justice Goodman gives a thoughtful interpretation of the stand aside provisions (ie. enhanced powers to ensure "competent" jurors), challenge for cause and reinforces the need for a series of strong instructions on racial bias. Also, a point by point outline of jury selection is provided (but not summarised herein). On the Challenge for Cause front, expansion to allow offence-based challenges is supported as well as counsel asking the questions.
Jury Selection Procedures
[3] In the case at bar, the accused is charged with six counts, to wit; did exercise control, direction, or influence over the movements of L.C. for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of her; did receive a financial or material benefit knowing that it was derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 279.01(1); did knowingly advertise an offer to provide sexual services for consideration x2; did unlawfully commit an assault upon L.C., and uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, all contrary to their relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
[8] Given the foregoing, it is a challenge to assess and implement a practical application of jury selection arising out of Chouhan. Indeed, in Chouhan, the Supreme Court was split, with five separate sets of reasons. As Pomerance J. stated in Bhogal, at para. 5:
It would appear that seven of nine justices endorsed the use of anti-bias instructions; seven of nine appeared to endorse a modestly liberalized approach to the challenge for cause, albeit one that respects juror privacy; four of nine expressly held that the stand aside power could be used to address reasonable apprehensions of bias; four of nine proposed limits on the challenge for cause; and five of nine proposed limits on the stand aside power, holding that it could not be used to secure a representative petit jury.
Practical Application of the Jury Selection Procedures to this Case
[10] In Bhogal, at para. 9, Pomerance J. explains that there is now judicial recognition that implicit or unconscious bias is a factor in human decision making. The Supreme Court opined on the issue of unconscious bias.
[11] The Supreme Court of Canada judicially recognized and accepted that unconscious bias in individuals may result in innate bias or preconceived notions that they may not be aware of. In addressing the issue, the Supreme Court attempts to drive home the meaningful notion that while unconscious bias, is by definition nebulous and esoteric, jurors ought to be alerted and focussed on the potential for such bias or stereotyping.
[12] As Moldaver J. stated at para. 53 of Chouhan:
Where anti‑bias instructions are required, they ought to come early, before the presentation of evidence, and at any other time that the trial judge deems appropriate, including when the panel of prospective jurors is assembled in the courtroom at the outset of jury selection. We suggest that trial judges begin by pointing out that as members of society, each juror brings a variety of beliefs, assumptions, and perceptions to the court room. These assumptions will often be based on characteristics such as gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or employment status. Trial judges ought to highlight that jurors may be aware of some of their biases while being unaware of others. These unconscious biases may be based on implicit attitudes, namely "feelings that one has about a particular group", or stereotypes, namely "traits that one associates with a particular group"…
[13] Hence, when applicable, trial judges are directed to instruct potential juror to actively reflect upon their thought processes, belief system and dive down deep into their personal views, assumptions, stereotypical thinking and myths, whatever their degree, when called to the bar for presentation as a potential juror, principally when a challenge for cause is raised. Again, I cannot say it any better than Pomerance J. expressed in Bhogal, at para. 9, that "[i]implicit biases tend to be deeply embedded in the psyche, but can be brought to the surface through active introspection".
[14] Therefore, I adopt into my instructions to the entire panel the general anti-bias instructions found in Bhogal, at para. 11, with some modifications as follows:
Every juror must be impartial, which means that every juror must approach the trial with an open mind and without preconceived ideas.
We all have beliefs and assumptions that affect our perception of the world. These perceptions can create a bias for or against others based on their personal characteristics [such as gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or employment status]. We may be aware of some of these biases, but unaware of others. No matter how unbiased we think we are, we look at others and filter what they say through the lens of our own personal background and experiences. Unconscious biases may be based on stereotypes or feelings that one has about a particular group, namely, traits that one associates with that group. All human beings experience unconscious biases, but these biases can be overcome through self-reflection and introspection.
Stereotypes have no place in our legal system, where all persons are entitled to be judged on their individual character, not on assumptions about them based on their race, religion, ethnic background or other personal characteristics.
If you are selected as a juror, you will be asked to judge the evidence presented at trial fairly without bias, prejudice, sympathy or partiality. Jurors are judges of the facts and must approach the case with an open mind, one that is free from bias, prejudice, sympathy or partiality. Impartiality requires active work. It requires that you be aware of your own personal beliefs and experiences, and that you be equally open to the views of others. If you are selected as a juror, it will be your duty to set aside any prejudices or stereotypes that might affect your decision in this case.
There are things that jurors can do to help identify and set aside unconscious bias. If you are chosen as a juror you will be instructed to:
Take the time you need to reflect carefully and thoughtfully about the evidence. Think about why you are making the decision you are making. Reconsider your first impressions of the people and the evidence in this case. If the people involved in this case were from different backgrounds, for example, richer or poorer, more or less educated, older or younger, or of different gender, gender identity, race, religion, or sexual orientation, would you still view them, and the evidence, the same way?
Jurors come from different backgrounds and will view this case in light of their own insights, assumptions, and biases. Listening to different perspectives may help you to better identify the possible effects of hidden biases.
If you are selected as a juror, you must resist jumping to conclusions based on personal likes or dislikes, generalizations, gut feelings, prejudices, sympathies, or stereotypes.
[15] I also adopt the specific anti-bias rationale discussed in Bhogal, at para. 12.
Challenge for Cause:
[16] In my reading of Chouhan, it appears that the challenge for cause question enjoys an expansive approach. According to Martin J. at paras. 119 and 121, (writing on behalf of three judges):
119. With respect to challenges for cause, I agree with my colleagues Moldaver and Brown JJ. that R. v. Parks (1993), 1993 CanLII 3383 (ON CA), 15 O.R. (3d) 324 (C.A.), does not describe the only questions available on a challenge for cause. Indeed, trial judges are afforded the latitude to depart from the Parks-style formula where appropriate to ensure juror impartiality. This Court has encouraged trial judges to "err on the side of caution and permit prejudices to be examined" through the challenge for cause process (Williams, at para. 22; see also Parks, at p. 335, and R. v. Find, 2001 SCC 32, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863, at para. 45).
121. Ultimately, in deciding whether to allow challenges for cause and in settling on the form of permissible questioning, courts must be allowed to exercise their discretion in accordance with the wording and purpose of s. 638(1) (b), the accused's right to a fair and impartial tribunal, and Charter values, including substantive equality (Williams, at para. 49).
[17] Thus, I intend to embrace a liberal approach to counsel's suggestions for the challenge, within the parameters or constraints set by the Supreme Court about a representative jury.
[20] First, I take a different approach to the direction found at para. 39 of Bhogal, wherein Pomerance J. opines that Chouhan does not permit a challenge for cause based on the nature of the offence. It is true that the Supreme Court in Chouhan focused on the relevant characteristic of the accused or victim and provided examples, but was silent on this specific point.
[21] I find that the door is open to address and advance such an inquiry, albeit with privacy interests in mind. In Chouhan, at para. 66, Moldaver J. writes:
While we agree that the Parks question was never intended to be the only question available on a challenge for cause (R. v. Parks (1993), 1993 CanLII 3383 (ON CA), 15 O.R. (3d) 324 (C.A.)), we caution that trial judges who permit questions beyond the Parks formulation must be mindful of the fundamental principle of respect for jurors' privacy upon which our system of jury selection has "long been based" (Kokopenace, at para. 74, per Moldaver J.; at para. 155, per Karakatsanis J.; and at para. 227, per Cromwell J. (dissenting but not on this point)). The Parks question itself permits only limited incursions into juror privacy, and further developments in the challenge for cause process must continue to balance "the accused's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury, while also protecting the privacy interests of prospective jurors" (Williams, at para. 53 (emphasis added); Spence, at para. 24; R. v. Davey, 2012 SCC 75, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 828, at para. 30).
[22] Moldaver J. provides the trial judge with the discretion to conduct the challenge for cause procedure. He states at para. 62::
The trial judge necessarily enjoys significant discretion to determine how and under what circumstances the presumption of impartiality will be displaced, and how far the parties may go in the questions that are asked on a challenge for cause.
[23] At para. 64, Moldaver J. goes on to provide some examples:
Appropriate questions on a challenge for cause will ask prospective jurors for their opinion as it relates to salient aspects of the case. For instance, counsel may point to characteristics of the accused, complainant or victim, such as race, addiction, religion, occupation, sexual orientation or gender expression, and ask prospective jurors whether, in light of such characteristics, they would have difficulty judging the case solely on the evidence and the trial judge's instructions, because they hold an opinion about such characteristics that on careful reflection, they do not believe they could put aside.(citations omitted).
[24] I do not read this as foreclosing the need for trial judges to be cognizant and adapt to the circumstances of each case, which may include offence-based questions in order to achieve the objectives of an impartial juror during the challenge for cause in the appropriate case.
[25] With the discretion afforded trial judges on the challenge for cause, there may be occasions, such as in this case, where the offence-based question is entirely appropriate and need be posed to the prospective jurors. In this trial, the victim is black and an alleged sex trade worker. The offence in question is predicated upon her employment, and as such, the two concepts are intertwined and therefore ought to be canvassed by the challenge for cause process.
[26] The second area where I adopt a different approach than that found in Bhogal is the direction that the trial judge ought to pose the challenge for cause question. In my experience, I have never posed the challenge for cause question, and find that Chouhan does not necessarily alter that perspective.
[27] Paragraph 64 of Chouhan, reproduced here, states:
Appropriate questions on a challenge for cause will ask prospective jurors for their opinion as it relates to salient aspects of the case. For instance, counsel may point to characteristics of the accused, complainant or victim, such as race, addiction, religion, occupation, sexual orientation or gender expression, and ask prospective jurors whether, in light of such characteristics, they would have difficulty judging the case solely on the evidence and the trial judge's instructions, because they hold an opinionabout such characteristics that on careful reflection, they do not believe they could put aside.(emphasis added).
[28] I also note that Moldaver J.'s comments at para. 67 of Chouhan:
We raise two final points regarding challenges for cause. First, Bill C 75 directs that the trial judge, rather than a layperson, will be the arbiter of the challenge for cause. As such, in our view, it would be appropriate for the trial judge — as an impartial person adjudicating impartiality — to put the challenge for cause questions to the prospective juror. Counsel should, of course, be consulted on the content of such questions before they are posed. Secondly, in trials involving challenges for cause, trial judges should as a rule exercise their power to exclude jurors from the court room during the selection process, pursuant to s. 640(2) of the Criminal Code. (emphasis added).
[29] In my view, these emphasized statements appear to suggest that a trial judge has discretion to adopt the approach that is best suited to ensure justice is promoted within a given trial. Indeed, I do not read these emphasized comments as foreclosing the possibility of trial judges departing from the traditional approach and assume the role of questioner, where circumstances warrant, for example, in the case of a self-represented accused.
[30] In a similar vein, I do not read those comments as mandating the trial judge pose the questions. One should still bear in mind the dangers or risks inherent when the judge descending into the arena, assuming the role of inquisitor as well a trier. In my opinion, it is incumbent on the judge, as any trier, to be focused on the evidence and make a determination rather than being implicated in the elicitation of the evidence. In our adversarial system of justice, the trier generally is to stay out of the figurative arena where possible. The goal is to preserve as much as possible the appearance of objective neutrality, free from bias: R. v. Hamilton, 2011 ONCA 399. In my view, this can be addressed and likely eliminated with counsel posing the questions.
[32] Given that the jurors will be brought in individually, there is no harm in defence counsel posing all of the questions. In the appropriate case, I have directed both Crown and defence to share in that task.
[37] Nothing in the particular circumstances of this case before me warrants my posing the primary questions for the challenge for cause. As mentioned earlier, I reserve the well-established right of any trial judge to pose clarifying questions in response to the prospective juror's answers for the challenge.
[39] In my experience and to my knowledge it has been a standard and widely- accepted practice for many years to exclude all prospective jurors from the challenge for cause questioning process, and to have each potential juror appear before the bar individually. Why? Because the concept was that responses provided with other potential jurors present could taint the process and result in a-less-than robust, honest, spontaneous response to questions being posed by counsel. As far as I am aware, at no time were the challenge for cause questions provided in advance to each potential juror presumably as a result of these concerns.
[40] While silent on the issue, at para. 67 of Chouhan, Moldaver J. endorses the approach of prospective jurors being subject to the challenge individually:
…Secondly, in trials involving challenges for cause, trial judges should as a rule exercise their power to exclude jurors from the court room during the selection process, pursuant to s. 640(2) of the Criminal Code . Jurors would be understandably reluctant to acknowledge a bias or prejudice publicly, and therefore, the risk of empanelling a biased juror increases where exclusion orders are not made…After all, the purpose of this expanded procedure is not to expose potential jurors as "racists" or to single them out publicly for their biases, but rather to foster candid reflection on their part about their ability to consider the evidence impartially. This approach will target both explicit racism and more subtle forms of racial prejudice (see Martin J.'s reasons, at para. 121).
[41] As an extension of this logic, two concerns arise. First, if someone has a conscious bias, once alerted to the question, if they want to avoid giving a candid answer, or help to ensure their desired non-service as the case may be, this procedure outlined in Bhogal provides more time to ruminate to consider an effective answer. Clearly, all jurors must be treated equally and fairly. I am concerned that if the entire panel receives the question in advance, the first potential juror may be treated differently than the 20thjuror, who has more time to consider the questions.
