text:
Blake Shelton gushes about Gwen: 'She's everything you could hope a human being could be'
Shelton talked to TODAY's Natalie Morales about his relationship and new Hallmark movie he co-executive produced with his mom.
Blake Shelton dishes on Hallmark movie and holiday memories
By Ree Hines
Just days after sitting down for some relationship talk with Gwen Stefani, TODAY's Natalie Morales spoke to the other half of the musical "it" couple — and she learned Blake Shelton has high praise for his partner, too.
Gwen Stefani congratulates boyfriend Blake Shelton after his 2018 E! People's Choice Awards win on November 11, 2018.Christopher Polk / NBCU Photo Bank
On Wednesday, Stefani confessed that she hopes Shelton is her "forever" man, so naturally Natalie asked Shelton if he and his fellow "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" singer would officially "make it forever this holiday" — hinting at rumors that a proposal is imminent.
While Shelton kept his cards close to his chest on that topic, he was quick to open up about how full his heart is because of Stefani.
"She's everything you could hope a human being could be," he said of his girlfriend of three years. "That's what Gwen is."
"She's everything you could hope a human being could be."@blakeshelton sat down with @nataliemorales and had the sweetest things to say about @gwenstefani pic.twitter.com/rCKVtBRoRI
— Kathie Lee and Hoda (@klgandhoda) December 14, 2018
"I think that's the highest compliment you can give your significant other," Natalie responded.
So rather than comment about the future, Shelton stressed the significance of their present.
We apologize, this video has expired.
Gwen Stefani on how she and Blake Shelton celebrate the holidays
"Gwen and I aren't just dating," Shelton explained. "You know, this is something that I feel like is meant to be. I've learned more from Gwen Stefani, as a human being and how to grow as a human being, than I have from anybody ever in my life — anybody."
And that's really saying something coming from a man who has a lot of love and admiration for everything his mama taught him.
In fact, Shelton and his mother, Dorothy Shackleford, are celebrating their own bond, too.
Back in 2012, the duo co-wrote and recorded a Christmas song together called "Time for Me to Come Home." One year later, Shackleford penned a book of the same name based on that song.
Now, their story is a TV movie on the Hallmark Channel called "Time for Me to Come Home for Christmas" — and they served side by side as co-executive producers on the project.
"What I love about those movies is, you know, the storylines — they hook you in immediately," Shelton said.
So when it comes to the women in his life, Shelton is truly a happy man this holiday season.


