text:
Application of a STUDENT WITH A DISABILITY, by his parent, for review of a determination of a hearing officer relating to the provision of educational services by the Board of Education of the Williamsville Central School District
Hodgson Russ LLP, attorneys for respondent, by Andrew J. Freedman, Esq.
This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law. Petitioner (the parent) appeals from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice. Respondent (the district) cross-appeals from that portion of the IHO's decision which dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice without prejudice. The appeal must be dismissed. The cross-appeal must be dismissed.
The student has been the subject of a prior administrative appeal related to the 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 school years, and, as a result, the parties' familiarity with his earlier educational history and prior due process proceeding is assumed and will not be repeated here in detail (see Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 16-050). Further, given the state of the hearing record in the present matter, a full recitation of facts relating to the student is not possible but is, in any event, unnecessary due to the procedural posture of the impartial hearing proceedings and the limited nature of the appeal. Briefly, at the time of the impartial hearing in the present matter, the student was classified as a student with autism and attended a board of cooperative educational services (BOCES) 8:1+1 special class with related services for the 2017-18 school year (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 23 at p. 3; Request for Rev. Ex. AA; see Due Process Compl. Notice at p. 1).[1]
By due process complaint notice dated January 18, 2018, the parent alleged that the district failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2017-18 school year based upon alleged procedural and substantive violations (see Due Process Compl. Notice). For relief, the parent sought, among other things: (1) a reconvene of the CSE to be conducted with particular procedural requirements and to result in an IEP with specified recommendations; (2) compensatory educational services, including at least 36 hours of appropriate transitional support services; and (3) any other relief deemed appropriate by the IHO (id. at pp. 7-11).
B. Events Post Dating the Due Process Complaint Notice
By letter dated January 31, 2018, the district advised the parent that a resolution session meeting would take place on February 5, 2018 at the district building (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 2).[2] By letter to the parent dated February 6, 2018, the district rescheduled the resolution session meeting to February 8, 2018 at the parent's request and stated the district's understanding that the parent's advocates would review the student's records prior to the meeting (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 4). The IHO was appointed to hear the matter on February 15, 2018 (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 7).[3] In an email to the IHO, dated February 26, 2018, the district's attorney requested a phone conference and alleged that the parent's advocates attended the resolution session meeting on February 8, 2018 but left after about an hour, having refused to engage in the resolution process because they claimed the student's educational records were not complete (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 8).[4]
The IHO conducted a prehearing conference via telephone on March 20, 2018 and provided a summary thereof to the parties in an email dated March 27, 2018 (IHO Decision at p. 1; June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 14). The IHO's summary stated that the parties agreed that "[d]istrict papers on location of hearing/interpreter issue due today for both sides; [d]istrict motion to dismiss due 3/30; parent response due 4/6; hearing date 4/13" and to "[p]lease confirm" (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 14).[5]
In a letter to the parent dated March 23, 2018, the district scheduled a second resolution session meeting to take place at the district school on March 29, 2018 (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 13 at p. 2). In an email to the IHO dated March 29, 2018, the parent's advocates indicated that they attended the second resolution session meeting but that an interpreter for the parent was not in the room as requested and the district representatives in attendance did not have authority to enter into a written agreement to resolve the issues in the parent's complaint (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 16). The parent's advocates also requested the conclusion of the resolution period and that the IHO schedule additional hearing dates (id.).
In an email to the IHO dated March 29, 2018, the district's attorney requested that the parent's due process complaint notice be dismissed with prejudice for the parent's failure to participate in the resolution meeting (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 17 at p. 1).
The IHO communicated to the parties in an email dated March 30, 2018 that "[t]here were no papers submitted" (on the issues of location of hearing and interpreter), that he was assuming that the hearing would take place at the school district, and that he would suggest the district obtain a new interpreter (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 18 at p. 1). Further, the IHO stated that there was no motion submitted on the lack of resolution but that, in any event, the parent had "probably done enough" to allow the matter to continue without dismissal (id.). Finally, the IHO stated that the impartial hearing was scheduled for April 13, 2018 and suggested other dates that he would be available as well (id.).
On March 30, 2018, the district responded to the parent's due process complaint notice (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 19). On the same date, the district filed a partial motion to dismiss regarding the scope of the parent's due process complaint notice, to which the parent responded on April 6, 2018 (March 30, 2018 Dist. Partial Mot. to Dismiss; April 06, 2018 Parent Response to Partial Mot. to Dismiss at pp. 1-2). Within the response, the parent requested the physical attendance of an interpreter during the impartial hearing, as well as a location "off school grounds at another location that is a more neutral site" for the impartial hearing (id. at p. 3).
In an email to the IHO dated April 10, 2018, the parent's advocates requested a different location for the impartial hearing (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 23 at pp. 3-4). The reason given for the request were that it would have been most appropriate to have the hearing somewhere close to the BOCES location where the student attended school (id. at p. 3). In addition, the advocates described an incident that occurred during the second resolution session meeting on March 29, 2018, whereby the district coordinator of special education ("district coordinator") accompanied the parent and her advocates out of the building, followed them very close behind, and interrupted a private conversation, such that parent and her advocates "felt annoyed, alarmed, harassed, intimated [sic], and threatened" (id. at pp. 3-4). The district responded in an email to the IHO on the same date, denying the parent's allegations and asking that the IHO decline the parent's request for a change of location of the impartial hearing as the parent failed to submit papers regarding such a request, which were due on March 27, 2018 (id. at p. 2).
On April 11, 2018, the IHO responded to the parties stating that he previously requested that the parent provide "correspondence" regarding the change of location for the impartial hearing, but none was received (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 24 at p. 1). The IHO further indicated that because it was too late to find a new location, he would "make sure that the parent feels comfortable in the room" (id.). In addition, the IHO further indicated that if they could find an alternative location for the next date, that would be "preferable" (id.).
In emails to the IHO and the district on April 11, 2018, the advocates objected to any need for submissions on the issue of location of the impartial hearing based on their position that procedural safeguards mandated a location reasonably convenient to the parent and the student and did not require that the parent state "a valid reason" for a request for a different location (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 24 at p. 3; Request for Rev. Ex. 10 at p. 6). Additionally, the advocates indicated that "[they] c[ould] not and w[ould] not assist the parent or participate in a location [where they] d[id] not feel safe or comfortable" (Request for Rev. Ex. 10 at p. 6). The advocates "strongly encourage[d]" that the IHO identify a different location for the parent to present her case after the district rested (id.).
On April 11, 2018, the district's attorney advised the IHO that he was ill and could not attend the impartial hearing date scheduled for April 13, 2018 (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 25 at pp. 3-4). In emails to the parties dated April 13, 2018 and April 28, 2018, the IHO rescheduled the impartial hearing date to May 10, 2018 (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 25 at pp. 3-4, Ex. 27 at p. 1).
On May 9, 2018, the day before the scheduled impartial hearing date—after the IHO and the district confirmed the date, time, and location of the hearing at the district—the parent's advocates sent an email to the IHO expressing their concerns with the process thus far (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 29). The advocates acknowledged that the IHO had requested that they submit a request for a change in location based on a discussion that occurred at the March 20, 2018 prehearing conference (id. at p. 2). The advocates also acknowledged that, on April 10, 2018, they sent an email indicating why a change of location was necessary, and stated that they did not make a submission earlier because they believed, based on an email from the IHO, that another conference call "might" occur to address the issue (id.). In response to the advocates' letter, the IHO inquired as to whether the parent was moving to adjourn the impartial hearing scheduled for the following day (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 32 at p. 1). The parent's advocates responded to the IHO's email of same date indicating that they "expected [the IHO] to follow through with [his] previous directive to the district to schedule the hearing at a[n] alternate location" (id.). The parent's advocates further indicated that the email was to document their "directives and expectations," assuming that the IHO would go forward without the parent and/or her representatives (id.). The IHO responded that he did not want to go forward without the parent and that he had required a formal motion to change venue but that none was filed (Req. for Rev. Ex. 6 at p. 5).
On May 10, 2018, the IHO conducted a conference call with the district's attorney and the parent's advocates (May 10, 2018 Tr. pp. 1-16). The IHO indicated that he had previously requested that the parent submit a motion to explain why the location of the impartial hearing should be moved (May 10, 2018 Tr. p. 5). The advocates indicated that they would not attend a hearing at the district as long as the district coordinator was "involved" (May 10, 2018 Tr. pp. 4-5). The IHO scheduled the impartial hearing for June 6, 2018 indicating that the "parties have to try to work this out" and that "[h]opefully, the parties can come up with some kind of agreement" (May 10, 2018 Tr. p. 10).
On May 29, 2018, the IHO decided the district's partial motion to dismiss and found that the parent's January 18, 2018 due process complaint notice only related to challenges pertaining to the student's June 2017 IEP for the 2017-18 school year (Interim IHO Decision at p. 4).
On June 6, 2018, the impartial hearing convened at the district building (June 6, 2018 Tr. p. 1). The IHO and the district's attorney were in attendance (June 6, 2018 Tr. p. 2). The IHO sent an email to the parent's advocates after the parent and the advocates did not arrive at the impartial hearing at the scheduled time, inquiring whether the parent or her advocates would be attending, but there was not response (June 6, 2018 Tr. p. 2; June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 38). The IHO indicated that "unless there's a really good reason not to show up today, the case will likely be dismissed" and stated his intention to entertain a motion by the district to dismiss the case with prejudice (June 6, 2018 Tr. pp. 5, 7-8). Subsequent to the impartial hearing, the IHO sent an email to the parties indicating that "[t]he hearing is over" and that the advocates had until June 27, 2018 to submit papers explaining their non-appearance and to respond to the district's motion to dismiss with prejudice (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 40; see June 6, 2018 Tr. p. 9).
On June 7, 2018 the advocates sent a response letter to the IHO indicating that there was no requirement that the parent or her advocates attend the impartial hearing (Req. for Rev. Ex. 4 at p. 6). The advocates emphasized their consistent objection to the hearing taking place at the district and acknowledged that the IHO "continue[d] to insist and demand" that a legal motion or brief be submitted on the issue (id. at pp. 2-3). The advocates further indicated that, at the May 10, 2018 conference call, they indicated that neither the parent nor her advocates would attend any hearings on district property and that at no point did they instruct the IHO or the district not to proceed with the hearing (id.). Accordingly, the advocates requested that the IHO not dismiss the parent's due process complaint notice and that the hearing scheduled for June 29, 2018 take place at the BOCES location that housed the student's program (id. at pp. 6-7).
In an email to the IHO dated June 22, 2018, the parent's advocates indicated their understanding that, when the IHO sent the email indicating that "the hearing [wa]s over," the IHO meant that day of the hearing and not the whole matter (Req. for Rev. Ex. 2 at p. 2). The advocates also indicated that they were confused by the IHO's demand for "motion papers" on the issue of the location of the hearing as they "are not attorneys and do not submit '[m]otion [p]apers' per se" (id.). The advocates indicated that they were preparing a submission explaining their request for a different location for the hearing "as [the IHO] ha[d] demanded" and also requested that the impartial hearing take place on June 29, 2018 (id.). The IHO responded to the advocates' email on the same date indicating that he would allow responsive papers to the district's motion to dismiss with prejudice but that all other requests were "inconsistent" with his prior directives and were denied (id. at p. 3).
On June 27, 2018, the district filed a motion to dismiss the parent's due process complaint notice with prejudice (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss). The district argued that the parent's due process complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because the parent and her advocates failed to attend the two impartial hearing dates and that the parent did not have the right to dictate the location of the impartial hearing (id. at pp. 5-6).
On July 12, 2018, the parent filed a response to the district's motion to dismiss (July 12, 2018 Parent Response to Mot. to Dismiss). The parent argued that her due process complaint notice should not be dismissed based on her lack of attendance at the impartial hearing (id.). The parent further argued that her advocates submitted a lengthy email explaining her position for a change of location on May 9, 2018, but it was ignored (id. at p. 2). The parent requested that the IHO dismiss the district's motion to dismiss, reschedule hearing dates for this matter off school grounds, and direct the district to find a different location for the impartial hearing (id at pp. 5-6). Alternatively, the parent proposed that the impartial hearing could proceed at the district building if the district could assure the parent that the district coordinator would not be in attendance at the impartial hearing except for his testimony, a different district representative could attend, and that the IHO would escort the parent and her advocates to and from the hearing room (id. at p.6). The parent and her advocates executed affidavits, which were submitted with the parent's response, along with one exhibit, in support of the parent's request for a new hearing location (July 12, 2018 Parent Response to Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 1 & Affidavits).
C. Impartial Hearing Officer Decision