[42] Second, I diverge from my colleague's opinion that "spontaneity may be the enemy of accuracy". As noted by Pomerance J., the concept of res gestae runs contrary to the notion that spontaneity may not be accurate or honest.
[45] In my opinion, a spontaneous response is likely to produce a more accurate answer. The questions ought thus be posed for the first time to each juror after they are brought forward individually to the book to be sworn or affirmed in the courtroom. Again, recall that the jurors have already been told to reflect upon their own potential biases or prejudices in advance of being randomly called forward. One should not lose sight of the fact that perspective jurors are witnesses during the challenge for cause process.
The Challenge for Cause Here
[47] When I get to this section of my general instructions to the panel, I will advise them much along these lines as outlined in Bhogal, with some modifications:
You will recall my earlier instructions about the need for jurors to identify and set aside biases, stereotypes, prejudices, and other assumptions when deciding this case. As a prospective juror, you bring with you life experiences, beliefs, and opinions, some of which may be unconscious. Of course, we can only focus on our conscious awareness but the notion of unconscious bias brings home the necessity to think hard about your own beliefs and values towards other persons and reflect upon them.
It is not whether these beliefs are correct or proper, but the issue before us today is whether you can set them aside so that they do not affect your decision in this case. As a juror, you must decide the case without bias, prejudice or partiality. You must decide the case based solely on the evidence and the instructions of the trial judge.
During the challenge for cause, counsel will ask you some questions. Listen carefully. Take your time in answering. You must answer the question honestly. You may answer the question with a yes of no, or in any manner you deem appropriate to express yourself. If you do not understand thequestion, please let me know.
[48] During the actual challenge for cause process, counsel will pose the questions to each potential juror with the preamble:
As His Honour advised you, a juror must decide the case without bias, prejudice or partiality. You must decide the case based solely on the evidence and the instructions of the trial judge.
In this case, the accused, Shawn Martin, is a Black man. The alleged victim is a Black woman. The crimes charged allege physical violence, threats of violence, and exploitation in the context of sex work.
Do you have any bias, beliefs or pre-conceived notions about Black men?
(If yes), would you be able to set those beliefs aside and decide the case based solely on the evidence at trial and the instructions of the trial judge?
Do you have any beliefs or pre-conceived notions about Black men being more prone to violence or violence against women?
(If yes), would you be able to set those beliefs aside and decide the case based solely on the evidenceat trial and the instruction of the trial judge?
Do you have any beliefs about people who engage in sex work, that is compensation for sexual services or whether you have pre-conceived notions that Black men are more likely to be involved in the sex trade?
(If yes), would you be able to set those beliefs aside and decide the case based solely on the evidence and the instructions of the trial judge?
Do you have any beliefs or pre-conceived notions about people who pay for sexual services or people who are compensated for sexual services?
(If yes), would you be able to set those beliefs aside and decide the case based solely on the evidenceat trial and the instructions of the trial judge?
Stand-by provision:
[49] Section 633 of the Criminal Code is re-drafted to provide further assistance in ensuring the constitutional requirement, an impartial jury. It does not mean that a party can implore a judge to abuse the stand-aside power as a pseudo- peremptory challenge. However, it does mean that there may be a basis to inquire of jurors pursuant to this provision and with the guidance from the Supreme Court in Chouhan.
[60] It bears repeating that the revised s. 633 now stipulates that the judge may direct a juror "to stand by for reasons of personal hardship, maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice or any other reasonable cause".
[61] When the previous stand-aside procedure was invoked, it generally occurred after a triggering event: a question arising from the juror's ability to understand the language of trial, a health issue or perhaps exceptional hardship to serve being claimed. Notably, in the exercise of the authority found in the former provision, a determination was usually made by a judge after – but not always - hearing submissions from counsel.
[62] In Chouhan, Abella J., at para. 159, states:
In order to avoid bias and discrimination, the new jury selection system entrusts trial judges to vigorously exercise their authority in accordance with the Charter to ensure that Canadian juries are, and are perceived to be, impartial and representative…[m]aintaining public confidence in the administration of justice. The key phrase is "maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.
[63] While the practical application of this stand-by provision is left to be determined, Moldaver J. provided the tools for trial judges to utilize this residual stand-aside authority. At para. 62 of Chouhan, he held:
We are of the view that the "maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice" standard provides an effective analytical yardstick to address a variety of residual concerns in the jury selection process. In particular, the stand‑aside power can provide a means to exclude jurors whom the judge, the accused, or the Crown believe might be partial but who have nevertheless survived a challenge for cause. In this respect, the amended provision builds upon the case law that has recognized that the stand‑aside power provides an "element of flexibility" to the jury selection process by allowing trial judges to exclude jurors who might be partial (R. v. Krugel (2000), 2000 CanLII 5660 (ON CA), 143 C.C.C. (3d) 367 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 63‑64).
[64] I observe that Moldaver J. disagreed with Abella J. on several points, including the use of the stand aside provision to promote diversity. Moldaver J. provides guidance as to the contours of the revised stand aside provision, as found at paras. 71-72 of Chouhan:
It will be for trial courts and courts of appeal to determine, on a case by case basis, the contours of the trial judge's discretion to stand aside jurors to "maintain[n] public confidence in the administration of justice", but we wish to make it clear what this amended power cannot be used for.
First, in all cases, the trial judge must maintain a resolute focus on the language that Parliament chose in amending the stand aside provision: trial judges can stand aside jurors only where necessary to "maintai[n] public confidence in the administration of justice". Public confidence is assessed from the perspective of a reasonable and informed person (R. v. St‑Cloud, 2015 SCC 27, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 328, at para. 87), who, in the context of jury selection, will know of the many safeguards that go to ensuring the independence and impartiality of the jury and the fairness of the trial, including: the dedicated provincial efforts to create representative jury rolls, the vital principle of randomness that undergirds all aspects of jury selection, the challenge for cause process that removes potential jurors for partiality, the trial judge's instructions targeting implicit and unconscious bias, and the rigours of the trial process itself. Given these and other safeguards, which we have canvassed at length above, public confidence will not easily be lost in the jury selection process (citations omitted).
[65] As I held in Josipovic at para. 31, endorsing Boswell J.'s sage ruling in R. v. Campbell, 2019 ONSC 6285, at para. 35, the use of stand-asides in relation to the concept of "competent juries" is important and meaningful. To this end, Boswell J. explains the following at paras. 100 and 101 of Campbell:
Every now and then, a prospective juror appears who is clearly not well-suited to jury service. Lawyers and judges alike, through their life experience, are able to readily identify them. Peremptory challenges were a useful means of eliminating them from the jury panel.
Competent juries are necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. Where a trial judge has concerns about the competency of a prospective juror, it is appropriate to exercise the discretion to stand that juror aside.
[66] In my opinion, the use of the term "a competent juror" is still material and does not go down the road of a pseudo-peremptory challenge. The trial judge's discretion has been enhanced to allow for a juror to stand-by for the purpose of "maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice".
[67] This discretion remains with the trial judge on some objective rationale and avoids the stereotypical thinking and reasoning that was criticized with the peremptory challenge. I am satisfied in the appropriate circumstances, a trial judge, whether on his or her own initiative or at request of counsel, can exercise the residual power under s. 633 at any time, albeit requiring a commitment to place some reasons on the record. From my read of Chouhan, the direction from the Supreme Court is not inconsistent with this analysis.
[68] Practically speaking, it is understood that there may be other considerations, apart from a juror's verbal responses, demeanour or otherwise, that could suggest his or her unsuitability, which may not necessarily be captured by the usual challenge for cause framework.
[69] Thus, the trial judge has a role to ensure whether a certain juror is "competent" to act as a juror in a specific case by ensuring that the public trust and confidence in the administration of justice is maintained. Where a trial judge has concerns about the competency of a prospective juror, it is appropriate to exercise the discretion to stand that juror aside. In order to achieve that objective, the judge may act on his or her own initiative, or on advice of counsel. The judge may invite the parties to make further inquiries, propose defined questions and make submissions, where appropriate, albeit on the basis of some objectively reasonable justification.
[70] I am of the view that s. 633 may facilitate such further inquiry, as long as counsel can demonstrate an objectively reasonable justification. The specific inquiry may be modified in each particular case. It may also involve other probing questions that flow from the case or the juror's responses.
[71] If additional questions are posed and if necessary, upon receipt of the answer, I will turn to counsel to determine if they wish to make submissions as to whether or not I should stand-aside the juror. If counsel do not wish to make submissions, he or she will be sworn as a juror.
[72] If counsel signal that they want to make submissions, for whatever reason, then I will invite the prospective juror to leave the courtroom while I hear argument. After that, I will invite the prospective juror back into the courtroom and either ask further questions, direct him or her to stand aside, or have the individual sworn as a juror to try the case.
[73] Finally, once the jury is put-in-charge of the accused, during the course of my preliminary instructions to the jury, they will be reminded about the anti-bias instructions as suggested in Bhogal.
[74] A robust and concomitant application of the enhanced challenge for cause process and stand-by provisions guided by the general principles espoused in Chouhan provides both the Crown and the accused a meaningful opportunity to participate in the jury selection process, to safeguard an impartial jury, while at the same time engaging the accused's fair trial rights.
R v Szpejer, 2021 ABPC 198
[August 13, 2021] 80 or Over: Service of Certificate of Analyst [P. B. Barley PCJ]
AUTHOR'S NOTE: Service and proof of service are not the same thing. In this case, the Crown tried to give evidence from the podium about the contents of the disclosure package to substantiate service of the Certificate of Analyst to the defence. The trial judge rightly noted that was not proof at all. While proof the document's inclusion in disclosure could satisfy notice, the Crown cannot simply advise the court that it was so.
[1] This decision deals with the admissibility of a Certificate of Analyst that the sample of an alcohol standard that is identified in the certificate was suitable for use in an approved instrument.
[2] Defence counsel argues that in this particular case, certain prerequisites for the admission of such a certificate were not met. I shall go through each of the objections in turn.
[3] As background, the accused faces charges under Section 320.14(1)(a) and (b), being impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. The allegation arose on September 3, 2020 and a trial started on June 29, 2021.
[4] On June 14, 2021, the prosecution e-mailed a letter to defence counsel referencing this file and stating:
Re: R v Szpejer, Jadwiga Zofia – Section(s): 320.14(1)(a); 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada – Court Date: June 29, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., in Provincial Courtroom 1005
Due to the nature of this prosecutor, I have confirmed that the disclosure package contains all items pertinent to section 320.34(1)(a) – (e) of the Criminal Code of Canada, including the Certificate of Analyst which will be tendered at trial. Please advise me immediately if you deem anything missing or illegible.
[5] Defence counsel e-mailed back an acknowledgement of receipt of this letter. She also confirmed receipt of it on the date of trial.
Copy of the Certificate
[25] Section 320.32(2) provides that a certificate may not be received into evidence unless notice of intention and a copy be given to the defence. There is no requirement that they be given together.
[26] I have already found that the notice was timely, sufficiently clear and properly served. The remaining question is whether a copy of the certificate was served on the accused, either personally or through counsel.
[27] Proof of service must be established on a balance of probabilities. R v Redford, 2014 ABCA 336 (Redford).
[28] Crown argues that the reference in the letter of June 2021 to the Certificate of Analyst being included in disclosure is proof of service of the certificate. She relied upon the following passage in Redford.
[41] What transpires with the documents after that does not render service invalid. The law does not require the respondent to retain personal control or possession of the certificate. What is important, functionally, is that before trial, the respondent receives a copy of the certificate and reasonable notice that it will be tendered as evidence by the Crown. This requirement is to ensure that the accused can make full answer and defence. Compliance can be accomplished in numerous ways, including by personal service or through counsel by means of disclosure as required by R v Stinchcombe, 1991 CanLII 45 (SCC), [1991] 3 SCR 326.
[31] I have no doubt that the inclusion of a copy of the Certificate of Analyst in disclosure can satisfy the statutory precondition for admission of the certificate at trial.
[32] However, in the present case, I do not have direct evidence as to what was actually in disclosure. The writer of the letter, Crown counsel at trial advises that she has confirmed that the Certificate of Analyst was sent. There are two problems with this. Firstly, counsel is trying to give evidence by letter. A letter from anyone is not properly proof of its contents, and one from Crown counsel is no better. Secondly, the writer was not presumably the actual sender of disclosure. Some administrative person would likely have done that. We do not know if the confirmation was based on hearsay or records. Without that, we have no basis for the confirmation.
[33] Lastly, the letter does not specify that any check was done to confirm that any 'copy' was accurate. In Redford the Court of Appeal quotes the trial judge who set out the evidence of the officer as to the steps that he took to make sure that the copy of the Certificate of Qualified Technician given to the accused was a true copy of the original. The original would be presented to the court by the officer.
[34] That certainty that an exact copy of an original document, now being presented to the court, was given to the accused, is missing in the previous case.
[35] As such, the service of a copy of the Certificate of Analyst is not proven, even on a balance of probabilities. Section 320.32(2) has not been complied with, and so the Certificate of Analyst is not admissible into evidence.
If you have enjoyed the content of this free blog, please support us in continuing to provide this service free of charge by clicking on the advertisement below.
By Pawel Milczarek|2021-08-14T09:50:24-06:00August 14th, 2021|Certificate of Analyst, Challenge for Cause, Charter 10(b), Choice of Counsel, Impaired Operation, Juries, Racial Bias Instructions, Stand-Aside|0 Comments
The Defence Toolkit – November 7, 2021
The Defence Toolkit – October 2, 2021
The Defence Toolkit – September 18, 2021