text:
Thread: WWE RAW: Into The Shark Tank
Raw #1318
Live from Scotiabank Arena, Toronto, Ontario, Canada!
Kicking off Raw, following a look back at last week's action packed episode, Dean Ambrose opened the show. Joined in the ring by Seth Rollins, the stage was his to address the WWE Universe.
Dean Ambrose spoke about his return, saying that his first long-term lay off since he joined the WWE has made him hungrier than ever. Ambrose wanted to make up for lost time, having missed 8 months of actions, and Seth Rollins said that it was great to have him back. The two men then realised that there was "someone missing", given that two thirds of The Shield were present. Having not been seen together since their short lived reunion, Dean and Seth were disappointed when the next theme song they heard was Stephanie McMahon's.
Stephanie McMahon told Dean Ambrose and Seth Rollins that Roman Reigns isn't in the building, and neither was Jason Jordan. McMahon told Dean Ambrose that his involvement in the match last week injured the challenger, and Jordan will be out of action. However, Stephanie McMahon had it from Drake Maverick that Dean Ambrose and Seth Rollins would be in action to open the show, against The Authors of Pain!
This contest could barely be considered a match, as it kicked off with a huge brawl breaking out between all four men. While the referee eventually managed to settle them down, the match continued in a similar, combustible manner throughout. Eventually, this aggression spilled beyond the legality of the match and the referee had to step in. When The Authors of Pain refused to relent, the referee warned them. This led to a moment where both Akam & Rezar were in the ring, having knocked Dean Ambrose off the apron. Refusing to stop their assault on Seth Rollins in the corner, the referee had no choice but to disqualify The Authors of Pain. Clearly, they didn't care.
Dean Ambrose & Seth Rollins bt. The Authors of Pain (DQ)
After the match, the beatdown on Rollins continued, until Dean Ambrose came back at The Authors of Pain. Ambrose was quickly outnumbered, and thrown to the outside, while Akam & Rezar focussed on Seth Rollins. Continuing the assault, the two men set Rollins up for a Last Chapter, but Dean Ambrose returned to the ring. This time, Dean Ambrose had a Chair. A few swings later saw The Authors of Pain exit the ring, backing away as Dean Ambrose stared them down, before checking on his friend Seth Rollins. A return from action that suffered something of a false start, Dean Ambrose will certainly be looking forward to the next time he steps in the ring.
When Raw returned from the break, Dean Ambrose and Seth Rollins confronted Interim General Manager Drake Maverick in his office.
The two called Maverick a puppet for Stephanie McMahon, and said that he needs to fix what happened out there, and set up a rematch. Drake tried to wriggle out of it, but was unsuccessful. That was until Chad Gable entered the office, providing some respite.
After the events of last week, a furious Chad Gable demanded that he be given a one on one match with Jinder Mahal. Drake Maverick was happy for a change of subject, telling Chad he would get exactly what he wanted, later in the night. Unfortunately, when it came down to that match, Jinder Mahal's callout of Chad Gable served as merely a set-up, allowing Sunil Singh to attack Chad Gable from behind.
While Chad Gable was more than capable of brushing off Singh, the distraction allowed Jinder Mahal to take Gable down. Bringing Chad back into the ring, Jinder Mahal hit a Khallas to his scheduled opponent, standing over him. As a result of the attack, the match never managed to take place.
Looking back at last week, and Bobby Lashley's victory over Baron Corbin, the winner was interview in the back.
Lashley told Renee Young that he was delighted to be moving on from the rivalry, and was ready to deliver on his promise. Lashley said it was time for him to capitalise on his momentum… and time for him to connect!
Following a successful return to the WWE last week, Alicia Fox was brought to the ring by Sasha Banks. The two women spent time running down Bayley, calling her a loser. Bayley looked to defend herself, but also knew she could rely on the backup of Nia Jax. Jax joined Bayley ahead of a tag team match between the two sides.
Another tag team match which lacked order, Bayley and Sasha Banks were once again clearly preoccupied by one another. For a while, this worked as part of the match, but soon the bickering on the outside became too much. Breaking out in a brawl on the outside, while Alicia Fox and Nia Jax competed in the ring, Bayley and Sasha Banks essentially discounted themselves from the match. When it came down to the one on one, Nia Jax was more than a match for Alicia Fox, who she pinned in the middle of the ring.
The second hour of Raw teased a "Miracle" coming to the show, before looking back at Ronda Rousey's "Path of Destruction" since coming to the WWE. Showing the various moments where she has switched gears to teach her fellow Superstars a lesson, the video package promoted a sit-down interview later in the evening.
That interview saw Ronda Rousey discuss her victory at SummerSlam, before turning her attention to Nia Jax. Making her intentions clear, Ronda told the WWE Universe that it was her goal to be the next Raw Women's Champion!
Responding to the interview, Sasha Banks spoke to Drake Maverick, complaining about Ronda Rousey. Sasha believed she should be the next Raw Women's Championship contender, getting a one on one since she beat Bayley when they faced off. Drake Maverick appeared to have taken a shine to Bayley, and stood up for her. He then informed Sasha that the two would go one on one next week, the winner putting themselves forward for the number one contendership.
The next match after that was between Finn Balor and Mojo Rawley, with the latter telling the first ever Universal Champion that he is about to make his month go from bad to worse. This prediction turned out to be wrong, as Finn Balor defeated Mojo Rawley. After the match, as Finn Balor celebrated a much needed victory, his moment was cut short as Jason Jordan appeared on the big screen.
Having been injured last week, at the hands of Dean Ambrose, Jason Jordan was resting up at home, but looked to be in total comfort. Jason Jordan talked about how terrible it was to not be out there competing in Canada, but his expression made it clear that he was enjoying resting up. Jason Jordan explained that he wouldn't be out of action for too long, and said he would be back for the Intercontinental Championship. Finn Balor was obviously annoyed by the upstaging.
Despite Drew McIntyre's obvious annoyance at Dolph Ziggler's behaviour last week, the duo successfully teamed up to score a victory on Raw. After beating Rhyno & Slater, Dolph Ziggler celebrated, despite Drew McIntyre doing almost all of the work. The over-the-top celebration rubbed McIntyre up the wrong way, as he walked away instead of joining in the post-match celebration.
Later in the night, when Dolph Ziggler confronted Drew McIntyre about what happened, the Scottish Superstar made his feeling clear in no uncertain terms. Telling Dolph Ziggler that "you're just like the rest of them!" it appeared that Drew McIntyre was beginning to lose faith in the idea that Ziggler could help him change the culture of the WWE.
Having spoken earlier in the night about his desire to do his home nation proud in the Scotiabank Arena, Bobby Roode was given the chance to do just that, going one on one with Roman Reigns. The match was competitive, and Bobby Roode came close on occasion, but ultimately fell to "The Big Dog". After the match, Roman Reigns was approached by Renee Young, who asked if he had made a decision RE: Triple H's proposal last week.
Reigns appeared offended by the line of questioning, with Michael Cole suggesting that Roman was insulted anybody would think he'd become Stephanie and Triple H's "golden boy". Roman Reigns didn't however say that, instead refusing to comment on speculation that he was finally willing to side with those in power.
Returning from the break that followed, and starting the final hour of Raw, Dean Ambrose and Seth Rollins spoke to Roman Reigns. They asked him what was going on, pointing out that he hadn't spoken to either of them in the last week.
Roman was equally dismissive of his two friends, telling Dean Ambrose that "I don't appreciate your woman putting a microphone in my face". This caused a clear tension between the two, that was only stopped from going further by the intervention of Seth Rollins. Roman Reigns then walked away from the situation, leaving Dean Ambrose stewing.
Before a match between Bray Wyatt and Curtis Axel, Kevin Owens and Sami Zayn cut a promo talking about Roman Reigns' situation, clearly trying to stir the pot. The pair were interrupted by The Deleters of Worlds, who have had issues with Owens & Zayn in the past. The back and forth resulted in Kevin and Sami leaving the ringside area, but not before warning Hardy and Wyatt to "watch their backs".
Joined by their partners at ringside, there was little to write home about in the match between the two. That was until the involvement of The Authors of Pain.
Taking out Matt Hardy on the outside, The Authors of Pain soon entered the ring and targeted Bray Wyatt, who had been in control of the match. By now, the contest had been thrown out, and The Authors of Pain continued a brutal targeting of Wyatt. When his partner Matt Hardy returned to the ring (as Dean had earlier), he looked to help the situation, only to find himself in the same dire circumstances.
As the attack continued, the commentators made it know that this was the first interaction between the two teams since The Authors of Pain "no showed" a Raw Tag Team Championships match against The Deleters of World. Later, it was revealed that The Authors of Pain's advisor Paul Ellering had got back into contact with them, having spoken to Triple H. The Authors of Pain finished the assault with a Super Collider, and made it clear that now they've returned, they are looking for the Raw Tag Team Championships once again!
The final match of the evening saw Ruby Riott's "Riott Squad" kicked out of the ringside area. As a result of this, Ember Moon was able to pick up an impressive victory over the group's leader. With her win, Ember Moon added her name to the list of Superstars vying for the Raw Women's Championship. A list which appears to be growing by the week.
Having been promoted heavily throughout the evening, Braun Strowman closed the show, with his official Champion's celebration. Braun Strowman's most memorable moments were shown, including various feats of strength, as well as his Helicopter arrival at Extreme Rules earlier in the year. The new Universal Champion then made his way to the ring, given the platform to address his victory at SummerSlam.
Braun Strowman opened by saying that as the WWE Universal Champion, his responsibilities are simple. Saying that he isn't going to be another Brock Lesnar, he explained:
"My job as Universal Champion... is to represent the WWE Universe!"
He went on to explain that as the reason why he chose to "Cash In" his Money In The Bank Briefcase at SummerSlam. Braun knew that the WWE Universe didn't want to see a replay of the WrestleMania Main Event at SummerSlam and he stepped in. Just like he stepped in at WrestleMania and made a member of the WWE Universe a Tag Team Champion! He could have done it the easy way, but that is not how Braun does his business.
But since WrestleMania, Braun had his eye on just one thing… and one man - Brock Lesnar! Saying that it will be different now he's Champion, Braun told Brock that he knows exactly where Braun Strowman is… and the WWE Universal Champion is ready for him whenever he's done crying at his ranch. Braun added that the same point goes for everybody, saying that whoever wants to be the one to step up to the WWE Universal Championship had better be ready to prove themselves!
Braun Strowman then used his platform to discuss the Kurt Angle controversy, saying that even if the General Manager who helped him take his place in the SummerSlam Main Event isn't here, he still wants to thank him. Strowman said that he didn't know what was going on at the moment, but said that after what happened last week, Angle's focus should be on recovering from what Brock Lesnar did to him. That brought him to the "Interim General Manager" Drake Maverick. Braun laughed at the idea that Drake had any real power in the WWE, saying that he's nothing but Steph's "new pet". Strowman then made it clear to whoever is really in charge, whether it's Stephanie McMahon, Triple H or Drake Maverick, he doesn't answer to them… but to the WWE Universe!
Strowman continued, saying that he learned that mantra from Mr. McMahon, adding that for all the bickering from Brock Lesnar and Roman Reigns over who is "Vince's Boy", he knows the truth.
"Damn right I'm Vince's Boy… I'm taking him out for steak tonight!"
Braun added that he was going to finish it off with some Maple Syrup and Pancakes. With this crowd pandering line, Braun Strowman was cut off by Kevin Owens and Sami Zayn.
Kevin Owens said he had heard enough, explaining that Braun Strowman sucking up to the WWE Universe was making him feel physically sick. Owens then patriotically pandered to the Canadian audience, before using this as evidence of how easy they were to manipulated. He explained that he could do the same thing next time they're in Toronto, and they'd fall for it again. Changing the subject, Sami Zayn said that he knows all about Braun Strowman, saying that "The Monster Amongst Men" loves one thing above all else… a challenge. As a result of this knowledge, he has a plan. Sami Zayn said that he heard Braun Strowman was looking for a first challenger, but questioned why it had to be singular. Zayn suggested that right there and then, Braun Strowman makes history with his first ever defence of the WWE Universal Championship!
Braun Strowman looked at them, suggesting that they rethink their plan, but was clearly more than willing to take on both men. However, when they surrounded him, clearly planning to rough him up before any potential match, they were put off by the music of Bobby Lashley.
Having teamed with Strowman in the past, Bobby Lashley ran off the threat to the WWE Universal Champion, despite Braun not looking in desperate trouble. This resulted in Kevin Owens and Sami Zayn leaving the ring, heading up the ramp as the two men stood tall. Raising his WWE Universal Championship over his head, Strowman yelled out "BBBRRRRRRAAAAAAAUUUUNNNN!" towards the two men as they retreated.
Out of nowhere, as Braun Strowman turned back towards the ring, Bobby Lashley hit him with a Spear! Dropping Strowman with it's ferocity, Lashley made an unbelievable impact on the Universal Champion...
Shocking the Raw commentary team, Michael Cole couldn't believe what had just happened. Not only were they surprised by Bobby Lashley's attack on his friend, they also were surprised to see Braun Strowman taken down with such force. Saying that he had never seen Braun Strowman drop like that, Corey Graves put over the devastating Spear that Bobby Lashley had just hit the WWE Universal Champion with. In a position that he has never been in during his WWE career, Braun Strowman ended Raw looking up at the lights, as a stern faced Bobby Lashley stood over him. Having been all smiles since his return to the WWE, Bobby Lashley may have just unleashed "The Destroyer" onto the WWE Universe… and their Universal Champion!
As the show went off the air, Bobby Lashley looked directly into the camera that was broadcasting the close-up of his face, uttering two words…
"I CONNECT!"
Bayley & Nia Jax bt. Alicia Fox & Sasha Banks
Finn Balor bt. Mojo Rawley
Ziggler & McIntyre bt. Slater & Rhyno
Roman Reigns bt. Bobby Roode
Bray Wyatt bt. Curtis Axel
Ember Moon bt. Ruby Riott
Last edited by 20LEgend : 07-13-2018 at 03:47 AM.
Find all posts by 20LEgend

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
/***************** common to all pages, moved to this stylesheet ********************/

/* default font size for all elements */
* {font-size:8pt;}

body {
	font-family: verdana,arial,serif;
	font-weight: normal;
	}

/* most other link color scheme blue/light blue */
a:link,a:visited {
  text-decoration: none;
  color: #40529b; /* blue */
  /* color: #DEE7C6; pale yellow */
}
a:hover,a:active {
  text-decoration: underline;
  /* color: #3f5bcd; gold */
  color: #8391cd;      /*dark blue */
  /*color: #8391cd; */
}

table {border-collapse:collapse;}
th {  font-size: 10pt;  text-align: left;  background-color: #999797;  }

.infoBox { border: 1px solid #AAA;  padding: 2px; font-size:8pt; margin-bottom:3px;}
.linkBox { padding: 3px; font-size:8pt; border: 1px solid #AAA;}
.infoBoxTitle {  font-size: 10pt;  font-weight: bold;  }
.infoBoxTitle {   font-size: 10pt;  font-weight: bold; }
.infoBoxBadProcStatus { color: red; }
a.homepageURL:hover {  color: red; }