By decision dated September 7, 2018, the IHO dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice without prejudice based on the parent's failure to appear at the impartial hearing scheduled for June 6, 2018 (IHO Decision at pp. 2-4). The IHO summarized his directive that the parent put her request for a change in location in writing via a motion and notes the parent's responses and/or lack thereof which followed and culminated in the parent's nonappearance at the impartial hearing on June 6, 2018 (id. at pp. 1-2). The IHO also recited that a party's failure to appear at a hearing date could result in dismissal and that parties are expected to comply with the reasonable directives of the IHO (id. at p. 2).
The IHO noted that the parent refused to appear at the impartial hearing based on a "perceived right to dictate the venue of the hearing," which the IHO distinguished from the requirements of State regulation for a location "'reasonably convenient to the parent'" (id. at pp. 2-3). Although the IHO recognized that the parent's allegations regarding the behavior of the district coordinator should be taken seriously if correct, the IHO asserted that finding that the school district was an "inconvenient" location because there were inappropriate actions by one of the district staff members would be a "stretch" (id. at pp. 2-3). Moreover, the IHO pointed out that the parent's argument related to the attendance of the district staff member at the impartial hearing and not the school district premises (id. at p. 3). The IHO noted that, even if the impartial hearing were held at a location preferred by the parent, the district coordinator could still be present and participate as the district's authorized representative (id.). The IHO concluded that the "parties [wer]e at a stalemate with respect to the venue of the case" and that, even if the due process complaint notice were not dismissed, the matter would not move forward because the parent would not appear at the district's premises and the district would not appear at an alternative location or with an alternative representative (id. at pp. 3-4). In conclusion, the IHO dismissed the due process complaint notice without prejudice because the parent "appears to have a genuine dispute as far as her rights are concerned, and the Student's right to a FAPE should not be permanently compromised as a result" (id. at p. 4).
The parent appeals the IHO's dismissal of her due process complaint notice. Initially, the parent alleges that the IHO committed several errors in conducting the impartial hearing, including failing to: provide a record close date, render a timely decision; provide a written copy of the IHO decision to the parent; document the reasons for extensions granted, ensure timely scheduling of hearing dates, or consider or document the parent's objections to extensions; and provide a summary of the March 20, 2018 prehearing conference. The parent also argues that the IHO failed to include an exhibit list with his decision. In addition, the parent asserts that the IHO should have deemed the district's response to the parent's due process complaint notice stricken for the district's failure to file it in a timely manner.
Next, the parent argues that the IHO erred in adjourning the two hearing dates of May 10, 2018 and June 6, 2018, without directing the district to present evidence and question witnesses, because the parent did not request an adjournment and expected the district to move forward with its case even if the parent was not in attendance.
Further, the parent argues that the IHO erred in finding that State regulations do not give the parent the right to dictate the venue of the hearing and that the location of the hearing at the school district is easily accessed by the parent. The parent argues that the IHO erred by failing to schedule the impartial hearing at a location that was reasonably convenient to the parent and the student as required by State regulation. If not a different location, the parent asserts that the IHO should have directed the district to pick a representative other than the district coordinator. Lastly, the parent argues that the IHO erred in ruling that there was an "obvious impasse" as to location of the impartial hearing and in refusing to make a ruling or directive to either party to appear.
As relief, the parent requests that the IHO's decision be reversed and that the claims in her due process complaint notice be heard and decided by an SRO or, alternatively, remanded to be heard by a different IHO at a place off school grounds at a location reasonably convenient to the parent and student. Finally, the parent asks for a finding that the IHO's conduct was not appropriate when he committed the procedural errors referenced above, in conducting the impartial hearing.
In an answer and cross-appeal, the district responds to the parent's request for review by generally denying the parent's allegations and asserting that the IHO properly dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice. Additionally, the district argues that the additional evidence attached to the parent's request for review should not be considered. In its cross-appeal, the district asserts that the IHO improperly dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice without prejudice. The district argues that the IHO should have dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice with prejudice because dismissing the parent's due process complaint notice without prejudice allows the parent to "forum-shop" her claims raised in the due process complaint notice to be heard by a different IHO.[6]
V. Discussion
The above lengthy recitation of the events post-dating the parent's due process complaint notice sets the backdrop for a rather limited number of issues, all of a procedural nature, which shall be examined severally.
A. Additional Evidence
Initially, the district objects to the additional evidence attached to the parent's request for review. Generally, documentary evidence not presented at an impartial hearing is considered in an appeal from an IHO's decision only if such additional evidence could not have been offered at the time of the impartial hearing and the evidence is necessary in order to render a decision (see, e.g., Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-030; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-003; see also 8 NYCRR 279.10[b]; L.K. v. Ne. Sch. Dist., 932 F. Supp. 2d 467, 488-89 [S.D.N.Y. 2013] [holding that additional evidence is necessary only if, without such evidence, the SRO is unable to render a decision]).
Given the procedural posture of the matter and the issues presented for review, the evidence offered by the parent is necessary to the extent cited herein in order to review the parent's allegations about the conduct of the impartial hearing and whether the IHO properly dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice without prejudice. Accordingly, I will therefore accept the documents as additional evidence to the extent necessary to render a decision in this case and to the extent not otherwise duplicative of other documentation in the hearing record.
B. Conduct of the Impartial Hearing
The parent raises several allegations on appeal with respect to the IHO's conduct. State and local educational agencies are required "to ensure children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of a FAPE by such agencies," including, the rights of parents to participate in the development of an IEP and "to challenge in administrative and court proceedings a proposed IEP with which they disagree" (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 361; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[a], [b], [f]). Additionally, the IDEA provides parents involved in a complaint the "opportunity for an impartial due process hearing" (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f]). State regulation sets forth the procedures for conducting an impartial hearing and address, in part, minimal process requirements that shall be afforded to both parties (8 NYCRR 200.5[j]). These requirements are outlined below as they apply to each of the parent's specific allegations.
Initially, the parent argues that the IHO improperly granted extensions to timelines for the impartial hearing and failed to provide a record close date, render a timely decision, and provide a written copy of the IHO decision to the parent. When a parent files a due process complaint notice, the impartial hearing or prehearing conference must commence within 14 days of the IHO receiving the parties' written waiver of the resolution meeting, or the parties' written notice that mediation or a resolution meeting failed to result in agreement, or the expiration of the 30-day resolution period, unless the parties agree in writing to continue mediation at the end of the resolution period (8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][iii][b][1]-[4]). The IHO is required to render a decision not later than 45 days after the expiration of the resolution period (34 CFR 300.510[b], [c]; 300.515[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5]), unless an extension has been granted at the request of either party (34 CFR 300.515[c]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5][i]).
An IHO may grant extensions beyond these timeframes; however, such extensions may only be granted consistent with regulatory constraints and an IHO must ensure that the hearing record includes documentation setting forth the reason for each extension, and each extension "shall be for no more than 30 days" (8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5][i]). Absent a compelling reason or a specific showing of substantial hardship, "a request for an extension shall not be granted because of school vacations, a lack of availability resulting from the parties' and/or representatives' scheduling conflicts, avoidable witness scheduling conflicts or other similar reasons" (8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5][iii]). Moreover, an IHO "shall not rely on the agreement of the parties as a basis for granting an extension" (id.). If an IHO has granted an extension to the regulatory timelines, State regulation requires that the IHO must issue a decision within 14 days of the date the IHO closes the hearing record (8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5]).
According to State regulation, an IHO shall determine when the record is closed and notify the parties of the date the record is closed (8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5][v]). While an IHO determines when the record is closed, guidance from the Office of Special Education explains that "[a] record is closed when all post-hearing submissions are received by the IHO. Once a record is closed, there may be no further extensions to the hearing timelines. . . . [and] the decision must be rendered and mailed no later than 14 days from the date the IHO closes the record ("Requirements Related to Special Education Impartial Hearings" Office of Special Educ. [Sept. 2017], available at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/2017-memos/documents/requirements-impartial -hearings-september-2017.pdf; see 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5][iii]).
Although the hearing record does not include the district's requests for extensions to the timelines, it reflects that the IHO issued five documented extensions to the 45-day timeline (see IHO Extension Orders at pp. 1-5). In each extension granted, the IHO indicated that the "district sought to extend the decisional timelines" (id.). For the first three extensions, the IHO indicated that the reason given for the request "was witness availability" (id. at pp. 1-3). For the last two extensions, the IHO stated that the reason "was [to] allow for briefing on the motion to dismiss" and to "allow for a decision on the motion to dismiss," respectively (id. at pp. 4-5). The IHO also indicated in each extension that he "reviewed the factors in 8 NYCRR Sect. 200.5(j)(5)(ii)" and, further, that there was no showing of "any impact on the child's educational interest or well-being in connection to this application or order," "any financial or other consequences to the parties," or "prejudice to the District" (id. at pp. 1-5). The district's requests for extensions to the timeline do not appear in the evidence in the hearing record and it is unclear whether or not the parent was notified of each extension as it was granted or when the IHO's orders on the extensions were transmitted to the parties. The parent, through her advocates, generally objected to delays in the impartial hearing process and, specifically to an extension to the timeline, asserting that the student was "nearing aging out of his eligibility for special education services" (see June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 25 at p. 2; Request for Rev. Exs. 4 at p. 2; 5 at pp. 9-10). However, review of all of the correspondence between the IHO and the parties reveals that the IHO accommodated the parent's scheduling needs, as well as the district's (see, e.g., June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Exs.11; 26 at p. 1), and that scheduled hearing dates did not go forward on May 10 and June 6, 2018 due to the parent and advocates refusing to appear at the district school, as summarized above. Accordingly, while there were nonconformities with the IHO's handling of extensions to the timelines, the delays in the hearing were attributable to both parties, as well as the IHO, and, on appeal, the parent has not alleged that she or the student suffered any prejudice as a result of the delays.
A review of the hearing record reveals that the last submission received from the IHO was the parent's response to the district's motion to dismiss dated July 12, 2018 (July 12, 2018 Parent Response to Dist. Mot. to Dismiss). Following the above guidance, the record close date should have been set as of the date the IHO received this final submission, making the decision due 14 days thereafter ("Requirements Related to Special Education Impartial Hearings," Office of Special Educ. [Sept. 2017]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5]). However, a final extension was granted by the IHO after this submission, setting the decision due date as September 7, 2018 (IHO Extension Orders at p. 5). There is no indication that the IHO notified the parties of the ultimate date he deemed the record closed. Based on the foregoing, although the IHO rendered the decision as of the then-current due date, the decision was technically untimely. Even so, as with the improprieties in the scheduling of the impartial hearing, the parent has alleged no prejudice and has interposed no request for relief based on the untimeliness of the IHO decision.
Turing to the parent's other concerns with the conduct of the impartial hearing, with respect to the parent's argument that the IHO failed to include an exhibit list, no documentary or testimonial evidence was introduced in this matter. However, the motions and exhibits thereto are part of the hearing record (8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5][vi][b]) and best practice would likely dictate that the IHO admit those motions as exhibits and, therefore, include them in a list attached to the decision (see 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5][v]).[7] Nevertheless, the lack of an exhibit list does not amount to a procedural irregularity warranting any relief in this instance. Regarding the March 20, 2018 prehearing conference, which was not transcribed, although the IHO provided a summary of the March 20, 2018 prehearing conference to the parties in an email dated March 27, 2018, he did so with extreme brevity (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 14). The IHO is reminded that, as a part of the impartial hearing, a copy of a transcript or adequate written summary of the prehearing conference should be entered into the hearing record with consideration of the purposes set forth in State regulation (see 8 NYCRR 200.5 [j][3][v], [xi]).
The parent also argues that the IHO's decision was sent to her advocates by email rather than by mailing a copy of the decision to her directly. State regulation provides that an IHO shall "render a decision, and mail a copy of the written, or at the option of the parents, electronic findings of fact and the decision to the parents" (8 NYCRR. 200.5[j][5]; see 34 CFR 300.512[a][5]; 300.515[a]). The hearing record does not reflect that the parent requested an electronic copy of the IHO's decision and, assuming the truth of the parent's allegation, the IHO did not render and mail his decision in compliance with State regulations. Despite this, there is little basis upon which relief may be had as there is no evidence to suggest that the parent or the student suffered any prejudice as a result of this failure. Notably, the parent was able to timely appeal from the IHO's decision. Nevertheless, the IHO is reminded that parties may be prejudiced by irregularities in decision issuance and that the IHO must comply with the applicable methods for rendering and transmitting a decision set forth in State regulation.