I've been dreaming of my teeth falling out for 2 nights now, I didn't feel any pain but it was so weird.
In my dream, I was pushing one of my tooth with my finger and it went off. I was shocked but I did not feel pain and we we're laughing about it. We examined the tooth and it has several holes.
I dreamt that I was brushing my teeth then all of a sudden an intense pain started to happen and most of my teeth fell out. I cried to my Dad and said "Could I get fake teeth? Please make a dental appointment asap!" … Thats all I remember. I've been very stressed lately with family issues. Possibly I could feel this way due to my family not being together anymore. So the loss/anxiety above makes sense.
hi, dreamed someone telling me to stop eating the kind of I eat and the following day dreamed of loosing half of my upper teeth left,dont know whats the meaning.
in my dream i was standing infront of the mirror i have a partial denture and it started cracking and suddenly i just saw teeth felling out of my mouth in my hand i started calling my deceased mom to have a look this dream got me scared.
Idream of one of front tooth getting loose and I remove it get ot with almost eight of my upper teeth. And later I dream on me paying visit of my late girlfriend. Is there any link here?
was your boss in it ?
I was flying a plain and and I felt one of my teeth was lose so I went to grab it and all four front teeth fell out in my hand, what does this mean?
IT MEANS YOU CAN'T SPELL PLANE PROPERLY.
I remember i had 2 dreams of my teeth feeling weird like they were to heavy for my mouth and i was talking to my parents and it felt like something was inbetween my teeth so i went to get it out and one of them fell out and next thing i know 1by 1 all of them started to fall out i was so upset and i remeber i had to go to work in half an hour and i was upset i didnt know how i was going to be able to work with the public(retail store) and i remeber i was at work and i tried my best not to open my mouth then i woke up. The other i dont remeber where i was but all i remeber is feeling that heavy feeling again and i freaked out thinking i was going to lose them all again. i woke up fast after i had that strange feeling. There has been a lot of stress in my life lately and im trying to keep everyone happy so that no one is mad at me and some days i feel like i fail everyone and some days i wish i could be a better person. I would love change but i guess im scared of sacrifices im needing to change.
I read about this and to my surprise, the meaning is so true for my case.
Adriana, omg I had a dream my boyfriend and I were driving. All of a sudden I felt this pain in my mouth. One tooth fell out. Then all of a sudden I went to look at my mouth again and all my teeth were rotting out falling out spitting out lots of teeth even my jaw bone was coming out. My whole mouth was rotting.and all I could think was please lord let me keep my front teeth so no One will notice. But they all rotted and fell out..just like u im always trying to please everyone..I need to make some big changes in my life I don't knw where to start..