/* feedback messages */
.errorMessage {  text-align: center;  color: red;  font-weight: bold;  font-size: 12pt; }
.errorDescription {  text-align: center;  font-weight: bold;  font-size: 12pt; }
.warningMessage {  text-align: center;  color: red;  font-weight: bold;  font-size: 10pt; }
.infoMessage {  text-align: center;  color: red;  font-weight: bold; }

/* nav and option boxes on several pages */
.navBoxTitle {  font-size: 10pt;  font-weight: bold; }
.navBoxItem {  font-size: 8pt;  font-weight: bold;  color: red; }
.navBoxDate {  font-size: 8pt;  font-weight: bold; }
.navBoxFile {  font-size: 8pt;  font-weight: bold;  text-align: center; }
/* option boxes */
.optBox { font-size: 10pt;  font-weight: bold; }
.optBoxItem {  font-size: 8pt;  font-weight: bold;  color: red; }
.optBoxTitle {  font-weight: bold;  font-size: 10pt; }
.optBoxValue {  font-size: 8pt;  font-style: italic; }

/* *********navbar frame specific styles ********************* */

/* navbar */
body.navbar {
	background-color: black;
	color: white;
	}
/* navbar links
body.navbar a:link,a:visited {
  text-decoration: none;
  color: #DEE7C6;  pale yellow
}
body.navbar a:hover,a:active {
 text-decoration: underline;
  color: #3f5bcd; gold
}
*/
.navbarlogo {
	margin: 0 0 10px 0;
	}

.navsection {
	margin: 5px 0 10px 0;
	/*color: #AAA; */
	}

.navsectiontitle {
	font-size: 9pt;
	font-weight: bold;
	border:1px solid #AAA;
	padding: 2px;
	text-align:center;
	}

div.navsectionlinks {
	margin: 3px 0 0 0;
	}

ul.navsectionlinks {
	margin: 0px;
	padding: 0px;
	list-style: none;
	}

ul.navsectionlinks li {
	}

/* main nav links */
ul.navsectionlinks li a:link,ul.navsectionlinks li a:visited {
	/*color: #DEE7C6; */
	font-weight: bold;
	font-size: 8pt;
	text-decoration: none;
	padding: 0 0 0 15px;
	background: transparent url(../images/greendot.gif) no-repeat scroll 0 0;
  	color: #DEE7C6; /* pale yellow */
	}
ul.navsectionlinks li a:hover ,ul.navsectionlinks li a:active{
	/*color: #8391cd;*/
	color:#FFC47F;   /*    this one was working before   */
	background: transparent url(../images/orangedot.gif) no-repeat scroll 0 0;
  /*	color: #3f5bcd;  gold */
	}

ul.navsectionlinks li ul {
	margin: 0px;
	padding: 0 0 0 30px;
	}

ul.navsectionlinks li ul li {
	}

/* sub links on main nav */
ul.navsectionlinks li ul li a:link,ul.navsectionlinks li ul li a:visited  {
/*	color: #DEE7C6;  */
	background: none;
	padding: 0;
	font-weight: normal;
  	color: #DEE7C6; /* pale yellow */
	}

ul.navsectionlinks li ul li a:hover,ul.navsectionlinks li ul li a:active  {
	background: none;
	color:#FFC47F;
	}

ul.navsectionlinks li ul li ul {
	margin: 0px;
	padding: 0 0 0 15px;
	}

.navbarsearch {
	margin: 5px 0 0 0;
	}

.navbarsearch fieldset {
	border: none;
	}

.navbarsearch fieldset legend {
	font-size: 8pt;
	}

.navbarsearch input{
/*	font-size: 8pt; */
	color: black;
	background-color: white;
	}

/* **************** main page *********************** */
#splashpage{
	text-align: center;
	}

#mainbrandsplash{
	font-size: 12pt;
	font-weight: bold;
	margin: 0 0 35px 0;
	}

#maincopy{
	margin: 0 0 15px 0;
	}

#currentversioninfo{
	font-size: 12pt;
	}
#currentversioninfo .product{
	font-size: 14pt;
	font-weight: bold;
	}
#currentversioninfo .version{
	font-size: 14pt;
	font-weight: bold;
	}
#currentversioninfo .releasedate{
	font-size: 11pt;
	margin: 5px 0 0 0;
	}
#currentversioninfo .checkforupdates{
	font-size: 11pt;
	font-weight: bold;
	}
#currentversioninfo .whatsnew{
	font-size: 11pt;
	font-weight: bold;
	margin: 50px 0 0 0;
	}

#updateversioninfo{
	margin: 15px auto 35px auto;
	width: 400px;
	}
.updatechecksdisabled{
	background-color: #FF9F9F;
	border: 1px solid red;
	padding: 10px;
	}
.updatechecksdisabled div.warningmessage{
	font-weight: bold;
	}
#updateversioninfo div.submessage{
	clear: left;
	}
.updateavailable{
	background-color: #9FD4FF;
	border: 1px solid blue;
	padding: 10px;
	}
.updateavailable div.updatemessage{
	font-size: 12pt;
	font-weight: bold;
	}

#splashpage #mainfooter{
	/*margin: 100px 0 0 0;*/
	clear: both;
	font-size: 8pt;
	}
#splashpage #mainfooter .disclaimer{
	/*width: 80%;*/
	margin: auto;
	}
#splashpage #mainfooter .logos{
	margin: 15px 0 0 0;
	}

a img {
	border: none;
	}

#splashboxes {

	/*border: 1px solid blue;*/
	clear:both;
	width: 800px;
	height:300px;
	margin-left: auto;
	margin-right:auto;
	line-height:1.2em; /* added for better X-browser/OS viewing */

	}
#topsplashbox {
	height:150px;
	}
#bottomsplashbox {
	height:150px;
	}

.splashbox {
	padding: 5px;
	margin: 5px;
	border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;
	float: left;
	text-align: left;
	width:375px;
	}

.splashbox h2{
	margin: 0px;
	font-size: 12pt;
	}
.splashbox ul{
    margin: 0;
    padding: 5px 5px 5px 15px;
	}
.splashbox ul li{
	clear: both;
	}
#splashbox1 {
	}
#splashbox2 {
	}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Carleen Anderson
Events with Carleen
Hailed by Giles Peterson as one of the most influential singer/songwriters of her generation, Carleen Anderson is highly respected within the music industry. She's globally known for her collaboration with the 1991 Mercury Music Award Shortlisted Young Disciples for their album, Road to Freedom and her 1994 Brit Award nominated solo album TRUE SPIRIT. Throughout her independent solo career, she's been featured alongside a multitude of established artists from a wide array of musical genres - Nigel Kennedy, Dr. John, OMAR, Chrissie Hynde, Jocelyn Brown, Meshell Ndgeocello, Paul McCartney, Brand New Heavies, Incognito, Paul Weller, Ramsay Lewis, and a further long list of luminous ones. She won Jazz FM's 2013 Best UK Vocalist Award. In 2014, Arts Council England awarded her a Research and Development grant for her Cage Street Memorial Theatre Production which was followed by a PRS Women Make Music grant in 2015 to record its accompanying music. She won the Giles Peterson's Worldwide FM Lifetime Achievement Award in 2017. Her CAGE STREET MEMORIAL Tribal Opera concert at the Barbican in January 2018 received great press reviews. The London Evening Standard called it 'a deftly crafted masterwork'.
In addition to currently promoting her soundtrack album CAGE STREET MEMORIAL ~ The
Pilgrimage, Anderson is internationally commissioned to compose and arrange music for several
Human Rights projects.
CAGE STREET MEMORIAL WEBSITE


text:
Home » Canadian Online Legal Dictionary » Browse » Queen's Privy Council for Canada
Queen's Privy Council for Canada
See also: Cabinet, Privy Council Office
A body named in the Constitution Act, 1867 to "aid and advise in the Government of Canada" whose powers are, in practice, exercised by Cabinet.
A group of more than one hundred persons, including all current and former Cabinet ministers and certain other notable Canadians such as former provincial premiers or the leaders of opposition parties, with the legal right to advise the governor general as to the exercise of the powers of the Crown. In practice, the Privy Council does not meet and has no role or function. The Cabinet, which is technically a "committee of the Privy Council" made up of ministers appointed on the advice of the prime minister, exercises the powers of the Privy Council on a day to day basis.
Title: Constitutional Law, 5/e
By: Patrick Monahan, Byron Shaw and Padraic Ryan
Jus solis
A ground for the granting of nationality on the basis that the person was born in the territory of the granting state.
Title: Public International Law 2/e
By: John H. Currie


Your security is our top priority. Shop Secure. Feel Secure.
Free Shipping and Delivery for orders above $100.
Feel free to call us at +1-844-893-7890 for any enquiry.
Let the night sweep you away.
Your most loved styles. Our most irresistible prices.