In summary, notwithstanding the procedural irregularities described above, there is no evidence to suggest that the parent or student suffered any prejudice as a result. Moreover, the parent has not alleged that the IHO's errors resulted in a denial of a FAPE to the student and has not requested any relief relating thereto.[8]
C. Dismissal of the Due Process Complaint Notice
The central issue in this case is whether the IHO erred in dismissing the parent's due process complaint notice without prejudice, based on the parent's failure to appear at the scheduled impartial hearing date. Generally, unless specifically prohibited by regulation, IHOs are provided with broad discretion, subject to administrative and judicial review procedures, in how they conduct an impartial hearing, so long as they "accord each party a meaningful opportunity" to exercise their rights during the impartial hearing (Letter to Anonymous, 23 IDELR 1073 [OSEP 1995]; see Impartial Due Process Hearing, 71 Fed. Reg. 46,704 [Aug. 14, 2006] [indicating that IHOs should be granted discretion to conduct hearings in accordance with standard legal practice, so long as they do not interfere with a party's right to a timely due process hearing]). Also, as a general matter, the parties to an impartial hearing are obligated to comply with the reasonable directives of the IHO regarding the conduct of the impartial hearing (see Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 14-090; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-026; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-103; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-061).
In the instant case, the parent requested a change of location for the impartial hearing during a prehearing conference conducted on March 20, 2018 (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Exs. 14; 29 at pp. 1-2). The IHO requested that motion papers regarding the change of location be submitted by March 27, 2018 (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Exs. 14; 23 at p. 2; 29 at p. 2). In an email dated March 30, 2018, the IHO indicated that there were "no papers submitted" and that he assumed the hearing would take place at the district (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 18 at p. 1). Subsequently, the advocates made a request about the location without elaboration in the parent's April 6, 2018 response to the district's partial motion to dismiss and provided some additional detail in an email dated April 10, 2018 (April 6, 2016 Parent Response to Partial Mot. to Dismiss at pp. 1-2; June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 23 at pp. 3-4). On April 11, 2018, the IHO sent an email to the parties indicating that he had previously requested that the parent provide correspondence regarding the change of location for the impartial hearing, but none was submitted, and indicated it was too late at that juncture to find another location (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 24 at p. 1). During the May 10, 2018 conference call with the parent, the IHO again reminded the advocates of his request for motion papers to explain why the impartial hearing should be at a different location (May 10, 2018 Tr. p. 5). The IHO also explained to the advocates that if they wanted an alternate location, they needed to provide the IHO with "legal authority" for the request (id.). The advocates indicated that they did provide the IHO with an email (id.) However, the IHO indicated that he hadn't heard anything specific as to why the parent was unable to attend the high school location (May 10, 2018 Tr. pp. 10-11). On June 6, 2018, the district appeared for the scheduled impartial hearing date but the parent and the parent's advocates did not attend (see June 6, 2018 Tr. pp 1-2). Subsequently the IHO dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice for failure to appear at the impartial hearing (IHO Decision at pp. 2-4).
A review of the evidence in the hearing record supports the conclusion that the IHO had a sufficient basis to dismiss the parent's due process complaint notice without prejudice. The IHO repeatedly attempted to obtain from the parent's advocates a formal motion pertaining to their request for a change in location of the impartial hearing. Although the parent's advocates later indicated to the IHO that they were unfamiliar with motion practice as they are not attorneys and that they sent a detailed email to the IHO on April 10, 2018 explaining the reason for a request in a change in location, the advocates did not provide the IHO with a response regarding a change in location prior to the March 27, 2018 deadline established by the IHO and, even then, the response was not in the form of a motion (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 23 at pp. 3-4; Req. for Rev. Ex. 2 at p. 2).[9]
Formality in requests to the IHO regarding the conduct of the impartial hearing is a reasonable directive and, had the advocates complied with such a reasonable directive, the IHO likely would have issued a written decision and the parties could have proceeded with the impartial hearing with more certainty. Lack of formality can result in exactly the confusion that occurred here, in terms of the advocates' misunderstanding that hearing dates would occur at different locations or that the district would proceed with their case without the parent or the advocates present (see, e.g., June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 29 at p. 3; Request for Rev. Ex. 4 at p. 6).
On that point, with regard to the parent's argument that the IHO erred in adjourning the two hearing dates of May 10, 2018 and June 6, 2018 without directing the district to present its case notwithstanding the absence of the parent and her advocates, while not impermissible, the determination of whether or not to proceed in the parent's absence is a matter within the IHO's discretion (see Letter to Anonymous, 23 IDELR 1073 [OSEP 1995).[10] The IHO specifically indicated in his email of May 9, 2018 that he did not want to go forward with the hearing without the parent or her advocates in attendance (Req. for Rev. Ex. 6 at p. 5). The IHO's preference and the manner in which he proceeded was not an abuse of his discretion.
In summary, the parent through her advocates should have cooperated with the reasonable directives of the IHO by filing a formal submission regarding the parent's request for a change in location and by attending the scheduled impartial hearing but she did not do so. It was within the IHO's discretion to schedule the impartial hearing at the district location when the parent did not submit a formal request for a different location and to dismiss the due process complaint notice when the parent and her advocates did not appear (see Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 09-007 [finding that the parties to an impartial hearing are obligated to comply with the reasonable directives of the IHO]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 09-073 [finding that the IHO properly dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice for failing to comply with the IHO's reasonable directives and failing to attend the impartial hearing]).
Turning to the district's cross-appeal, the district argues that the IHO should have dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice with prejudice because dismissing the parent's due process complaint notice without prejudice allows the parent and her advocates to raise the same issues in front of a different IHO by "forum-shopping" her claims. A dismissal with prejudice should be reserved for extreme cases (see Nickerson-Reti v. Lexington Pub. Sch., 893 F. Supp. 2d 276, 293-94 [D. Mass. 2012]). Here, as the IHO found, the parent did not engage in egregious conduct warranting dismissal with prejudice and, in its cross-appeal, the district does not point to any conduct which would warrant reversal of the IHO's determination on this point.
Further, the evidence in the hearing record does not support the district's position that the parent is engaging in "forum-shopping" such that a dismissal of the due process complaint notice with prejudice is warranted. Here, even after the IHO dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice, the parent attempted on several occasions to proceed with the impartial hearing for the next scheduled impartial hearing date with the same IHO (Req. for Rev. Exs. 2 at p. 2; 4 at p. 6). Although the parent requested a remand to a different IHO on appeal, this does not on its own, support a finding of "forum-shopping".
With regard to the merits of the parent's request about the location of the hearing, this is not the appropriate forum or juncture for this issue. Initially, given the delay in presenting the issue formally for the IHO to consider, the district did not have a full opportunity to respond to the parent's request and, at that point, the dismissal of the parent's due process complaint notice was nothing but a formality. That is, the IHO had already indicated that the matter would be dismissed and that the only remaining issue was whether or not it would be with prejudice (June 6, 2018 Tr. p. 8). It was in response to the district's motion to dismiss with prejudice that the parent, through her advocates, did finally submit a more formal application with supporting affidavits regarding the request for a different location for the impartial hearing (July 12, 2018 Parent Response to Mot. to Dismiss). Since the parent submitted this request in the response to the district's motion, the district did not have an opportunity to respond. In his final decision, the IHO did opine about the merits of the parent's request but did make an ultimate determination about the location issue (see IHO Decision at pp. 2-4) and, given his determination on the record that the matter would be dismissed, such a finding would have been futile at that stage. IHOs retain broad discretion in scheduling the impartial hearing, as long as the time and place chosen is "reasonably convenient to the parent and student involved" (8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][x]; see 34 CFR 300.515[d]). Further, State guidance indicates that it is the IHO who "ultimately determines whether the time and place for the hearing is reasonably convenient to the parent and student involved" ("Questions and Answers on Impartial Due Process Hearings for Students with Disabilities," at p. 11, Office of Special Educ. [Jan. 2018], available at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/dueprocess/ documents/impartial-hearing-guidance-jan-2018.pdf). Accordingly, I decline to consider an issue regarding the hearing process when it is a matter best reserved for an IHO's consideration and discretion in the first instance.
VI. Conclusion
In summary, the evidence in the hearing record reflects that the IHO properly dismissed the parent's due process complaint notice without prejudice based on the parent's failure to appear at the scheduled impartial hearing date. The necessary inquiry is at an end. Should the parent decide to re-file a due process complaint notice in the future, consideration should be given by the IHO as to whether the location of the hearing assigned by the district is reasonably convenient to the parent and the student.
I have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Sarah L. Harrington
[1] Since the IHO dismissed the parents' due process complaint notice prior to the receipt of testimonial or documentary evidence from the parties, the record on appeal consists of the parent's due process complaint notice, motion papers with exhibits submitted to the IHO, and the IHO's written decisions, as well as transcripts of the proceedings held with one or both of the parties and the IHO. The parent attached additional documents to her request for review, which shall be considered on appeal to the extent discussed below.
[2] The notices for the resolution session meetings indicated that the coordinator of special education for the district would be in attendance (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Exs. 2; 4; 13). The meeting notices also referenced the district's understanding that the parent's advocates would participate at the resolution session (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Exs. 2; 4; 13).
[3] A different IHO was originally appointed to the matter but recused himself upon the parent's request (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Exs. 1; 3; 5; 6).
[4] At various times in the hearing record, either one or both of the parent's advocates appear or communicate on the parent's behalf. For ease of reference, this decision will refer to the "parent's advocates" plural whether the appearance or communication is by one or both of the advocates.
[5] In response to the IHO's email summarizing the March 27, 2018 prehearing conference and a March 28, 2018 email from the IHO requesting an update on the case, the district clarified that it was not expecting to submit papers regarding the location of the hearing or the interpreter because it did not raise those issues (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 15). The IHO responded to both parties on March 29, 2018, inquiring "[p]erhaps we need another call?" and soliciting the advocates' "view" on the district's representation (June 27, 2018 Dist. Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 21 at p. 3). It does not appear that the parent's advocates responded to the IHO.
[6] While not set forth in its answer, in the memorandum of law, the district also argues that the parent's request for review should be dismissed for failure to comply with the form requirements of the practice regulations governing appeals from an IHO decision (see 8 NYCRR 279.7); however, it has long been held that a memorandum of law is not a substitute for a pleading (see 8 NYCRR 279.4, 279.6; see, e.g., Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 16-080; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 12-233; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 05-031). Accordingly, the district's argument in this regard will not be further discussed.
[7] The parent also notes in her request for review that during the hearing proceedings, the IHO requested that counsel for the district "compile all emails in this case and put them into evidence as a Hearing Officer exhibit and [he would] admit that" (Tr. p. 7). While it does not appear that such an exhibit was compiled in this matter, the district included multiple emails as exhibits to its June 27, 2018 motion to dismiss, to which the parent had the opportunity to respond with additional or different exhibits. The parent has offered additional evidence on appeal, including some emails, many of which are duplicative of those included with the district's motion. Consideration of the parent's additional evidence is discussed below.
[8] The parent also argues that the district's response to the due process complaint notice was untimely and, therefore, the IHO should have deemed the response stricken. State and federal regulation provides that if the school district has not sent a prior written notice to the parent regarding the subject matter of the parent's due process complaint notice, the district shall provide a response to the parent within 10 days of receiving the complaint (8 NYCRR 200.5[i][4][i] see 34 CFR § 300.508[e]). The hearing record reflects that the district responded to the parent's January 18, 2018 due process complaint notice on March 30, 2018 (Dist. June 27, 2018 Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 19). The district's response to the January 18, 2018 due process complaint notice does not comply with the 10-day timeline called for by the IDEA (20 USC 1415[c][2][B]; 34 CFR § 300.508[e]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[i][4][i]). However, given the disposition of this appeal, it is unnecessary to make a determination about the appropriate consequence, if any, of such untimeliness.
[9] Further, there is no indication in the hearing record that the advocates requested guidance from the IHO about his expectations for submissions on the issue or informed the IHO about their lack of understanding of motion practice until well after the deadline set by the IHO and the June 6, 2018 hearing date at which they did not appear (see Request for Rev. Ex. 2 at p. 2).
[10] Unsurprisingly, challenges to a hearing process of this sort occur more commonly when an IHO proceeds without a party; in those instances, the courts have reviewed the IHO's conduct utilizing an abuse of discretion standard (see Davis v. Kanawha Cty. Bd. of Educ., 2009 WL 4730804, at *11-*14 [S.D.W.V. Dec. 4, 2009]; A.S. v. William Penn Sch. Dist., 2014 WL 1394964, at *6-*8 [E.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2014]; see also Horen v. Bd. of Educ., 655 F. Supp. 2d 794, 806-07 [N.D. Ohio Sept. 8, 2009]).
Preliminary Matters›Conduct of Impartial Hearing