On this date: horror in Oak Creek, Nixon's cover-up on tape and Mandela in prison.
On Aug. 5, 2012, a gunman opened fire, killing six people at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek before fatally shooting himself during an exchange of fire with one of the first officers to respond.
In 1962, South African anti-apartheid activist Nelson Mandela was arrested; it was the beginning of 27 years of imprisonment.
Ten years ago: President George W. Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai began meeting at Camp David to discuss security issues in Afghanistan.
Five years ago: The robotic explorer Curiosity blazed through the pink skies of Mars, steering itself to a gentle landing inside a giant crater.
One year ago: The opening ceremony for the Summer Olympics took place in Rio de Janeiro as Brazil laced its high-energy party with a sobering message of the dangers of global warming.
"I don't care about money. I just want to be wonderful."


text:
WATCH: A.J. Green has 77-yard TD catch for Cardinals' longest play of 2022
Jess Root
The Arizona Cardinals waited for the last game of the season to have their longest play of the year. On the second play from scrimmage, quarterback David Blough threw the ball deep to receiver A.J. Green, who grabbed the ball between two defenders, broke a tackle and outran the other for a 77-yard touchdown.
It gave the Cardinals a 6-0 lead in the first quarter over the San Francisco 49ers.
Green entered the game with only 21 catches for 145 yards and a touchdown.
Watch the play.
Green might be playing in his final NFL game after two seasons. He will be a free agent after the season.
Listen to the latest from Cards Wire's Jess Root on his podcast, Rise Up, See Red. Subscribe on Apple podcasts or Spotify.
Latest show:
Previous shows:
Story originally appeared on Cards Wire