How many of you have heard this? Well, I'm here to tell you that this is false. Everyone can teach, but not in a classroom. Some yea5rs ago the newspaper reported of a very successful lawyer who had always dreamed of being a teacher. He had made a lot of money as a lawyer and decided to follow his dream and become a teacher. He became a teacher and because he was a very successful lawyer he felt that he could be a very successful teacher. He started in September and lasted until Christmas and then resigned. It was too much work.
A teacher in a classroom of students is not like a doctor ordering nurses around or a coach directing his team because many students do not want to be in the classroom and they don't get paid for being there. Now the nurses receive some pay and the team wants to be there because they enjoy it, but that is not the case with all students.
Teachers are not like many other professionals because they deal with multiple students at a time while most other professions deal with only one person at a time. Teachers don't schedule appointments with the students, they must deal with all the students NOW, not when they get around to it. When that bell rings in the morning the teacher cannot walk in 30 minutes late because they have been dealing with something else, they must be there.
Teachers are not like CEO's. They may be over the classroom, but all the students do not jump to do their bidding like other employees would with a CEO. In fact it takes talent to get those students to jump and do what they are required to.
Teachers are not like food processors, or resteraunts because if they receive materials that are not up to par they cannot send them back for replacement. If the blue berries are bad they go back, not so with a students that has problems. Teachers must work with the students they receive at the beginning of the year, they don't get to send them back for a better batch.
Teachers are not like manufacturers because if the product doesn't turn out like the mold then they cannot melt it down and start over. They have to work with the misshappened student that has not been fed, is cold and doesn't care if he is in school..
Basically teachers are not like any other profession because they have no control over the incoming, raw product. They must deal with the student as they are and try to make them a better person in only one year.


Red and yellow markers indicate the locations of hundreds of fires burning in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tanzania and Zambia, in central Africa in late June. Smoke from the fires, which were probably set to manage land, creates a hazy veil across the image. While fire helps enhance crops and grasses for pasture, this air quality-degrading smoke can be dangerous to human and animal health.
Dozens of fires are burning in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tanzania and Zambia, in central Africa in late June. The fires, most of which are burning in grass or cropland, are indicated by red markers. Separating the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Tanzania is the large Lake Tanganyika. More smoke is visible west of the lake than to its east.
Hundreds of fires can be seen west of Lake Tanganyika (above) and Lake Malawi (right center), in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (upper left quadrant) and Zambia (lower left quadrant). Red markers identify the locations of the individual fires, although many individual plumes of smoke can also be discerned, mostly blowing towards the west.