text:
Clawson v. Board of Registered Nursing (Dec. 17, 2021, No. A159990) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2021 WL 5976759]
Nursing Board may revoke license for unprofessional conduct and dishonesty in assessing the transfer of a residential care facility resident.
A residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) that was closing hired William Clawson, R.N., to assess each resident and recommend a new facility. Clawson assessed J.N., an 83-year-old resident, conducting a skin examination that identified coccyx and red and nonblanching heels, but Clawson failed to remove the bandages on J.N.'s feet or notice that one of her knees was significantly contracted. Clawson's appraisal recounted J.N.'s medical history, described her as "frail . . . with severe cognitive impairment, cachexia, and fragile skin," and certified that "to the best of [his] knowledge [J.N.] does not need skilled nursing care." J.N. was then transferred to another RCFE, where caregivers described her condition as "very horrifying." J.N. was in significant pain, her bandages were old, her wounds "all smelled really bad," her knee had a large open sore with visible tendons, and her toes were black with "a very strong infection odor." The new RCFE caregivers called 911 to have J.N. transferred to a hospital, where she died several weeks later.
A Department of Social Services investigator interviewed Clawson, who stated he had supervised an unlicensed care worker to perform a "head-to-toe" assessment of J.N., and claimed he would have detected any odors of feces, urine, or bacterial infection because his "assessment skills are fine." About fourteen months later, an investigator for the Board of Registered Nursing interviewed Clawson, who then denied participating in J.N.'s assessment, which he claimed was performed solely by the unlicensed care worker. At a later administrative hearing, Clawson said he was not acting as a registered nurse at the time of the assessment, but only as a scribe. The ALJ found clear and convincing evidence that Clawson's appraisal of J.N. was grossly negligence and that he engaged in unprofessional conduct, both as to the assessment and by being untruthful with the Board's investigator. The Board adopted the ALJ's decision and revoked Clawson's nursing license. Clawson filed an unsuccessful petition for writ of administrative mandate, and then appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed. Rejecting the same four arguments that Clawson had raised in the trial court, the court held: (1) a RCFE appraisal is a "nursing function" under Business and Professions Code section 2725; (2) the performance of an RCFE assessment by a nurse creates a nurse-patient relationship; (3) the Board was not required to plead a violation of a specific RCFE statute before disciplining Clawson; and (4) the Board was authorized (under section 2761) to discipline Clawson for unprofessional conduct based on dishonesty.
« Pereira v. Urthbox, Inc., et al. (In re Try the World, Inc.), 2021 WL 3502607 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 8/9/21)
Upcoming January Monthly Meeting »