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


If we talk about pull monitoring, it becomes too costly to gather health checks. You have to send the server check state even it it didn't changed. It's flooding your network when you're working with hundreds or even thousands of services.
Typical monitoring system can only alert you in hardware/software outage case. Not likely you can set up there the simple trigger like process restart. You'll just have a message. It may get you up at night to solve the issue by simple restart. Won't say it needs to be automated.
Monitoring call come down as well. In ideal there should be meta-monitoring. Meta-monitoring means the health check of monitoring system itself.
In my case all these issues I solved working with Consul.
Consul represents bunch of services inside of consistent cluster. Cluster has at least one leader. For reliability there may be more than one leader. Each node syncs health checks with the leader.
There is no stuffy data exchange about service state. The data will be sent to cluster leader even if state will be changed.
Beside health checks Consul has watches. Watch tracks the subject state and triggered when state will reach the watch condition. The subject is usually healthcheck, event, key or the service itself. Trigger could be be a shell script-handler when service check becomes critical.
Consul cluster has multi-datacenter concept. It means, each datacenter would be better to have its own cluster with leader. Clusters should be synced to track each other. It provides failover feature.
To keep any kind of data Consul provides key/value store. Dropping this subject, because I still don't use this.
Download the archive. Also get the web UI sources and unpack them into specified location (say, /var/www).
Unzip the archive to /usr/bin (or any directory in $PATH). Consul is a typical Golang software. It means you don't have to go through the installation process. Simple philosophy: get and launch! Just place the binary to directory and run the consul command for testing.
Configure Consul agent. Configuration format is usually severed on multiple files within the single directory. Let's make the /etc/consul.d directory and place here our first service nginx.json.
Here we just check curl request will return anything but connection reset. When connection is failed, curl returns exit code 1. In Consul every check is critical if it doesn't return 0.
Alright, now we have a small configuration for Consul agent.
Create the Hashicorp account and get access token. It's going to make your life much easier linking your Consul agents within the single account. At this case you don't need to manually add agents to the cluster. They're synced through your account.
Just be careful with tokens and don't share them.
Setup the system daemon. By default Consul launched by the shell command and doesn't provide a service interface. It's such complicated to track the process state and manage it. Let's make the systemd daemon for automated start/stop and system startup launch.
Here is the daemon example for Consul agent daemon: /etc/systemd/system/consul-agent.service.
Here is the one for Consul server: /etc/systemd/system/consul-server.service.
You can feel the difference in start commands. Flag -server tells we run Consul agent in server mode. So, here is the candidate for cluster leadership. Flag -bootstrap-expect configures minimum nodes count to reach the quorum in cluster. You don't need to create data directory. Consul does it personally if the process owner has respective permissions. Setting up Atlas account credentials allows to automatically add nodes to the cluster.
Flag -ui-dir provides web-interface on the specified location. Web-interface in Consul is another cool feature. I never installed web panel such easy as I did here. By default, web-interface is accessible on 8500 port. But for security issues and access simplicity I'd suggest to configure the Nginx on 80 port. Nginx can provide proxying with HTTP basic authentication.
Consul logs all events to stdout. We configured system daemon to redirect stdout to the special file /var/log/consul/consul.log. If you're afraid to get the flood, you can configure logrotate for logs processing.
Note: don't forget to create the space for Consul logging to have the file path valid. I mean create /var/log/consul directory to write the log records as described here. And don't forget to reload systemd daemons and enable startup.
4. Double check you have configs, daemons, binary and log destination. After that start the daemon and check log file.
At last we set up the Consul cluster. Run the command consul members to check that all systems go.
Don't be afraid of this TL/DR manual. In reality it should be easier than I described.
You can see at the screenshot each node has more than 1 service. That's because of nodes configuration includes more than one. By default each one has Cerf service which tracks the agent state itself. If server is not responding, Cerf check shows it up.
Let's append the new services. For example, Node.js application and AWS ELastic Load Balancer health check.
Save them in 2 different files and reload the Consul running the consul reload command.
Ok, now we track all services we need. But what if the service check failed? Do you need to know it or make a simple step to resolve? For this kind of questions we can use Consul watch.
Watch can be run by the single command as a daemon. But it would be much more clear to append the watch into existing configuration.
Let's create the new file /etc/consul.d/watch.json and append the watch configuration. It's going to check if state is critical or warning.
Don't forget to run consul reload.
I mentioned the special handler Bash script in watch configuration. Under script would be service exceptions handling or alert shipment. Let's make the handler for our single node with Nginx and Node.js services.
Here we're trying to start exited services. Stupid logic, but works in many cases. Instead you can also use the mail command to make an alert that service failed.
Handler script starts the service again.
It's just the beginning. With this algorithm you can deal with much more complicated outages. Enhance your health checks and include all necessary troubleshooting logic in handler.
Force agent stop. Sometimes you have to stop the service for maintenance job. But it won't work if you forgot about Consul. With described configuration, it will automatically start the service again.
There are 2 solutions. The first one – simply stop the Consul on node. The second one – make the logic where Consul understands that service should be stopped.
Server agent reboot. Recently when I rebooted machine with Consul server, everything messed up. I've got thousands of RPC errors from all nodes. Leader elections were failed. At first it looked like a disaster.
The issue were the obsolete data Consul agents have. It works fine in local cloud. But in AWS EC2 metadata is going to be changed after each stop/start iteration. So, Consul cluster might be confused with data mismatch.
Troubleshooting this, I stopped all agents, removed the data directories and started agents again. With refreshed metadata the cluster started to work again. But if you use key/value store, probably it's not your solution.
Write the handlers with much more reasonable logic.Track all routine troubleshooting steps, describe them in script and implement the handler. It's possible to have automated outage solution. But when Consul agent is active.
Track the internal service state with checks. If you can listen remote database in 5432 port, it doesn't really mean the database works. There could be outage like transaction wraparound in PostgreSQL which needs to be tracked as well.
Working with Docker containers. Additionally there may be useful combination with Nomad – another Hashicorp product. Nomad is a scheduler responsible to launch containers or processes when some event happened.