text:
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fifth Circuit › 2017 › United States v. Westbrooks
United States v. Westbrooks, No. 16-20409 (5th Cir. 2017)
Justia Opinion Summary
Defendant, operator of a tax preparation business, was convicted of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the administration of the tax code and of three counts of filing fraudulent tax returns. The Fifth Circuit upheld the convictions and amount of the restitution award, but modified the judgment so the restitution obligation was limited to the supervised release term that was the only period during which restitution can be imposed for a tax offense.
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 22, 2018.
Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-20409 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 24, 2017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellee v. TAMNY DENISE WESTBROOKS, also known as Tammy Westbrooks, also known as Tammy Westbrook, Defendant - Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and COSTA, Circuit Judges. GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge: Taxes were Tamny Denise Westbrooks's profession. She operated two businesses that helped people prepare their taxes. But it was misrepresenting profits from one of her own tax preparation business that got her into trouble. An indictment alleged that her returns falsely stated the income by grossly inflating amounts paid for wages. It also alleged that Westbrooks took steps to obscure the amount workers were actually paid. A jury found that the evidence supported those charges, convicting Westbrooks of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the administration of the tax code and of three counts Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 of filing fraudulent tax returns. Westbrooks challenges the obstruction count on various grounds and also appeals the restitution order. We uphold the convictions and amount of the restitution award but modify the judgment so the restitution obligation is limited to the supervised release term that is the only period during which restitution can be imposed for a tax offense. I. Westbrooks operated a tax preparation business, JATS Tax Service, in Charlotte, North Carolina. Tonya Robbins owned the company, but Westbrooks managed day-to-day operations and had signature authority for JATS's checking account. At the same time, Westbrooks co-operated another tax preparation business, CF&W Financial Services, in Houston. The first sign of trouble came when the IRS executed a search warrant at JATS's office in 2009, and Westbrooks received a grand jury subpoena to produce records related to JATS. United States v. Westbrooks, 780 F.3d 593, 594 (4th Cir. 2015). Westbrooks produced only "a packet of materials comprised primarily of unopened mail and refund checks for clients." Id. The government, noting that most of the documents Westbrooks had provided were not responsive and that she had not produced documents typically maintained by an ongoing business operation, moved for an order to show cause why she should not be held in contempt. Id. A federal district court in North Carolina held a show cause hearing. Id. at 595. At the hearing, Westbrooks testified that from 2005 to 2009 no W-2s or 1099s were prepared or filed for JATS workers, that she kept no records identifying the employees of JATS, did not keep track of their wages or the hours they worked, and that Robbins had already handed over all bank records responsive to the subpoena, which should support the amounts reflected as wages in the tax returns. The court found Westbrooks guilty of criminal contempt "for failure to comply with a grand jury subpoena." Id. at 594. 2 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 A Houston grand jury later charged Westbrooks with one count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the due administration of the internal revenue laws (count one), and three counts of willfully filing false tax returns for 2007, 2008, and 2009 (counts two through four). The obstruction count was based on conduct occurring from 2004 through 2009, including submitting the returns that falsely stated low income for JATS. The indictment alleged that although annual compensation for all JATS workers never exceeded $30,000, the returns listed wages or subcontractor expenses ranging from $87,425 to $248,400 during these years. This count further alleged that Westbrooks did not properly file IRS and social security forms documenting compensation of JATS employees and made such payments in cash. Finally, it relied on her providing false and misleading testimony at the show cause hearing. Westbrooks unsuccessfully moved to dismiss count one, arguing that the indictment failed to allege that there was an ongoing IRS investigation or proceeding during the obstructive conduct, that the statute was vague, and that venue was lacking. After a four-day trial, a jury convicted Westbrooks on all counts. The district court imposed a total sentence of 40 months. It also ordered her to pay $273,460 in restitution to the IRS in quarterly instalments of $25 or half of prison earnings, whichever is greater, while incarcerated, and in the monthly amount of $400 or ten percent of gross earnings, whichever is greater, during the year of supervised release that would follow her prison term. II. A. Westbrooks contends the indictment did not allege an essential element of the tax obstruction statute because it did not assert that she acted with knowledge of a pending IRS action such as an investigation or proceeding. Westbrooks was convicted under the omnibus clause of the statute, which 3 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 makes it a crime to "in any . . . way corruptly or by force or threats of force . . . obstruct[ ] or impede[ ], or endeavor[ ] to obstruct or impede, the due administration of this title." 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a). The clause does not mention a proceeding or investigation. Our prior cases involving section 7212(a) do not directly confront this question but treat the statute as not requiring knowledge of a pending IRS action. In United States v. Reeves, 752 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1985), the defendant knew he was being investigated—he violated section 7212(a) by filing a lien against the residence of an IRS agent investigating his tax returns. Id. 996– 97. Nonetheless, in defining the scope of the "corruptly" element, we recognized that the tax obstruction statute "reaches a broad category of circumstances." Id. at 1000. We thus defined "corruptly" narrowly—to require that the defendant acted "with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit," id. at 1001—because "interference with the administration of the tax laws need not concern a proceeding in which a party stands to gain an improper advantage . . . ." Id. at 999 (emphasis added). In contrast, we noted that an obstruction statute like 18 U.S.C. § 1503 that limits obstruction to that occurring in connection with a judicial proceeding does not necessitate an "intent to benefit" finding; obstruction in response to a pending action "will almost necessarily result in an improper advantage." Id. After Reeves, we upheld convictions under section 7212(a) when there was no pending action: the convictions were based on defendants' corrupt efforts to trigger an investigation into others. United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298, 301, 304–05 (5th Cir. 2005) (noting that that the defendant filed "false tax reports regarding several individuals for the purpose of triggering [IRS] audits and thereby harassing and intimidating these individuals"). In doing so, we rejected the defendants' contention that section 7212(a) requires intent to gain a benefit under the tax laws. Id. If section 7212(a) does not 4 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 require even that intent, it would not seem to require intent to gain a benefit in a particular investigation or proceeding. To the extent we have not already rejected Westbrooks's position, we do so now, joining a majority of the circuits to consider the question. Of the five circuits to directly address the issue, only the first to consider the question adopted Westbrooks's position, and one judge dissented from that ruling. See United States v. Kassouf, 144 F.3d 952, 955–58 (6th Cir. 1998). 1 Four have since held that section 7212(a) does not require an ongoing IRS action. United States v. Floyd, 740 F.3d 22, 32, 32 n.4 (1st Cir. 2014) ("A conviction for violation of section 7212(a) does not require proof of either a tax deficiency . . . or an ongoing audit," so "the filing of false tax documents" or "concealment of income or other assets from the IRS can form the basis for a violation of the statute"); United States v. Marinello, 839 F.3d 209, 222 (2d Cir. 2016) ("[S]ection 7212(a)'s omnibus clause criminalizes corrupt interference with an official effort to administer the tax code, and not merely a known IRS investigation."); United States v. Massey, 419 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 2005) ("[T]he government need not prove that the defendant was aware of an ongoing tax investigation to obtain a conviction under § 7212(a); it is sufficient that the defendant hoped 'to benefit financially' from [his] conduct."); United States v. Sorensen, 801 F.3d 1217, 1232 (10th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1163 (2016) ("7212(a) does not require an ongoing proceeding . . . .'"). 2 The Sixth Circuit recently reaffirmed Kassouf. United States v. Miner, 774 F.3d 336, 345 (6th Cir. 2014). 2 Westbrooks unsuccessfully attempts to distinguish Floyd and Massey. Floyd is a sufficiency of the evidence case, but it held that evidence was sufficient to support an obstruction conviction because no evidence of an ongoing audit was required. 740 F.3d at 32. Floyd said Kassouf is not "good law." Id. at 32 n.4. Massey, addressing the adequacy of a jury charge, held that the charge was correct because the government was not required to prove knowledge of an ongoing investigation. 419 F.3d at 1010. 1 5 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 As these cases explain, Kassouf did not correctly interpret section 7212(a). Kassouf relied on United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 600 (1995), which held that a conviction under section 1503 requires a nexus between the underlying conduct and judicial proceedings. Id. But the text of section 7212(a) is substantially different from that of section 1503. 3 First, section 1503's "due administration of justice" provision follows a list "of specific prohibitions of conduct that interferes with actual judicial proceedings" which "supports a reading that tethers the 'due administration of justice' to actual grand jury or judicial proceedings." Marinello, 839 F.3d at 220 (quoting United States v. Wood, 384 F. App'x 698, 704 (10th Cir. 2010)). In contrast, section 7212(a) begins by referring to attempts to interfere with officers "acting in an 3 The full text of the provisions is as follows: Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished . . . . 18 U.S.C. § 1503. Whoever corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) endeavors to intimidate or impede any officer or employee of the United States acting in an official capacity under this title, or in any other way corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration of this title, shall [be punished] . . . . 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a). 6 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 official capacity." Id. Second, section 1503 refers to the "due administration of justice" as opposed to the "due administration of this title." Id. Both differences indicate section 7212(a) criminalizes a broader range of conduct: the IRS, through a variety of official actions, "duly administer[s] the tax laws even before initiating a proceeding." Sorensen, 801 F.3d at 1232. Courts administer justice only through proceedings. The history of the provisions is also different. Marinello, 839 F.3d at 221. Aguilar relies on Pettibone v. United States, 148 U.S. 197, 202 (1893). Pettibone interpreted an earlier version of section 1503, which made it a crime to "corruptly endeavor[ ] to influence, intimidate, or impede any witness or officer in any court of the United States in the discharge of his duty, or corruptly . . . endeavor[ ] to obstruct or impede[ ] the due administration of justice therein." 148 U.S. at 202 (emphasis added). Although Congress later removed "therein," "there is no indication . . . that, in doing so, it intended to fundamentally alter the statute's meaning." Marinello, 839 F.3d at 221. Section 7212(a) has no similar predecessor tying it to a proceeding. 4 Finally, section 7212(a)'s purpose supports the broader reading most courts have embraced. United States v. Rainey, 757 F.3d 234, 245 (5th Cir. 2014) ("[E]ven in a criminal case, a statute's purpose may be a 'consideration [that] strongly support[s]' a textual interpretation."). The breadth of section 7212(a)'s language shows that the omnibus provision was intended to prevent frustration of tax collection efforts, a purpose which would be thwarted by Westbrooks's narrow interpretation. "In a system of taxation such as ours which relies principally upon self-reporting, it is necessary to have in place a Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005), also does not support Westbrooks's view. Although that case found that the government must prove a "nexus" between certain acts and a particular proceeding, the statute it applied, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b), by its terms applies to obstruction of an "official proceeding." Id. at 707. 4 7 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 comprehensive statute in order to prevent taxpayers and their helpers from gaining unlawful benefits by employing that variety of corrupt methods that is limited only by the imagination of the criminally inclined." United States v. Popkin, 943 F.2d 1535, 1540 (11th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 The indictment therefore did not fail to allege an essential element of the obstruction charge. B. Westbrooks argues that without her narrowing interpretation that requires a pending IRS action, section 7212(a) is unconstitutionally vague. To prevail on this claim, she must show that the statute "fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.'" United States v. McRae, 702 F.3d 806, 836–37 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 18 (2010)). Although Reeves does not involve a vagueness challenge, one reason it gives for its narrow construction of "corrupt" it to preserve the statute from vagueness challenges. 752 F.2d at 999–1000. Since then, every court to consider such a challenge to section 7212(a) has rejected it, reasoning that Reeves's interpretation of "corrupt" provides sufficient clarity and notice. See, e.g., United States v. Kelly, 147 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir. 1998); United States v. Westbrooks's argument, raised in her reply brief, that the legislative history of 7212(a) indicates that the provision was intended to address only interference with IRS agents is: (1) counteracted by the text of the provision, which refers to action that obstructs "any officer or employee of the United States acting in an official capacity under this title or in any other way . . . obstructs or impedes" administration of the title; and (2) has been convincingly rejected by other courts, see United States v. Martin, 747 F.2d 1404, 1409 (11th Cir. 1984) ("Congress was not required to list in the legislative history every conceivable corrupt endeavor to avoid waiving the statute's application to one type of corrupt endeavor."); United States v. Bowman, 173 F.3d 595, 598 (6th Cir. 1999); United States v. Mitchell, 985 F.2d 1275, 1279 (4th Cir. 1993). 5 8 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 Ring, 191 F.3d 462, at *1 (9th Cir. 1999); Wood, 384 F. App'x at 706; Popkin, 943 F.2d at 1540. Westbrooks again relies on Kassouf, pointing out that the Sixth Circuit expressed concern that requiring no connection to a pending proceeding would expose section 7212(a) "to legitimate charges of overbreadth and vagueness." 144 F.3d at 958. The Sixth Circuit reasoned that "out of the hundreds of people who file taxes every day, there is no guarantee that a particular tax return will be audited," so "it would be highly speculative to find conduct such as the destruction of records, which might or might not be needed, in an audit which might or might not ever occur, is sufficient to make out an omnibus clause violation." Id. This ignores narrowing work done by other portions of the statute. As mandated by Reeves, only destruction of documents with the intent to gain an unlawful advantage would fall within section 7212(a). In any event, regardless of whether section 7212(a) could be vague as applied to some conduct, "[a] person whose conduct is clearly proscribed by a statute cannot . . . complain that the law is vague as applied to the conduct of others." McRae, 702 F.3d at 837 (quoting Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 18–19). That describes Westbrook. She fabricated compensation amounts on her returns and engaged in deceptive practices, such as making cash payments and not filing wage reporting documents to conceal the low amounts of compensation the workers received. See Reeves, 752 F.2d at 998 (finding section 7212(a) "directed at efforts to bring about a particular advantage such as impeding the collection of one's taxes, the taxes of another, or the auditing of one's or another's tax records"); Wood, 384 F. App'x at 706 (finding using deceptive techniques to hide income and assets from the IRS clearly covered). Westbrooks rightly argues that, after Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), section 7212(a) is not saved by the fact that some conduct clearly falls within a statute's prohibition. Id. at 2561. But as several circuits 9 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 have held, Johnson did not change the rule that a defendant whose conduct is clearly prohibited cannot be the one making that challenge. See United States v. Bramer, 832 F.3d 908, 909 (8th Cir. 2016) ("Though Bramer need not prove that § 922(g)(3) is vague in all its applications, our case law still requires him to show that the statute is vague as applied to his particular conduct."); Arrigoni Enter., LLC v. Town of Durham, 629 F. App'x 23, 26 (2d Cir. 2015); Maages Auditorium v. Prince George's Cty., 2017 WL 1019060, at *6 (4th Cir. Mar. 15, 2017); United States v. Huff, 630 F. App'x 471, 487 (6th Cir. 2015); United States v. Zagorovskaya, 628 F. App'x 503, 504 (9th Cir. 2015); Miranda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 632 F. App'x 997, 1000 (11th Cir. 2015); Flytenow, Inc. v. FAA, 808 F.3d 882, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The vagueness challenge fails. C. So does Westbrooks's argument that her prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause in light of her earlier contempt conviction. As this argument is being made for the first time on appeal, it must satisfy the stringent plain error standard. United States v. Odutayo, 406 F.3d 386, 392 (5th Cir. 2005). Westbrooks cannot overcome even the first hurdle that requires her to show error as if the argument had been preserved. Under Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932), two statutes are not the same offense if each contains an element not contained in the other. United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993). Criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) and the section 7212(a) obstruction statute are separate offenses. Among other things, section 7212(a) does not require proof of a court order, and section 401(3) does not require an endeavor to obstruct or impede due administration of the 10 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 Internal Revenue laws. 6 And the two convictions apply to different conduct. The contempt conviction involved Westbrooks's failure to adequately respond to the subpoena; the obstruction conviction involved, among other conduct, her false testimony when she was questioned about that noncompliance in the North Carolina court. D. Westbrooks lastly challenges her count one conviction for lack of venue, asserting that JATS's home in North Carolina was the appropriate place to try the case. A defendant has the right to be tried in the district in which the alleged crime was committed. U.S. CONST. amend. VI; FED. R. CRIM. P. 18; United States v. Bryan, 896 F.2d 68, 72 (5th Cir. 1990). But venue may lie in more than one district: an "offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be . . . prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed." 