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


On behalf of Zuba & Associates, P.C. posted in blog on Wednesday, March 21, 2018.
Remembering what to do – and what not to do – after a crash isn't always a simple task when adrenaline and tensions are running high. But what you do at the scene of an accident can be vital to your case. Failing to take action could hurt your chances of successfully pursuing a claim.
On behalf of Zuba & Associates, P.C. posted in blog on Saturday, February 24, 2018.
Being pulled over by the police after having a few hits is not the time to try and remember what your high school chemistry teacher said about units of measurement. By the time you figure out how much five nanograms of TCH is it could be all over. In the state of Illinois, five is the magic number that is all it takes to be charged with driving under the influence.
On behalf of Zuba & Associates, P.C. posted in blog on Friday, February 16, 2018.
Illinois is joining 35 other states in seeking equal parenting for divorced couples. House Bill 4113 contains proposed changes to the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act which would allow courts to initially award divorcing couples equal custody of their children.
On behalf of Zuba & Associates, P.C. posted in blog on Tuesday, January 23, 2018.
Divorce can be a grueling process. This can be particularly true if you are no longer on amicable terms with your spouse. You are probably experiencing a wide range of emotions, not all of them pleasant. During this trying time, there are many outlets for you to express your thoughts and feelings. A diary, your friends, therapy and… social media?


text:
Ахмад Кавам (; 2 января 1876 года, Гилян, Иран — 23 июля 1955 года, Тегеран, Иран), также известный как Кавам ас-Салтане () — иранский политический и государственный деятель.

Ранние годы
Родился в аристократической иранской семье. Его предки с XIX века служили на различных постах Каджарской империи. Его родственниками по отцовской линии были премьер-министры Ирана Хасан Мостоуфи, Ахмад Матин-Дафтари и Мохаммед Мосаддык, а со стороны матери премьер-министр Мирза Али-Хан эд-Доуле. Кроме того премьер-министр Хасан Восуг был его старшим братом.

В годы Иранской революции 1905—1911 гг. Кавам был личным секретарём Мозафереддин-шаха и одним из авторов первой части Основного закона страны (подробнее об иранской революции начала XX века см. в монографии М. С. Иванова).

Политическая деятельность
Самостоятельную политическую деятельность Кавам начинает сразу после окончания революции. В 1911 году его назначают министром внутренних дел. На этом посту Кавам демонстрирует отличные навыки управленца, которые помогут его дальнейшей карьере: с помощью шведских офицеров Кавам основывает жандармерию, затем появляется национальный полицейский отряд для контроля за порядком на магистральных дорогах (прообраз автоинспекции). В годы первой мировой войны Кавам занимает посты министра финансов, а затем снова министра внутренних дел.

В 1918—1921 годах Кавам является губернатором Хорасана. Этим назначением он был обязан своему старшему брату Хасану Восугу, ставшему в августе 1918 года премьер-министром Ирана. Султан Ахмад-шах в 1918 году передал контроль за всеми почтовыми сборами в Мешхеде (административном центре Хорасана) Носрату аль-Салтане, лишив тем самым Кавама главного источника губернаторских доходов. Кавам уже был готов пойти на открытый конфликт с двором, когда ситуацию разрядил Восуг, убедивший Ахмад-шаха отменить его решение.

После государственного переворота 21 февраля 1921 года и фактического свержения Ахмад-шаха над всеми приверженцами Каджаров, в том числе Ахмадом Кавамом и его родственником, губернатором Фарса Мохаммедом Моссадыком нависает угроза опалы и даже ареста. Кавам остаётся на свободе только благодаря усилиям многочисленных и весьма влиятельных родственников. Более того, Ахмад-шах, фактически ещё остававшийся главой государства, предложил ему занять кресло премьер-министра и 4 июня 1921 года Ахмед Кавам первый раз становится главой правительства Ирана. В его кабинете министерские посты занимают такие разные люди, как Реза-хан (военный министр) и М. Моссадык (министр финансов). Кавам попытался начать ряд реформ, которые позволили бы Ирану уйти от полуфеодальных отношений в политической сфере и в области экономики, как то: внедрение новой правовой системы, отмена прав капитуляций и привлечение иностранных экспертов к оздоровлению государственных финансов. Все эти мероприятия требовали значительных финансовых затрат, сделавших труднодостижимым декларировавшееся укрепление бюджета и финансовой дисциплины. К тому же одновременно реформу армии начал проводить и Реза-хан и вследствие особого положения этого человека в политической иерархии Ирана того времени нетрудно понять, что его финансовые аппетиты удовлетворялись в первую очередь. Именно трудности с финансированием государственных программ стали основной причиной падения кабинета Кавама в октябре 1921 года.

Однако возглавлявшие правительство после Кавама Малек Мансур и Хасан Пирния тоже не смогли исправить тяжёлое положение, в котором находились тогда государственные финансы Ирана и 11 июня 1922 года Ахмад Кавам получил пост премьер-министра во второй раз. На время существования 2-го кабинета Кавама пришлись такие важные события как ликвидация сепаратистского выступления полковника Пусияна , реорганизация государственных финансов и налоговой политики, к которой приступили при поддержке американского финансового эксперта . Однако разногласия с Резой-ханом вновь привели кабинет Кавама к падению. 30 января 1923 года меджлис выразил Ахмаду Каваму недоверие и отправил его в отставку. В октябре 1923 года Кавам был обвинён в подготовке убийства Резы-хана и, спасаясь от ареста, вынужден был покинуть Иран и отправиться в Европу. На родину он вернулся только в 1930 году, но воздерживался от какой-либо политической активности.

Возвращение Кавама в политику стало возможным только после отставки Резы и провозглашения шахом Ирана его сына Мохаммеда Резы. Кавам стал одним из немногих опальных политиков, кандидатура которого на пост премьера Ирана не вызвала отторжения советских и британских оккупационных властей. 9 августа 1942 года Кавам в третий раз возглавил иранское правительство. Одной из важнейших задач правительства Кавама было обеспечение бесперебойного функционирования т. н. Иранского коридора, который использовался для поставок в Советский Союз продовольствия и военной техники из США по договору о ленд-лизе. Эта задача успешно выполнялась, о чём свидетельствует то, что объёмы поставок по «южному коридору» удалось увеличить с 10 000 тонн в августе 1941 до 30 000 тонн в октябре 1942 и до 100 000 тонн в мае 1943 года. Однако растущее напряжение между оккупационными властями и иранским населением привело Кавама к отставке в феврале 1943 года.

Четвёртое премьерство Кавама (28 января 1946 — 18 декабря 1947 года) во многом связано с восстанием в Иранском Азербайджане и Иранском Курдистане. Меджлис резонно надеялся на активность Кавама в ликвидации восстания, учитывая, что Кавам являлся одним из крупнейших собственников в этом регионе. Правда, при голосовании кандидатура Кавама на пост премьер-министра прошла с перевесом всего в один голос (52 против 51). Однако Кавам надежды оправдал. С самого начала иранской делегации в ООН были даны указания вести переговоры по азербайджанскому вопросу напрямую с советской делегацией; тем самым как бы признавались «особые интересы» СССР в этом регионе. Одновременно США и Англия усилили дипломатический нажим на советское руководство, настаивая на ускорении вывода советских войск из Ирана. И наконец сам Кавам вылетел в Москву для переговоров со Сталиным. 4 апреля 1946 года было подписано советско-иранское соглашение, согласно которому Москва обязалась вывести войска, а Тегеран — предоставить ей нефтяные концессии в Северном Иране. Войска были выведены в мае, тогда как Кавам Сталина обманул: меджлис просто отказался ратифицировать договор. После этой операции Кавама стали называть «Старая лиса». 21 ноября 1946 года Кавам объявил о введении войск в Азербайджан и Курдистан «для обеспечения свободы выборов в меджлис 15-го созыва». 15 декабря 1946 года иранцы, не встретив сопротивления, вступили в Тебриз, восстановив таким образом территориальную целостность Ирана.