text:
The Drug Experience: Heroin, Part 2
Heroin can have a devastating effect on human lives, although as we described in the last Briefing, evidence indicates that it has this impact on only a minority of people who first try the drug.
In this Briefing, we start to describe the experiences of people whose lives are seriously affected by heroin. The experiences are based on those described in the seminal book Beating the Dragon: The Recovery from Dependent Drug Use by James McIntosh and Neil McKeganey, and our own research with clients on the Peterborough Nene Drug Interventions Programme.
The majority of people in these studies committed crimes to fund their heroin habits. In fact, the Peterborough project recruited many of the highest-level offenders in Peterborough. However, it must be emphasised that this does not mean that all people who take heroin commit crimes.
Many people who use heroin describe a steady progression from use of legal substances (alcohol, solvents), through to softer drugs such as cannabis and then on to heroin.
The most frequently cited reasons for trying heroin are curiosity and a desire to comply with the expectations of others, particularly of a peer group. However, there is little indication that heroin users are pressurised to take the drug for the first time—the vast majority feel that they have made their own decision.
However, this decision is often not well-informed. Many of our interviewees emphasised that they were naïve about the effects of heroin before they first tried the drug. Some believed that it was no worse than other drugs; others were not even aware that they were trying heroin.
Some people admit to not thinking about the consequences of their actions, and in fact do not think much about their drug use at all. Many others, when they first start taking heroin, are confident that they will not become addicted. A common belief is that:
'… addiction is not something that could happen to me; it happens to other people.'
Many of our interviewees discussed the ease of availability and frequent exposure to various substances, including heroin. Drugs were rife on the housing estates in Peterborough on which some of our interviewees had been brought up.
Many people who first try heroin will say that they experienced a feeling of great relaxation and detachment from the outside world. They may feel drowsy, experience a clouding of mental functioning, and feelings of warmth (from dilation of blood vessels). They may also experience feelings of euphoria, particularly after intravenous injection. Heroin also reduces anxiety and emotional pain—it helps people escape from reality.
There is a reduction in respiration, heat rate and pupil size. Many first-time users feel sick and vomit, although this vomiting is often not enough to stop them using again, as the pleasurable effects far outweigh this negative side effect. This vomiting subsides in many people after the first few experiences of heroin.
Many first-time users try the drug again because they enjoyed the first experience. Others, some of whom may even have had a bad initial experience, continue taking the drug because they remain in the same social circles that led them to their first use.
Some people very rapidly move towards daily use of the drug, whilst others may continue to use on a periodic basis over a period of weeks or months. Our Peterborough sample, whose lives were badly affected by heroin, all ended up using the drug daily.
Heroin users develop a tolerance to the drug, such that increasing amounts of the drug must be taken in order to achieve the same positive effects. This tolerance results in the drug habit becoming more costly. Some users will shift from smoking heroin to injecting the drug because the same effects can be achieved with much smaller amounts of the drug.
They may also start injecting drug as part of a continued desire to experiment and to find new "highs". As part of this process of finding new "highs", some people use multiple drugs, sometimes at the same time. Use of benzodiazepines, legally and illegally obtained, is common amongst heroin users.
Many heroin users recognise the decision to inject as having been a significant step in their drug using career. Injecting is an invasive process that heightens the risk of overdose and introduces additional risks such as contracting hepatitis C, HIV and other blood-borne infections.
Often, these are not the factors that make people reluctant to start injecting. Rather, they appear to be apprehensive about the actual process of injecting. Many users have a fear of injections and, of course, generally people do not know how to inject. Other users help first-time injectors and continue to do so until the latter person feels confident in the process.
There are variations in individuals' experiences when they first inject heroin. Many people experience a pronounced euphoria almost immediately after injection. Other people do not experience this rush, whilst others report feeling very ill.
However, many of those who initially have negative experiences continue to persevere taking the drug and eventually became intravenous drug users.
In our next Briefing, we will continue to look at the experiences of those people whose lives are seriously affected by heroin, focusing first on the withdrawal syndrome.
Beating the Dragon: The Recovery from Dependent Drug Use by James McIntosh and Neil McKeganey, Prentice Hall, 2002.
The Heroin Users by Tam Stewart, Oram Press, 1996.
Using Heroin, Trying to Stop and Accessing Treatment by Aimee Hopkins and David Clark, 2005.
> pdf document
Category: Background Briefings Tags: addiction, heroin, tolerance
recovery capital empathy mental health psychiatry heroin addiction change William White alcohol 12-step research emotions family self-esteem story courage hope connection addiction kindness belonging talk marion kickett mutual aid The Anonymous People healing support methadone resilience community stigma peer support education aboriginal prejudice heroin history shame withdrawal compassion historical trauma trauma bill white self advocacy alcoholism culture acceptance relationships learning Recovery Story treatment empowerment recovery film depression book gratitude identity love son


Barack Obama on Check, Please!
President-In-Less-Than-24-Hours Barack Obama appeared on a local Chicago restaurant review program, Check, Please!, back in 2001 when he was a mere state senator. The show airs on our local PBS affiliate, WTTW and consists of three Chicagoans selecting, patronizing, and then reviewing area restaurants. Obama chose Dixie Kitchen & Bait Shop, a Cajun eatery in Hyde Park on Chicago's South Side. I imagine they are seeing some increased business about now, and having tried their pulled pork I can say it is well deserved.
To view a higher-quality version, please visit Check, Please! (unfortunately they don't seem to offer embedding of their programs).