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a). So even if venue did lie in Charlotte federal court, Westbrooks also could be tried in Houston if part of a continuing pattern of obstructive conduct occurred there. The five-year period of obstructive conduct alleged in count one was a continuing offense at least some of which took place in the Southern District of Texas. Westbrooks's actions in Houston and Charlotte were interrelated and in furtherance of the same desire to reduce her tax liability by inflating labor expenses. There was evidence she prepared and submitted the fraudulent tax returns charged in count one for herself and other JATS employees in Houston. For example, her tax returns from 2004 through 2009 containing the false The reply brief's invocation of the collateral-estoppel aspect of double jeopardy, see Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), is too late. In any event, there is no prior ruling in Westbrooks's favor to support such an argument. She was found guilty at the contempt trial. 6 11 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 JATS wage numbers, list CF&W, at its Houston address, as the tax preparer. So do returns Westbrooks prepared for JATS workers. This is sufficient to establish venue. See Bryan, 896 F.2d at 72 (finding knowingly and willfully aiding and assisting in the preparation or presentation of fraudulent tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) a continuing offense and looking to the address listed for the tax preparer to determine venue); see also United States v. Nell, 570 F.2d 1251, 1256 (5th Cir. 1978) (same). There was venue in the Southern District of Texas. III. We next address Westbrooks's challenges to the restitution the district court imposed. She challenges the statutory authority for the award as well as the amount awarded. A. A federal court cannot order restitution "except when authorized by statute." United States v. Love, 431 F.3d 477, 479 (5th Cir. 2005). Westbrooks maintains the district court's order of restitution was not authorized because: (1) the court imposed restitution as part of her sentence under a general restitution statute, which is not permitted for Title 26 offenses; and (2) even if the court imposed restitution as a condition of supervised release, which is permitted for Title 26 offenses, it was not authorized to do so because she did not agree to restitution in a plea bargain. Regardless of whether Westbrooks objected to the district court's statutory authority to impose restitution, which the parties contest, we review de novo. A sentence that exceeds a court's statutory authority should be corrected on plain error review, so we review whether restitution was illegally awarded as part of a sentence de novo, and if it was, find plain error. See 12 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 United States v. Nolen, 523 F.3d 331, 382, 382 n.52 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Feast, 614 F. App'x 195, 196–97 (5th Cir. 2015). 7 Neither the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663, nor the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, allow restitution for a tax code offense under Title 26 (as opposed to offenses described in the general criminal code of Title 18). But several statutes, read together, allow district courts to order restitution for tax offenses as a condition of supervised release. Nolen, 472 F.3d at 332–33. The first link in the chain is 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), which authorizes courts to impose, as a condition of supervised release, "any condition set forth as a discretionary condition of probation in section 3563(b)." Section 3563(b) in turn authorizes a district court to order "restitution to a victim of the offense under section 3556." 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b). Section 3556 connects to the general restitution provision, authorizing a district court to "order restitution in accordance with section 3663," which provides that a court "may order . . . that the defendant make restitution to any victim of such offense." 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a); see also United States v. Dahlstrom, 180 F.3d 677, 686 (5th Cir.1999). Although section 3663(a) limits restitution to nonTitle 26 offenses, this limit does not apply to restitution as a condition of supervised release. Love, 431 F.3d at 481. Courts' broad authority to order restitution as a condition of supervised release in tax cases is recognized in the Sentencing Guidelines and generally in the federal courts. See U.S.S.G. § 5E1.1(a)(2); United States v. Batson, 608 F.3d 630, 635 (9th Cir. 2010) ("The The government says United States v. Ortiz, 252 F. App'x 664, 665–67 (5th Cir. 2007), applies plain error review to whether restitution was imposed under the wrong statute, but the court did the same thing in Ortiz as it did in Nolen and Feast. Recognizing the legality of the sentence was at issue, it engaged in a de novo "careful examination of the record" which showed the district court awarded restitution under section 3663, not as a condition of supervised release, then considered whether awarding restitution under the wrong statute was plain error, summarily concluding that it was. Id. 7 13 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 Supervised Release Statute, together with the Probation Statute, unambiguously authorizes federal courts to order restitution as a condition of supervised release for any criminal offense, including one under Title 26, for which supervised release is properly imposed."). Westbrooks does not quarrel with courts' general authority to impose restitution as a condition of supervised release for Title 26 offenses, but she maintains the district court based its restitution order on the wrong statute. We have vacated restitution orders if the record shows that, although the district court could have imposed restitution as a condition of supervised release, it did not do so. See Feast, 614 F. App'x at 196–97; Ortiz, 252 F. App'x at 666. But that is not what happened here. The presentence report correctly states that "[b]ecause this is a Title 26 offense, mandatory restitution is not applicable" but "the Court can order restitution as a condition of [Westbrooks's] supervised release term." The judgment lists restitution as a special condition of supervision. There is, however, some inconsistency in the judgment as it mandates that Westbrooks begin making restitution payments before she completes her sentence. It requires her to pay restitution to the IRS in quarterly instalments of $25 or half of prison earnings during incarceration. And "a restitution award due prior to the commencement of a term of supervised release is a component of the sentence, not a condition of supervised release." Feast, 614 F. App'x at 197 (citing United States v. Howard, 220 F.3d 645, 647 (5th Cir. 2000)). Indeed, in Feast, we vacated a restitution award in part because it was due "immediately," which was inconsistent with it being a condition of supervised release. Id. at 196. Similarly, the Seventh Circuit has held that because a district court did not articulate that basis for restitution and ordered that it was payable immediately, restitution was not imposed solely as a condition of supervised release. United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906, 924–25 (7th 14 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Dean, 64 F.3d 660, at *4 (4th Cir. 1995) (unpublished table decision) (finding restitution award was not imposed solely as a condition of supervised release because it was due immediately). But in those cases the record contained few indications the district court meant to impose restitution only as part of supervised release under 3583(d) to counteract the clue timing provided of an improper statutory basis. And it often was not just the timing of the restitution order that led to the conclusion that the court relied on improper statutory authority. In both Feast and Hassebrock, the presentence reports cited only section 3663 or section 3663A as the basis for restitution. 614 F. App'x at 196–97; 663 F.3d at 924, 926. And in Hassebrock, the district court had explained that only if restitution was "not paid during imprisonment, it w[ould] be a condition of supervised release." 663 F.3d at 924. We thus conclude that the judgment contains an error in ordering that Westbrooks begin making payments while in prison—a timeline that exceeds the court's statutory authority. But that error does not overcome the other indications that the court intended to impose restitution under the statute permitting it as part of supervised release. The most efficient remedy in this situation is to modify the judgment so that Westbrooks does not owe restitution until she begins her term of supervised release. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106; United States v. Munoz, 549 F. App'x 552, 555–56 (7th Cir. 2013) (modifying timing of restitution payments because district court mistakenly ordered that restitution which could only be awarded as a condition of supervised release be due immediately). Westbrooks also argues that United States v. Stout, 32 F.3d 901 (5th Cir. 1994), allows courts to impose restitution as a condition of supervised release only as part of a plea agreement. Stout states that "courts are permitted to impose restitution as a condition of supervised release to the extent agreed to 15 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 by the government and the defendant in a plea agreement." Id. at 904. Stout applied section 3663(a)(3), which states that a "court may also order restitution in any criminal case to the extent agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement." 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3) (emphasis added). Westbrooks has not pointed to any case holding that restitution is off limits as a condition of supervised release when a defendant is convicted after a trial. In fact, we have recognized that "in the absence of an agreement by the defendant, restitution may not be ordered for a Title 26 offense except as a condition of probation or supervised release, under 18 U.S.C. 3583(d), 3563(b)(2), and 3556." Nolen, 523 F.3d at 332–33 (emphasis added); see also Feast, 614 F. App'x at 197. And we have approved restitution orders as conditions of supervised release after trial and conviction. See Nolen, 523 F.3d at 332–33; Dahlstrom, 180 F.3d at 686. We see no basis for creating the "counterintuitive" and atextual limitation Westbrooks proposes. See United States v. Miller, 406 F.3d 323, 329–30 (5th Cir. 2005) (noting that section 3583 does not manifest the "counterintuitive intention" that it "preclude[s] the imposition of restitution as a condition of supervised release in any case in which the defendant goes to trial"). B. Westbrooks next objects to the amount of restitution awarded, and, relatedly, the tax loss calculation used in determining her sentencing range. We review the amount of a restitution award for abuse of discretion, reviewing factual findings for clear error. United States v. Sharma, 703 F.3d 318, 322 (5th Cir. 2012). Restitution is limited to the actual loss caused by the defendant's offense of conviction. Id. at 323. We similarly review a loss calculation under the Sentencing Guidelines for clear error. United States v. Johnson, 841 F.3d 299, 303 (5th Cir. 2016). When the loss is "uncertain," a court may "simply make a reasonable estimate based on the available facts." U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1 cmt. n.1; see United States v. Reasor, 541 F.3d 366, 369 (5th 16 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 Cir. 2008) (noting that to support a sentence, "all that is necessary is that [a tax loss] finding be plausible in light of the record as a whole." (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). For both restitution and sentencing purposes, we "give[ ] the district court wide latitude to determin[e] the amount of loss." United States v. Cothran, 302 F.3d 279, 287 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Aubin, 87 F.3d 141, 150 (5th Cir. 1996). Westbrooks argues restitution should be limited to $177,258.00 in tax loss for tax years 2007 through 2009, in other words, to losses related to the years that were the basis for the three counts of filing false returns. But the district court also awarded restitution for the obstruction conviction. The $273,460 awarded represents the tax reduction Westbrooks gained by including excessive wages and subcontractor expenses on tax returns for three additional years from 2004–2006. The fraudulent reporting dating back to 2004 was charged as part of the obstruction offense in count one. Other circuits have held that restitution may include tax loss caused by a violation of section 7212(a). See United States v. Scheuneman, 712 F.3d 372, 380 (7th Cir. 2013) ("[T]he 2000–2002 tax losses were properly included within [defendant's] restitution obligation because they were directly attributable to his conviction . . . for interference with administration of the Internal Revenue laws in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a)"); United States v. Harrison, 541 F. App'x 290, 293 (4th Cir. 2013) ("[Defendant] overlooks his conviction . . . for interference with the administration of the internal revenue laws, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a). This count covered a broader swath of conduct and amply supports the full restitution award."). We agree with those decisions and find no error in including tax loss dating back to 2004. Westbrooks further objects that the record does not support the amounts by which the IRS determined she overstated payments to JATS workers. The IRS calculated that number "based on the actual amount of wages that were 17 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 18 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 paid as reported by JATS Tax Service workers who testified." The loss amount for the years 2007 through 2009 was based on testimony at trial and was not clearly erroneous. Former employees did not testify at trial about their wages for the three earlier tax years. Instead, the IRS agent testified that he reviewed bank records and identified checks which appeared to be for payroll for those years. The checks totaled $13,885 for 2004 (compared to $87,425 reported); $10,205 for 2005 (compared to $124,878 reported); and $2,420 for 2006 (compared to $193,426 reported). Recognizing that JATS also paid workers in cash, in providing a calculation for the presentence report, the IRS adjusted these amounts upward based on statements JATS workers gave during the investigation. This adjustment added cash payments of $11,785, $10,180, and $13,600 to the check amounts for 2004, 2005, and 2006. Westbrooks complains that there is no testimony in the record as to the amount employees were paid in cash from 2004 through 2006. But she does not claim she lacked access to the summaries of the witness interviews and in-court testimony is not necessary to support a restitution award or loss calculation. Indeed, information in a presentence report is generally sufficient to support an award. United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 590–91 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Davis, 616 F. App'x 742, 745 (5th Cir. 2015). If a defendant takes issue with information in the report with sufficient indicia of reliability, "the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the information cannot be relied upon because it is materially untrue, inaccurate or unreliable." United States v. Angulo, 927 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir. 1991). Probation's calculation appears reliable given its consistency with the numbers used for the later years, and 18 Case: 16-20409 Document: 00514006388 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 No. 16-20409 Westbrooks did not carry her burden of presenting "[r]ebuttal evidence." 8 Zuniga, 720 F.3d at 591 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The figure used for restitution and the loss amount is not clearly erroneous. *** The judgment is MODIFIED so that no amount of restitution is due until Westbrooks completes her prison sentence and begins her term of supervised release. As modified, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Westbrooks does not explain how testimony that four people worked at JATS on some occasions invalidates the tax loss calculation. 8 19
Get free summaries of new Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox!