После отставки Кавам покинул Иран и до 1952 года жил в Париже. Он вернулся в Иран во время , вызванного национализацией нефтяной промышленности Ирана и действиями правительства Мосаддыка, направленными против Англо-Иранской нефтяной компании. После неожиданной отставки Мосаддыка, 17 июля 1952 года меджлис в пятый раз утвердил Ахмада Кавама на посту премьера. Это самое краткое по времени премьерство Кавама, оно продолжалось только до 22 июля. Кульминационным днём этого последнего для Кавама пребывания на посту премьер-министра Ирана явился объявленный сторонниками Мосаддыка «День национального сопротивления» (21 июля 1952 года). На эту дату была назначена грандиозная демонстрация в Тегеране. Кавам применил против демонстрантов полицию и армию. Итогом расстрела демонстрации было 36 погибших. Кавам вынужден был уйти в отставку, а Мосаддык вернулся на пост премьера. После того, как меджлис объявил погибших мучениками, Мосаддык учредил особый трибунал, который должен был расследовать гибель демонстрантов и действия должностных лиц. Для дачи показаний в трибунал был вызван и Кавам, однако по состоянию здоровья участия в расследовании он не принял.

Эти события означали конец политической карьеры Ахмада Кавама, причём конец бесславный. Через 3 года и 2 дня после июльского расстрела Кавам умер. После его смерти дом Кавама, больше похожий на дворец, был продан Египту и использовался в качестве посольской резиденции. После разрыва дипломатических отношений с Египтом в 1980 году в здании был размещён иранский музей стекла и керамики. Сейчас это одна из достопримечательностей Тегерана.

Примечания

Премьер-министры Ирана
Министры внутренних дел Ирана

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
"Ball Four" author Bouton dies at age 80
July 11th, 2019 by Associated Press	in Sports Pro
This 1967 file photo shows Yankees pitcher Jim Bouton. Bouton, who shocked the conservative baseball world with the tell-all book "Ball Four,"died Wednesday at age 80.
Photo by Associated Press /News Tribune.
GREAT BARRINGTON, Mass. — Jim Bouton, the former New York Yankees pitcher who shocked and angered the conservative baseball world with the tell-all book "Ball Four," has died. He was 80.
Bouton's family said he died Wednesday at the home he shared with wife, Paula Kurman. He fought a brain disease linked to dementia and was in hospice care. Bouton also had two strokes in 2012.
Published in 1970, "Ball Four" detailed Yankees great Mickey Mantle's carousing, and the use of stimulants in the major leagues. Bouton's revealing look at baseball off the field made for eye-opening and entertaining reading, but he paid a big price for the best-seller when former teammates, other players and executives across the big leagues ostracized him for exposing their secrets.
Throwing so hard his cap flew off his head, Bouton was 21-8 with six shutouts in 1963 — his second season in the majors — and went 18-13 with four more shutouts in 1964. The Yankees lost the World Series both years, with Bouton losing his lone start in 1963 in New York's loss to the Los Angeles Dodgers, and winning twice the following year in the Yankees' loss to the St. Louis Cardinals.
Bouton injured his right arm in 1965, going 4-15 that season, and saw limited action the next three seasons with New York. He worked on "Ball Four" in 1969, a season spent with the expansion Seattle Pilots and Houston Astros, his fastball replaced by a knuckleball as he tried to prolong his career.
Bouton also pitched for Houston in 1970, and made a comeback with the Atlanta Braves in 1978, going 1-3 at age 39. He finished his 10-year career with a 62-63 record and 3.57 ERA.


text:
Q: XSLT for selecting namespaced attributes After giving up on PHP I'm trying to extract data from the xml using XSLT
How do i match the data in <jskit:attribute key="permalink"
I saw another similar question about name value pairs but im one step away from that
My xml is given here xml source

A: First, make sure that all namespaces you want to use are available in the xslt. For example, define xmlns prefixes for all of them in the top  element, like so:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0"
    xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
    xmlns:jskit="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>
    ... xslt templates go here...
</xsl:stylesheet>

After that, you can use the namespace prefix jskit in your XPath expressions.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0"
    xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
    xmlns:jskit="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>
    <!-- match all items anywhere in the document -->
    <xsl:template match="//item">
         <!-- get the "value" attribute of the "jskit:attribute" element
              in the current item in case the "key" attribute is called "permalink"
         -->
         <xsl:value-of select="jskit:attribute[@key='permalink']/@value"/>
         , <!-- comma separator, literal txt -->
         <!-- get the "value" attribute of the "jskit:attribute" element
              in the current item in case the "key" attribute is called "IP"
         -->
         <xsl:value-of select="jskit:attribute[@key='IP']/@value"/>
    </xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>

The templates and XPath you need to write are completely dependent on the requirements of your desired output format and this is not easy to answer in full if we lack that nformation
But let's say you want to insert the data into a database, you could then generate SQL statements directly with XSLT:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0"
    xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
    xmlns:jskit="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>
    <!-- make text output (SQL script) -->
    <xsl:output
        method="text"
    />

    <!-- match all items anywhere in the document -->
    <xsl:template match="//item">
         INSERT INTO myTable(permalink, IP) VALUES
         ('<xsl:value-of select="jskit:attribute[@key='permalink']/@value"/>'
         ,'<xsl:value-of select="jskit:attribute[@key='IP']/@value"/>');
    </xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>

However, to make this kind of thing really robust, you have to make sure that the values that end up in the SQL statement don't contain any string delimiter. If for example the permalink could contain a single quote, then this would generate invalid SQL as the single quote from the value would prematurely end the string literal SQL value.
To counter that, you can write a template that recursively processes the text values to escape those characters that need it (apart from the quote and depending on your database you may need to escape other characters too)
Anothter approach would be to use the XSLT to convert the data to a format you can easily parse in your host language. Say you are using PHP, then you ucould use XSLT to convert the XML to ini file format, parse that with parse_ini_file(), and then use PHP to properly escape/validate values and then perform the database actions.
YMMV

A: The Xpath expressions for the nodes in question are as follows:
/rss/channel/item/jskit:attribute[@key='IP']/@value

/rss/channel/item/jskit:attribute[@key='permalink']/@value

/rss/channel/item/jskit:parent-guid

The first two are using predicates to select the nodes that have a corresponding key that equals to either 'IP' or 'permalink'. The third is just a normal expression selecting a single node.
To be able to access these nodes with namespaces you need to define the namespace prefixes in your XSLT. This is done in the <xsl:stylesheet> element. For this application you can just copy the declarations from your XML source.
A full example in XSLT
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
    xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
    xmlns:jskit="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    exclude-result-prefixes="atom media jskit dc">

    <xsl:template match="/">
        <ip>
            <xsl:value-of
                select="/rss/channel/item/jskit:attribute[@key='IP']/@value"/>
        </ip>
        <permalink>
            <xsl:value-of
                select="/rss/channel/item/jskit:attribute[@key='permalink']/@value"/>
        </permalink>
        <parent-guid>
            <xsl:value-of
                select="/rss/channel/item/jskit:parent-guid"/>
        </parent-guid>
    </xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>

To attach the stylesheet to the XML file use a processing instruction called xml-stylesheet
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="rss.xsl" type="text/xsl" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
    xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
    xmlns:jskit="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" >

A:
After giving up on PHP I' m trying to extract data from the xml using XSLT

What's to give up on? PHP has good support for XML. You can use DomXPath to query in an xml document. Use registerNamespace first, to be able to query for a namespaced attribute. Eg.:
$doc = new DOMDocument();
$doc->loadXML($xml);
$xpath = new DOMXPath($doc);
$xpath->registerNamespace("jskit", "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/");
$query = "//jskit:attribute[@key='permalink']";
foreach ($xpath->evaluate($query) as $node) {
  echo $node, "\n";
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