HomeJoe Rogan ExperienceThe Joe Rogan Experience – David Sinclair, Ph.D.
The Joe Rogan Experience – David Sinclair, Ph.D.
Why not just take NAD?
What is David doing himself to prevent aging?
What does David's diet look like? What else is he doing to prevent aging?
What does David think of consuming branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) if they activate the mTOR pathway?
What does David think of startups which take the blood of young people, and inject it into older people?
But won't the population just skyrocket if we all start living longer?
What populations live the longest?
In short, David goes on to explain how x-rays add up over time, and act as smalls "scratches" to the DNA/chromosome. When the body repairs these "scratches", this disrupts its ability to read the right gene at the right place (aka the epigenome).
So what else are David and his team doing? What could the possibilities be?
Where might this research take us?
What else does David do?
What else does David supplement with?
Thanks for this! agree about the contradiction about him having yoghurt for breakfast and also skipping breakfast when he fasts – perhaps he has breakfast in the evening?
What are the 3 main genes that David's lab is reprogramming (38m30s)? Is he referring to the 3 pathways mentioned earlier (AMPK, Sirtuins, mTOR)?
Anyone know if that DNA Clock from Steve Horvath, that's mentioned at the 1h51m37s mark, is available anywhere?
You are a kind soul for this, thank you.
Excellent summary, especially for this podcast where there are so many details and information. I was planning on re-listening to the entire podcast before seeing this!
Out of curiosity, where did you find NMN? It's mad expensive.
which NMN did you buy? I see soooo many brands, and then articles saying it only works if it's IV?
Thanks for the great notes and keep up the good work!!
I'm assuming most of this is marketing/patenting. Anyway to clarify this?
Nice summary. One thing you might want to add – cryotherapy. It was briefly mentioned by Joe Rogan.
I don't know if Joe Rogan actually picks these up however, I was astonished at the claims in this episode and did some further research before spending a lot, a lot of money on these supplements.
So, David Sinclair did another podcast (link below) "The Peter Attia Drive" and throughout was very careful to not confirm the effects of resveratrol and nicotinamide riboside. Further, with reference to his own use he states that he has no idea whether it will extend his life but by taking it he won't come to any harm so he may as well.
Thanks very much for summarizing this. A lot of great information and as most people, listening to this on the go makes it hard to take notes.
Can anyone recommend a reputable source for ordering NMN and metaformin?
Does anyone have a recommendation for a brand of NMN and resveratrol?
Jeez! NMN a alivebynature.com is $70 for 12 grams. Take a gram/day and one person is at $175/month. $350/month for my wife and I. That's not counting Resveratrol or our other vital supplements.
Anyone here find a good "quality" source of resveratrol powder?
NMN can be purchased cheaply from China. I can have it tested for metals for $80 in a local U.S. lab. I would need to still have it tested to be sure it was actually NMN.


2.1 See on your homepage the "Available" single Jobs or Batches that you can choose to accept.
2.2 Click on Job / Batch "Available".
2.3 Then click "Start", if you're willing to accept it.
(Verify pricing, due date, estimate amount of work and see if it fits your expectations and productions' capacity).
You have a delay of 2 weeks to submit a 3D model once the Single Job / Batch Job has started.
However the quickest you "Submit", the quickest you can start another Job.
2.4 The jobs status move to "In Progress"
3.1 On the factory.augment.com job's page, see all the informations to produce the 3D model: Imagery, Textures, Dimensions and website URL in order to fetch more informations if needed.
3.2 Once a model is produced, upload it on your Augment's account through the manager.augment.com as a classic Augment 3D Model.
3.3 Preview the render in the 3D web viewer.
3.4 "Edit" and "Update" 3D model.
Make sure the final render in the 3D viewer fits your expectations in order to provide the most satisfying 3D model to the client. Otherwise "Update" it.
5.1 Once uploaded on manager.augment.com, click "Select 3D Model" on the factory.augment.com job's page, in order to "Submit" the related 3D model for the job.
5.2 "Pick" a 3D model.
5.3 Double check the "View in 3D", then "Submit".
5.4 Once "Submitted" the job appears in the relevant status.
Models can then be "Rejected" or "Accepted" by the client.
5.4 If the 3D model is "Rejected", see the comments in the Public discussion, amend the 3D model accordingly on manager.augment.com, then re-submit it.
5.5 If the 3D model is "Accepted", find it in the "Accepted" Status.
On batch productions cases, upload and submit 3D models one by one. Do not wait to have all the 3D models available.
6.2 Fill in your Paypal email account.
6.2 Then check "Balance" and "Redeem" money.
Job is done, thanks and congrats!
You can restart the journey with another job.


text:
from .cli import CLI

class LazyKCLI(CLI):

    def __init__(self, compiler=None):
        super(LazyKCLI, self).__init__('Lazy K', compiler, False, False)

def lazyk(compiler=None):
    cli = LazyKCLI(compiler)
    cli.execute()

def main():
    lazyk()

if __name__ == '__main__':
    main()

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Louis Freeh: The Man With The Secrets
Originally published at whowhatwhy.com by Russ Baker on 8/28/14
Any serious student of history is on alert for "interesting accidents." Because sometimes they are accidents. Sometimes, they're not.
We have no opinion at the moment on the one-car-wreck that left former FBI director Louis Freeh badly injured around noon on August 25, other than to note some curious facts: the police were hours late informing the office of the governor of Vermont; Freeh was flown by helicopter to the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Hospital in New Hampshire under armed guard, and has remained under armed guard; the hospital has refused to confirm that he is a patient, even after reports of two surgeries; at least for the first few days no one has answered the phones at his company, Freeh Group International.
From news reports available at press time, Freeh
was headed south on Vermont 12 in his 2010 GMC Yukon when he drove off the east side of the road. The vehicle struck a mailbox and a row of shrubs, then came to rest against the side of a tree, police said…
Freeh's Wrecked Vehicle. Courtesy WFFF/WVNY
Louis Freeh
Louis Freeh epitomizes the risks attendant in a president's decision to demonstrate bipartisanship by appointing or re-appointing figures associated with the opposing political party and/or prior regime. He also embodies the troubled legacy of the Bureau from its earliest days. (For a look at how the U.S. media cooperated with the Bureau to misleadingly burnish its image, see this)
Louis Freeh was appointed by George H.W. Bush to the federal bench in 1991. In the first year of Bill Clinton's presidency, Clinton named Freeh head of the FBI.
Right from the start, the Freeh FBI was drenched in controversy. The "screw-ups" were legion—from the exposure of fraudulent FBI crime lab results to the wrongful blaming of an innocent man for the bombings at the Atlanta Olympics—to the bloody standoff and shootout at Ruby Ridge.
Freeh vs the Clintons
In order to move the heat off himself and his agency, Freeh made political peace with Newt Gingrich and his firebrand GOP Congressional operation, deflecting the political pressure back onto the White House. He did this via a Campaign Finance Task Force under the auspices of his parent agency, the Justice Department, established in December of 1996 after Clinton's re-election. This became, prior to 9/11, what some say was the largest federal investigation in U.S. history.
Over 300 FBI agents were assigned to the investigation, which targeted both Clinton and Gore. No one was ever indicted but a steady drip of leaked stories pounded Gore particularly—feeding the damaging story line that he was a captive of the China Lobby and possibly even compromised by certain foreign intelligence services. This long-simmering PR crisis did serious damage to Al Gore's prospects in 2000, and thereby aided the campaign of George W. Bush, son of Freeh's original sponsor.
Freeh, the Saudis and Terrorism
Even more fraught was Freeh's behavior during the investigation of the massive bombing of U.S. military facilities at the Khobar Towers development in Saudi Arabia. According to the former counterintelligence officials Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon in the book The Age of Sacred Terror, Clinton foreign policy officials felt that Freeh was deeply influenced by the Saudi power structure.
Eventually, Freeh, according to the authors, called the elder Bush and asked him to intervene with Crown Prince Abdullah to allow FBI agents to watch through a one-way mirror while Saudi agents questioned Khobar bombing suspects. They allege that he ignored the chain of command and Clinton's National Security Council in bringing Bush Sr. into these sensitive negotiations.
In his memoirs, Freeh claimed that Clinton suspected the Saudis, while suggesting that he himself was convinced that Iranian operatives had executed the bombing. (It's important here to note the Bush family's long and close ties to the Saudi royal family and the political agenda at work in shifting blame to the hated Iranians.)
Freeh also curtailed FBI agent John P. O'Neill's investigation into a possible Al Qaeda role in the Khobar bombing and the later attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen. Freeh even pulled O'Neill out of Yemen during the Cole investigation. By transferring O'Neill to New York City, Freeh sided with U.S. Ambassador Barbara Bodine, a Clinton holdover in the new Bush administration, and with Saudi officials who wanted O'Neill out of their way. The aim, it appears, was to shield certain suspects (and any possible sponsors) from over-zealous American investigators. Later, Freeh thwarted O'Neill's efforts to become head of the FBI NYC field office.
In an extraordinary turn of events, John O'Neill died in the destruction of the Twin Towers—which were allegedly brought down by a group of hijackers dominated by Saudi nationals.
If he dared, Louis Freeh could shed a great deal of light on two decades of frequent security emergencies that have led to the greatest buildup of state power in the history of the United States—and limited Americans' freedom and privacy as never before. Freeh's strange crash—like most such incidents (see the bizarre one-car crash that killed national security reporter Michael Hastings) – will almost certainly be explained as a flukish accident.
And Freeh, the lucky survivor, is unlikely to volunteer to spread truth about the crash, or any of the other curious events in which he has been involved as the consummate intelligence-establishment insider.
See related: Why Louis Freeh Should Be Investigated For 9/11
Previous articleThe 2014 9/11 Truth Film Festival: "Exposing The Greatest Fraud on Earth!"
Next articleReThink911 Billboard to Go Digital in NYC!
First Annual 9/11 Activist Summit
9/11 Victims Target Saudis With Deep State Ties
Staff - September 8, 2008
Why Cheney Likes Mukasey for A.G.
Staff - September 20, 2007
Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put...
Staff - January 5, 2009