text:
TMNT Turtles in Time #3 - Variant Cover Guide
New comic book day!
Check out a preview!
Cover B
Cover A: David Petersen.
Regular cover.
Cover B: Ben Bates.
Labels: comics, idw, variant cover guide
TMNT Drops to #2 at Weekend Box Office
Although it dropped to #2 at the box office in its third weekend, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles had a strong showing with $16.8M. While all of this weekend's new releases failed to reach #1, Marvel's Guardian's of the Galaxy retook the top spot.
TMNT's domestic box office total sits at $145.6M, while the worldwide total is up to $238.8M.
The top five movies this past weekend were:
Guardians of the Galaxy ($17.6M)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles ($16.8M)
If I Stay ($16.4M)
Let's Be Cops ($11M)
When the Game Stands Tall ($9M)
Labels: live action movies, movies, paramount
IDW TMNT Annual 2014 - Variant Cover Guide
After a bit of delay, Kevin Eastman's next TMNT Annual is available today!
Cover A: Kevin Eastman.
Cover C
Cover B: Kevin Eastman.
Retailer exclusive. Available from Jetpack Comics.
Cover C: Kevin Eastman.
Kevin Eastman & Peter Laird CBC Radio Interview
This past weekend, TMNT creators Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird gave their first joint interview in over a decade for "Day 6 with Brent Bambury" on CBC Radio.
The interview was a promotional effort for the newly released documentary, Turtle Power: The Definitive History of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
You can listen to the interview in its entirety below.
Labels: 30th anniversary, kevin eastman, misc, peter laird
Kevin Eastman's Top AMA Questions and Answers
Last Thursday, TMNT co-creator Kevin Eastman held an AMA (Ask Me Anything) on Reddit.
You can read the entire question and answer session here.
Quoted below are three highlights of the session.
Q: What do you think of the new TMNT movie?
Kevin Eastman: Quite simply, I love it. Worked on various parts of it's development for 4 years. We had the right director for the project and you can clearly see Michael Bay's hand in it. I'm so proud of it and am glad the fans have responded so favorably.
Q: How did you figure out the personalities of the four Turtles? When did you know Leo would be the leader or Donatello would be the smartest one?
Kevin Eastman: The personalities were developed early on. When you have a group of superheroes or kids playing on a playground it feels like the personalities pop up quickly. You always need a smart one (Donatello), one you want to have on your side in a fight (Raphael). Pretty much from the first issue we knew who they were.
Q: I think April O'Neil was (originally, anyway) a great character to have in a comic book story as weird as the TMNT one. She's ambitious, driven, intrepid and cunning. And the Turtles never sexualized her as many other comic characters might have done with such a figure. Was there a conscious effort to make a female character that was basically a 5th (but human) Turtle? One to which women and young girls could relate and admire?
Kevin Eastman: Absolutely. I've always been personally very fond of strong, independent, female characters. With April we wanted her to be the big sister and considered more like a family member than anything else. Very strong personality and awesome character on her own.
Labels: kevin eastman, misc
TMNT #1 at the Box Office for the Second Weekend in a Row
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles stayed in the #1 position for a second weekend in a row at the US box office. Its domestic total stands at about $117.6M, while the worldwide total stands at about $185M.
Let's Be Cops ($17.7M)
The Expendables 3 ($16.2M)
The Giver ($12.8M)
Kevin Eastman Reddit AMA Today
TMNT co-creator Kevin Eastman will be hosting a Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything) for one hour today, starting at 3pm Eastern/12pm Pacific.
You can find the AMA at this link, starting at the time noted above.
As the name suggests, this is your chance to ask Kevin anything and everything! It should be fun!
Limited Edition Signed Bookplates for "TMNT: The Ultimate Visual History"
If you don't yet have Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Ultimate Visual History, what on Earth are you waiting for? Well, here's a little extra incentive.
Andrew Farago, author of the book, is currently offering limited edition signed bookplates. If you already have the book, you can purchase just the bookplates to put in your book. If you still need a book, Andrew can sell you one of those as well.
There are two bookplates available. The first features a sketch of Donatello by Andrew and will also be signed by Andrew. The second features signatures from Andrew plus TMNT co-creators Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird.
Bookplate 1
To get the complete details and get these snazzy bookplates for yourself, head on over to The Technodrome.
IDW TMNT #37 - Variant Cover Guide
Cover A: Cory Smith.
Cover C: Mike Henderson.
Retailer incentive cover; 1 copy sent to retailers for every 10 copies ordered.
TMNT New Animated Adventures #14 - Variant Cover Guide
Cover A: Dario Brizuela.
Cover B: Paulina Ganucheau.
Labels: comics, idw, idw animated, variant cover guide
Now Available-Turtle Power: The Definitive History of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Available today on DVD and HD Digital, Turtle Power: The Definitive History of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Get it now from Amazon.com, iTunes, or other retailers.
HOLLYWOOD, Calif. – Go behind-the-scenes and beneath the streets to discover the real origin story of four of pop culture's most enduring heroes in the captivating new film TURTLE POWER: The Definitive History of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, debuting on DVD, VOD and Digital HD August 12, 2014 from Paramount Home Media Distribution. Written and directed by Randall Lobb, the film chronicles the birth of a franchise and reveals the remarkable journey of four of the most unlikely super heroes of all time. Celebrate the 30th anniversary of Leonardo, Donatello, Michelangelo and Raphael with this must-see documentary and the August 8th theatrical debut of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles starring Megan Fox and Will Arnett.
In the spring of 1984, a strange new comic book sat beside cash registers in select shops, too big to fit in the racks, and too weird to ignore. Eastman and Laird's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles presented a completely original breed of super hero. It was too bizarre, too crazy. It broke all the rules and should never have worked. Until it sold out. Again and again and again. For 30 years. Now, peek under the shell and see how this so-called "happy accident" defied every naysayer to become one of the most popular and beloved franchises in the world.
The TURTLE POWER: The Definitive History of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles DVD is presented in widescreen enhanced for 16:9 televisions with English 5.1 Dolby Digital, French 5.1 Dolby Digital, Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital and English Audio Description, along with English, French, Spanish and Portuguese subtitles.
Labels: DVDs, misc
TMNT Reaches #1 with $65M Weekend; Sequel Announced for 2016
It was a weekend full of Turtle Power as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles dominated the box office, dropping Guardians of the Galaxy to the #2 spot.
With a strong $4.6 million on Thursday night, Turtles ended the weekend with $65 million, beating early estimates of $40-$45 million.
To no one's surprise, Paramount announced early Sunday morning that the August hit would officially get a sequel, currently scheduled for a June 3, 2016, release. While no director or cast members are yet confirmed, Michael Bay will once again be on board as a Producer, and Josh Appelbaum and André Nemec will also be back as writers.
Labels: cgi movies, live action movies, movies, paramount
"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" NOW PLAYING!
It's finally here and officially open nationwide! Grab a pizza and some of your fellow ninjas and get out to a theater this weekend!
Be sure to tweet and mention @ninjapizza on Twitter with your reactions to the movie or pictures of your crew at the theater!
Labels: live action movies, movies
"Ninja Turtles" Nationwide Screenings Start TONIGHT!
Although the official release date isn't until tomorrow, many theaters will begin general audience screenings of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles tonight.
Check your local theater listings for showtimes and further information. My local theater has numerous showings staring at 7pm in both 2D and 3D.
Be sure to tweet and mention @ninjapizza on Twitter with your reactions to the movie or pictures of your crew at the theater! I'll be retweeting regularly throughout the weekend.
"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" Score by Brian Tyler Now Available on iTunes
As of today, the official Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles score album, featuring music by Brian Tyler, is available as a digital download from iTunes. Unfortunately, this seems to be the only way to get the album as of right now and there are no signs of it being released as a physical CD. However, this is the first official release of a complete TMNT movie score, so it's nice to have at least this.
01 - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
02 - Adolescent Genetically Altered Shinobi Terrapins
03 - Splinter vs. Shredder
04 - Origins
05 - Brotherhood
06 - Turtles United
07 - Rise of the Four
08 - The Foot Clan
09 - Shellacked
10 - Project Renaissance
11 - Shortcut
12 - Shredder
13 - Cowabunga
14 - 99 Cheese Pizza
15 - Adrenaline
16 - Buck Buck
17 - TMNT March
Labels: live action movies, movies, music
Pentatonix "We Are Ninjas" Music Video
A second track and music video has been released from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which hits theaters THIS Friday. The song, "We are Ninjas," is by Pentatonix.
Labels: live action movies, movies, music, YouTube
"Ninja Turtles" Red Carpet Premiere Held in LA Yesterday
TMNT cast, crew, and fans gathered in Los Angeles yesterday for the red carpet premiere of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Here is a selection of photos and video taken at the event.
Photos via:
http://meganfox86.tumblr.com
Courtney Eastman's Facebook page
Labels: events, live action movies, movies, paramount
San Diego Comic-Con 2014 "Turtle Power" Documentary Panel
The next panel video from Comic-Con features the upcoming documentary "Turtle Power: The Definitive History of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles." This panel discussed the making of the documentary with filmmakers Randall Lobb (writer/director), Isaac Elliott-Fisher (executive producer), Mark Hussey (executive producer), and Galen Walker (executive producer), plus TMNT co-creator Kevin Eastman.
See the panel video below. "Turtle Power" is released on DVD and Digital HD next Tuesday, August 12. (Pre-order it now!) I will be doing a DVD review of the documentary next week when the DVD is released.
Labels: DVDs, sdcc, YouTube
TMNT #1 at the Box Office for the Second Weekend i...
Limited Edition Signed Bookplates for "TMNT: The U...
TMNT New Animated Adventures #14 - Variant Cover G...
Now Available-Turtle Power: The Definitive History...
TMNT Reaches #1 with $65M Weekend; Sequel Announce...
"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" Score by Brian Tyle...
"Ninja Turtles" Red Carpet Premiere Held in LA Yes...
San Diego Comic-Con 2014 "Turtle Power" Documentar...