The business of renting a residential building is a regulated business.
As amended by the Consumer Protection Act (No. 2), 1998, and Section 3 Section 4 and Section 5 of the Royal Decree defines the criteria and procedures for determining the business.
The contract committee issued the following announcements..
Clause 1. The business of renting a residential building is a contract-controlled business..
Clause 2 of this notification.
"Building Rental Business" means the business of which the business operator agrees that a tenant who is a natural person uses a residential building and the tenant agrees to pay rent for that purpose and there are five or more rented units in the same building or building.
"Building" means a room, house, condominium, apartment or other named place of residence for the purpose of housing rental. It does not include dormitories under the laws governing dormitories and hotels under hotel law.
"Business operator" means a person operating a business of renting a residential building for rent from a lessee;.
"Lessee" means a lessee or sub-lessee who is a natural person.
"Deposit" means the amount of money deposited by the lessee to the business operator as insurance for the rental of residential buildings. Insurance, damage or any other money that the business operator levies from the tenant in the same manner.
Clause 3. The lease agreement between the business operator and the lessee must be clearly visible in Thai text. Text size is not less than two millimeters, with a maximum of eleven characters in one inch, and the following terms and conditions apply.
(1) Details of business operators, tenants and property leased.
Specify the lease term, including the date, month, year of beginning and end of the lease term.
Specify rental and how and when to pay for the building rental.
Specify utility tariffs such as electricity tariffs, tap water tariffs, telephone bills and the method and timing of payment for such utilities.
Specify service rates such as volume of electricity consumption and water consumption, pumping to increase the water pressure inside the building, only to the extent practicable and reasonable. Show how and set the payment period.
Specify other expenses (if any) are payable only to the actual and reasonable expenses, showing the method and timing of payment for such service.
(2) The business operator must submit the invoice under (1) to (3) to the tenant not less than seven days prior to the scheduled payment date. The tenant has the right to check the information on the charges, which appear on the invoices that the business operator charges.
(3) The business operator must prepare evidence of building inspection include other facilities (if any) attached to the building lease agreement, provide proof of building condition, one for the tenant to keep as evidence.
(4) When the lease agreement terminates. The business owner must immediately reimburse the security deposit, unless the business operator wishes to investigate the damage the tenant is responsible for. If the tenant does not damage, the business operator shall return the deposit within seven days from the date of the termination of the lease. And returned to occupying the building. The cost of returning the deposit must be paid in the manner that the tenant notifies.
(6) The breach of a contract which is a material condition of a building lease that the business operator has the right to terminate the contract must be specified by the business operator in red or black or in italics. See more pronounced than the general message. And termination Business operators must provide written notice to the lessee to comply with the building lease agreement for a period of at least thirty days from the date the tenant receives the lease. And the lessee fails to comply with the notice. Business operators have the right to terminate the lease agreement.
(7) The building lease agreement must be made in two copies with the same message. The business operator shall deliver the lease agreement to the lessee immediately upon signing the lease agreement.
a contract limiting or limiting liability for breach of contract or tort of business operators.
the contract stipulates that the business operator shall charge the rental fee in advance for more than one month.
the contract stipulates that the business operator has the right to change the rental rate of the building, utility rates, service charges, and other rates before the end of the rental term.
the contract stipulates that the business operator demands a security deposit of more than one month of the rental rate when calculating on a monthly basis.
the contract stipulates that the business operator has the right to forfeit the deposit or advance payment.
the contract stipulates that the business operator or agent shall inspect the building without notice tenants know ahead of time.
the contract stipulates that the business operator shall determine the tariff for electricity and water supply exceeding rates charged by electricity and water providers.
the contract stipulates that the business owner has the right to block the tenant from using the building or having access to the building to seize property or move the property of the tenant in the event that the lessee does not pay the rent or other expenses related to the rental of the building.
the contract stipulates that the business operator has the right to terminate the lease agreement with the lessee by not violating the contract or breach one of the material conditions in the contract.
the contract stipulates that the tenant is liable for damages incurred from normal use of the property and equipment of the building.
the contract stipulates that the lessee is liable for defects in buildings and property, equipment used in the operation or deterioration of normal use.
This notification shall come into force from 1 May 2018 onwards.


Ould fellas will get beaten by young fellas eventually. That's what came into my head the other day looking at some photos. A few examples – two from the same families, one not.
Some of you may remember a great local swimmer (really local – actually lives in Myrtleville), Sham Riordan. It's so long since he's been seen in the water, it's only the old-timers will be able to put a face to the name (Note: effort to shame him into coming back). He turned up recently for look at where he used to swim (it's at the bottom of the hill where he lives) and brought one of the reasons for his absence with him.
Former swimmer, Sham Riordan, pays a visit to the beach for Breda's birthday swim. Just to watch, though. It was tiring – especially for James Riordan.
The picture made me think that in about ten years or so, James will be ripping past the likes of me out to the Dutchman, cruising at 1.30 / 100m and not even drawing breath. Of course, I'm a slow ould fella as it is. Sham might still be ahead of him for a year or two – he's fast, is Sham – but time is very much on James' side.
That's what happens, though. Keep feeding them and they'll leave you behind in the water. Or the bike & road, as J. Slowey Jnr. is showing Snr. the way these days.
James Slowey Jnr – Winner. James Slowey Snr – The one with the beard.
The picture that made me start thinking about young fellas passing out ould fellas, though, was the one below. And not necessarily their ould fellas either – ould fellas in general. Even really fast ould fellas.
Taken at the Lee Swim in 2008, this picture features a former captain of the Barr's U14 Féile hurling team and a treble winner of the Myrtleville – Church Bay swim.
Ned Denison is in the picture too. Ned has yet to win the premier event in the Irish OWS calendar – the Church Bay swim, of course – and he can't hurl (no touch).
Myrtleville-Church Bay champion 2010, 2011 and 2012, former Féile captain and reigning Lee Swim champion, Chris Mintern, on the other hand…..
Give it another 3 years and my younger brother will be beating me too!
This has to be monitored. Both of you should enter the Myrtleville-Church Bay swim on July 4. We'll map the distance between you and then monitor how it changes in the next three years, until he passes you out. Purely in the interests of science of course – not a shameless attempt to get the best swimmers entered!


text:
<?php

namespace KevinVR\FootbalistoAPIBundle\Service;

use Krizon\Google\Analytics\MeasurementProtocol\MeasurementProtocolClient;
use Symfony\Component\DependencyInjection\ContainerInterface;
use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Request;

/**
 * Class GoogleAnalyticsService
 * @package KevinVR\FootbalistoAPIBundle\Service
 */
class GoogleAnalyticsService
{
    private $client;
    private $trackId;

    /**
     * GoogleAnalyticsService constructor.
     * @param ContainerInterface $container
     */
    public function __construct(ContainerInterface $container)
    {
        $this->trackId = $container->getParameter('ga_trackid');

        $config = array(
            'ssl' => true, // Enable/Disable SSL, default false
        );
        $this->client = MeasurementProtocolClient::factory($config);
    }

    /**
     * Send data to Google Analytics.
     *
     * @param Request $request
     * @param $title
     */
    public function sendData(Request $request, $title, $user = null)
    {
        $data =  array(
            'tid' => $this->trackId,
            'cid' => $request->getClientIp(),
            'dh' => $_SERVER['SERVER_NAME'],
            'dp' => $request->getRequestUri(),
            'dt' => $title,
        );

        if ($user) {
            $data['ea'] = 'Authenticated';
            $data['el'] = 'Authenticated Call';
            $data['ev'] = $user->getApiKey();
        }

        $this->client->pageview(
            $data
        );
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Checking back in with South Bend Family Dentistry
Posted: Jul 2, 2015 12:33 PM EST | Updated: Jul 2, 2015 12:43 PM EST
SOUTH BEND, Ind. – After a fire broke out at South Bend Family Dentistry on June 18th, the employees there were scared they might not have jobs the next day.
South Bend Fire officials confirm the cause of the fire was incendiary and the investigation is still on-going.
The fire was contained to one exam room but the smoke and water damage was so severe the team with South Bend Family Dentistry had to find somewhere else to set up.
Temporarily, they've collaborated with Dr. Raider at 919 Jefferson Avenue in South Bend.
The mostly-female team says space is limited, and patients are still going to the original location, but they're just happy to be able to do what they love to do.
"We're still smiling and taking care of our patients," says Amy, a dental hygienist.
But this story is about more than just picking up the pieces from such a tragic event; this is a story of how coworkers turned into sisters after that middle-of-the night wake-up call back on June 18th.
"We pulled together as a team and we made it happen," says Lelanea, who works the front desk at the dental office.
After learning the fire was set on-purpose, the three best friends say they're staying strong.
"Now, it's like okay, either way it goes, that's still our home and we're going back no matter what," says Dionna, a dental assistant who's been with the dental office for 9 years.
So just like that morning on June 18th, they say they're ready to move forward, together.
Are you a patient with South Bend Family Dentistry? They're new location is:
919 E. Jefferson Avenue in South Bend.
They're located on the 4th floor in Suite 408.
To make an appointment, call: 574-233-0014
If you have any information on who may have started the fire at South Bend Family Dentistry, you're urged to call South Bend Police.


* 1. How likely is it that you would recommend RESULTS to a friend or colleague?
* 2. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with RESULTS Personal Training?
* 3. Which of the following words would you use to describe our training? Select all that apply.
* 4. How well does our program meet your expectations?
Something OTHER than the above goals?
* 7. If there was one thing you think would make the most significant impact on exceeding your expectations at Results, what would it be?
What else would you like to see MORE of?
What else would you like to see less of?
* 10. How responsive have we been to your questions or concerns about fitness?
* 11. How long have you been a member at Results?