I began working with clay in the 3rd grade.
At the time I was blessed to live in a major city in a school district with a variety of resources and programs. Teachers encouraged exploration in the arts and sciences. My parents too encouraged this through access to books and magazines through many libraries in the city and through my father's own collections and subscriptions. Also, concerned about offering my siblings and I experiences of culture and the sciences, my parents took us to numerous galleries and museums in the city.
It was through school and through my parents—and through my own curiosity—that I developed a love of the arts and sciences, and found connections between them. I also discovered the ability of art to communicate the deeper truths of science and religion.
Because of my particular interest in the sciences, I came to enjoy ceramics art the most. In ceramics, art and science overlap in unique ways—the clay interacting with the glaze and with the process of firing.
I began playing with circular structures, one built on top of the other, and my ceramics pieces began to take on a life of their own. I found that building rather than throwing on a wheel allowed more art and less fabrication.This was the beginning of the coral-like structures that would form later on.
I found as I would build, that I needed to let go of my understanding of the piece, and the piece would flourish. My hands creating seemingly apart from my person. The art would just happen. It would take on its own direction, and it would not be until after the art was complete that I would really begin to understand my conversation with it.
This can sometimes be problematic though. I have a tendency to overwork my pieces. A high school ceramics teacher, at an opportune time, took some of my pieces and made them "disappear." She fired them before I had a chance to overdo the work. Since I allow pieces to come to their own conclusion, it becomes difficult to know when the work is complete and ready for firing.
As my work continued, even when pieces would be broken for one reason or another, I began to consider even the brokenness as a part of the evolution, the process, of the piece, and I would allow that to develop and enter into the conversation with it.
My favorite method for ceramics is raku (carbon deposition), and wood fire. I came to love these in high school and even in college. My college years were cut short however, and after marrying my wife, I did not make the effort to create. I did have the opportunity to sell some of my work, but it was not until recently that I began to build again.
My wife and I had been given, by the pastor who married us, a large block of clay with which we were to build an art piece or pieces related to marriage. On the year of our tenth anniversary I finally began to work that clay. Rehydrating it, and beginning to build again.
My wife has been very supportive of my work, and I hope I can relax and let the creative process work itself out, so that I can begin to grow again as an artist.


text:
Washington Police Investigating NBC Over Gun Device
New York Times Dec. 26, 2012 Updated: Dec. 26, 2012 11:52 p.m.
WASHINGTON — The Metropolitan Police Department said Wednesday that it had opened an investigation into whether NBC and David Gregory, the host of "Meet the Press," broke the law when Gregory displayed a high-capacity gun magazine during an interview Sunday with the vice president of the National Rifle Association.
NBC had asked the police for permission to use a high-capacity magazine and "was informed that possession of a high-capacity magazine is not permissible, and their request was denied," said Officer Araz Alali, a police spokesman.
"This matter is currently being investigated," he said. "I can't get into any other specifics of this investigation."
A spokeswoman for NBC declined to comment.
Gregory displayed the magazine, which rapidly feeds ammunition into the chamber of a gun, about 10 minutes into his interview with Wayne LaPierre, the NRA vice president. The host picked it up from the table in front of him and held it in the air as he questioned LaPierre.
"Let's widen the argument out a little bit," Gregory said. "So here is a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets. Now isn't it possible that, if we got rid of these, if we replaced them and said, 'Well, you could only have a magazine that carries five bullets or 10 bullets,' isn't it just possible that we can reduce the carnage in a situation like Newtown?"
LaPierre said he did not believe it would have made a difference. "There are so many different ways to evade that, even if you had that," he said.
In Washington, people who are caught in possession of the type of magazine that Gregory had can face up to a year in prison, said David Benowitz, a criminal defense lawyer.
"You would be arrested; you would most likely be charged with possession of an illegal magazine," Benowitz said, adding that "depending on what time you were arrested, you would most likely be held overnight."
Prosecutors and defense lawyers often work out a plea agreement in which defendants receive probation and have a misdemeanor charge on their criminal record, Benowitz said. If defendants have a prior criminal record or lose a jury trial, they could face a stiffer sentence.
Political controversy in San Antonio suburb heats up with arrest of two...
Family of dead teen will pursue lawsuit against San Antonio over fatal...
Alleged 'copyright troll' claims unnamed San Antonians are stealing porn...
San Antonio ISD administrator leaves to join Holdsworth Center
San Antonio's historic commission approves demolition of beloved but...
San Antonio nun arrested in D.C. in protest of family separations
Man accused of setting blaze that killed San Antonio firefighter loses bid to...
New law shouldn't stop prosecution of low-level pot cases, top Texas...


text:
<?php
/**
 * @author nils.droege@aboutyou.de
 * (c) ABOUT YOU GmbH
 */

namespace AboutYou\SDK\Model;

interface FacetGetGroupInterface
{
    /**
     * @return string
     */
    public function getGroupId();
}


CDs selection of Jazz, Classic Pop, Country & Soul. All are new and sealed.
1. Louis Armstrong & Ella Fitzgerald.
Music Inspired by Woodstock. 2 available.
Becker & Fagan before Steely Dan. 1 available.
8. Kool & the Gang.
Kool & the Gang. 3 available.
Chic. Dance,Dance, Dance. 3 available.
20. Nat King Cole. more than 1 available.
Link to contact us about guitars and accessories and special orders.