text:
Search - Dvorak, Robinson, Johnson :: Cypresses Song Cycle
Dvorak, Robinson, Johnson
Cypresses Song Cycle
Genres: Pop, Classical
Track Listings (30) - Disc #1
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 1. Let ardent songs when night falls ring out
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 2. Overcome by your powerful eyes
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 3. In many hearts 'tis still as death
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 4. O one and only soul so sweet
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 5. Oh! what a glorious golden dream
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 6. I'm sure, and hope sustains me
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 7. O golden rose so beautiful
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 8. Never it seems will our love reach the heaven
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 9. My doubts that you may not be true
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 10. Round that house, your former dwelling there stagger I
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 11. Pain and deep sadness beset me
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 12. Here concealed in a book's pages lies that letter
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 13. Everything's still in the mountains and valley
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 14. I stand here in forest glade by the stream
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 15. Deep in my soul I'm suffering
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 16. Where the valley comes to an end
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 17. E'en now the countryside lightly slumbers
Cypresses (Cyprise), song cycle for voice and piano, B. 11: 18. You have asked me why I sing
Cypresses (Ohlas p?sn? [Echoes of Songs]), for string quartet (arr. from Cypresses, B. 11), B. 152: 1. I'm sure, and hope sustains me
Cypresses (Ohlas p?sn? [Echoes of Songs]), for string quartet (arr. from Cypresses, B. 11), B. 152: 2. In many hearts 'tis still as d
Cypresses (Ohlas p?sn? [Echoes of Songs]), for string quartet (arr. from Cypresses, B. 11), B. 152: 3. Overcome by your powerful eyes
Cypresses (Ohlas p?sn? [Echoes of Songs]), for string quartet (arr. from Cypresses, B. 11), B. 152: 4. Never it seems will our love r
Cypresses (Ohlas p?sn? [Echoes of Songs]), for string quartet (arr. from Cypresses, B. 11), B. 152: 5. Here concealed in a book's pag
Cypresses (Ohlas p?sn? [Echoes of Songs]), for string quartet (arr. from Cypresses, B. 11), B. 152: 6. O golden rose so beautiful. An
Cypresses (Ohlas p?sn? [Echoes of Songs]), for string quartet (arr. from Cypresses, B. 11), B. 152: 7. Round that house, your former
Cypresses (Ohlas p?sn? [Echoes of Songs]), for string quartet (arr. from Cypresses, B. 11), B. 152: 8. I stand here in forest glade b
Cypresses (Ohlas p?sn? [Echoes of Songs]), for string quartet (arr. from Cypresses, B. 11), B. 152: 9. O one and only soul so sweet.
Cypresses (Ohlas p?sn? [Echoes of Songs]), for string quartet (arr. from Cypresses, B. 11), B. 152: 10. Where the valley comes to an
Cypresses (Ohlas p?sn? [Echoes of Songs]), for string quartet (arr. from Cypresses, B. 11), B. 152: 11. E'en now the countryside ligh
Cypresses (Ohlas p?sn? [Echoes of Songs]), for string quartet (arr. from Cypresses, B. 11), B. 152: 12. You have asked me why I sing.
All Artists: Dvorak, Robinson, Johnson, Delme String Quartet
Title: Cypresses Song Cycle
Label: Somm Recordings
Styles: Vocal Pop, Chamber Music, Historical Periods, Classical (c.1770-1830)


If you're just tuning in, this is an ongoing series in which I share our weekly meal plan as I (attempt) to convert us to a Whole/Real Foods lifestyle. I actually meal plan monthly but share it here weekly because it makes more sense to do so. Meal planning is my way of controlling the grocery budget (read as a LOT of dollars saved), ensuring there is no food waste for the week, as well as saving time. You can read more about meal planning here and here.
Everything sounds delicious! Have a wonderful week!


text:
Medley stressed that in the emergency room it's important to provide patients with as much control as possible during the forensic exam.
"Among the equipment in our dedicated exam room, we have a clicker that enables the patient to take their own photograph, should they agree to have photographs taken during the exam," Medley said.
Sexual assault examiners should know the state's regulations and required documentation and how to report the assault to the police -- if that's what the victim wants.
"Even though the assault will be documented by us, it doesn't mean that a report must be filed with the police," Medley said. Pennsylvania law, for example, allows victims to have the sexual assault evidence kit collected and tested anonymously -- without their name attached to it, she added.
"They can have that reassurance that they'll get the medical treatment they need, when they need it. They'll get connected to support services to help them navigate the emotional trauma of their assault. And they'll have the peace of mind that while they might not want to report the crime yet, we have the evidence kit if they ever change their mind," Medley said.
There's more on sexual assault at the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network.
SOURCES: Penn State Health, news release, Oct. 16, 2020
Obstetrics And Gynecology, Gynecology
Urology, Female Pelvic and Reconstructive Surgery
Women's Health (Iris Cantor-UCLA)
Birthing Center (The BirthPlace)
Wilshire Office
Operation Mend
12th Street Office
15th Street Plaza Office
Comprehensive Health Program
Pacific Palisades Office
UCLA Videos
Female and Fabulous: Why Every Woman Needs an OB/GYN
Home Page - Non-Traumatic Emergencies
Cuts and Wounds of the External Ear
Cuts and Wounds of the Mouth and Lips
Wound Culture
Bullies: Helping Your Child Cope
Keep Kids Safe During Yard Work


Tom Clancy was right the first time. Paramount's "Patriot Games" is an expensive stiff. Mindless, morally repugnant and ineptly directed to boot, it's a shoddy followup to Par's 1990 hit "The Hunt for Red October."
Tom Clancy was right the first time. Paramount's "Patriot Games" is an expensive stiff. Mindless, morally repugnant and ineptly directed to boot, it's a shoddy followup to Par's 1990 hit "The Hunt for Red October." Also based on a best-selling Clancy novel about intrepid CIA analyst Jack Ryan, the ultra-violent, fascistic, blatantly anti-Irish "Patriot Games" stars a dour Harrison Ford, whose box office allure should ensure a big opening before downbeat word-of-mouth spreads like wildfire.
"Hunt for Red October" star Alec Baldwin's decision to forgo this project for the Broadway revival of "A Streetcar Named Desire" was greeted with smug head-shaking in Hollywood at the time, but now seems like a wise career move. If producers Mace Neufeld and Robert Rehme don't raise their standards next time out (Ford is pacted for two more Clancy films), Par's Jack Ryan tentpole may collapse prematurely.
The "Patriot Games" novel is a right-wing cartoon of the current British-Irish political situation, full of implausibilities and tending toward ridiculously overblown action setpieces, but it has an inescapable gut-wrenching emotional power that's sorely lacking in this watered-down adaptation by W. Peter Iliff and Donald Stewart.
Director Philip Noyce, whose major previous credit was the low-budgetAustralian pic "Dead Calm," is way out of his depths here, making a movie that's by turns deadly dull and dully deadly. Noyce overrelies on tight closeups that eliminate visual and social context, and his handling of action sequences is incoherent, most seriously in the would-be spectacular climax.
Ford's Ryan, at the onset, has left the CIA to teach naval history at Annapolis. A visit to London with his family places him in the middle of an attack on a high British official (James Fox) by what Ford later identifies as "some ultra-violent faction of the IRA." His rescue of Fox and killing of one attacker makes him the quarry of a revengeful, ice-blooded IRA man (Sean Bean).
The novel's pontifications on the political context are shallow and unabashedly biased toward the British, but the book does take the time to address the subject. That's more than can be said for the film, which takes about 20 seconds to do so in a TV sound bite of a Sinn Fein political rep (Richard Harris), whose comments can barely be heard above the Ford family's domestic chatter.
The case is sentimentally loaded by painting the IRA faction as monsters who don't hesitate to attack Ford's wife (Anne Archer) and small daughter (Thora Birch) as part of Bean's personal vendetta.
Though the Harris character disowns the faction as loose cannons within the IRA, Clancy's book portrays them as "an outcast outfit" who have left the IRA to work in opposition to the policies of the main revolutionary body by taking the war to the royal family.
Prince Charles and his family are the targets in the book–an angle that no doubt would have presented insuperable problems on screen–and while making the minister of state for Northern Ireland the target would seem to make more sense politically, Fox also is a royal (a distant cousin of the queen), which makes his attackers seem as foolishly reckless as those in the book.
A major implausibility in both versions is that the radical cell would allow and help a grieving member (Bean) to put political realities aside to hunt down a CIA man on his home turf.
Mad dog Bean and his brighter superior (Patrick Bergin) argue about this, but Bean prevails, disastrous though his grudge turns out to be for them all.
Nor does it make sense that the cell would be able to operate so easily and with such massive firepower on American soil, or that Fox would be so poorly protected when visiting Ford's home as he is in the film.
Even a master action director would have trouble making the audience swallow those points, and Noyce's staging of the elaborate finale (much of it in semi-darkness) is laughable.
While Ford is a solid blend of thought and action in his James Bondish role, and his need to protect his family gives the film some gripping moments, the film's moral viewpoint is strictly neanderthal.
His rejoining the CIA to further a personal revenge and his involvement (however troubled) in a CIA/British Special Air Services hit on a suspected IRA camp in North Africa makes him little better than the people he is fighting.
That clearly was not the intent of the filmmakers, who see their CIA hero's use of firepower and brute force as a knuckleheaded moral crusade of "us" vs. "them" for the soul of Western society.
Technically, the film doesn't look or sound good, aside from some fascinating simulations by the Video Image process of CIA satellite surveillance.
Donald McAlpine's murky lensing is an eyesore, and the score by the usually reliable James Horner is full of discordant and insulting riffs on Irish folk music.
Production: A Paramount release of a Mace Neufeld and Robert Rehme production. Produced by Neufeld, Rehme. Executive producer, Charles H. Maguire. Directed by Philip Noyce. Screenplay, W. Peter Iliff, Donald Stewart, based on the novel by Tom Clancy.
Crew: Camera (Technicolor, Panavision), Donald M. McAlpine; U.K. camera, Stephen Smith, James Devis; editors, Neil Travis, William Hoy; music, James Horner; production design, Joseph Nemec III; art direction, Joseph P. Lucky, Alan Cassie (U.K.); set design, Walter P. Martishius; set decoration, John M. Dwyer; costume design, Norma Moriceau; sound (Dolby), Jack Solomon, Ivan Sharrock (U.K.), Andy Nelson, Steve Pederson, Tom Perry; stunt coordinators, David R. Ellis, Steve Boyum, Martin Grace (U.K.); special effects coordinator, Dale L. Martin; visual effects and video displays, Video Image; associate producer, Lis Kern; assistant director, Dennis Maguire; second unit director, David R. Ellis; second unit camera, Michael A. Benson; second unit assistant director, Christopher T. Gerrity; casting, Amanda Mackey, Cathy Sandrich; U.K. and Ireland casting, John Hubbard, Ros Hubbard. Reviewed at Mann National Theater, West L.A. on June 1, 1992. MPAA Rating: R. Running time: 116 min.