Rwanda's President Paul Kagame has expressed disappointment about some European countries in association with Rwandan criminals for evil plans against Rwanda.
"They (countries) are making a big mistake by associating with killers," he said.
He was reacting to the recent arrest of General Karenzi Karake, the Head of Intelligence of Rwanda in the United Kingdom.
Some self-exiled Rwandans, including those that were working in the president office before fleeing the country are said to be linked with the arrest of the General who was on an official duty.
This is believably part of their big plan against their homeland.
President mentioned some of them by names.
These include René Mugenzi who brands himself "a human rights activist", Noble Marara, and David Himbara.
It was reported that Himbara, has, since August last year mobilized $ 190,000 in a campaign aimed at tarnishing Rwandan image.
He is reportedly working in the same network with the Rwanda National Congress (RNC) which also includes General KayumbaNyamwasa; exiled in South Africa in a plot to overthrow Rwanda Government.
In the same campaign against Rwanda, another man Tribert Rujugiro, a businessman who is believably among financiers of Rwandan dissidents. He reportedly has links with the Rwanda Democratic Front for liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a militia group operating from Democratic Republic of Congo largely responsible for Genocide in Rwanda.
The president said all the dissidents, including his former staff have a case to answer in Rwanda. Some had once apologized their wrong doing and forgiven, but they returned to exile after recidivism.
Still, European countries invite them on panel about Rwanda when they can't make any good representation.
Rwanda has been questioning the fairness of Western countries' justice, especially when it comes to events in the 1994 Genocide against Tutsi where over a million Tutsi were killed within three months.
They are accused of supporting the genocidaires in detriment of people who liberated the country and stopped the Genocide.
"From where Africa stands, European justice is not a model, "wrote Louise Mushikiwabo, Rwanda's Foreign Affairs Minister on her twitter account.
"UK is ridiculous. We stand with our Rwandan brothers and sisters," Joe Olzacki, a tweet written amidst a social network exchange which is going viral about the Karenzi's arrest.


HSN is an interactive lifestyle network and retail destination, offering a cultivated assortment of exclusive products. The HSN experience takes shopping to a new level by incorporating experts, entertainment, inspiration, solutions, tips and ideas for its customers. Take advantage of HSN coupons and coupon codes to save on the latest brand name products and designer styles with Cash Back at Touchstone Energy Cash Back Mall.
Cash Back not available on HSN Gift Cards, Service Offerings, Warranties. Cash Back is not available on the use of your HSN Charge Card. Earn 1.05% cashback on most items. 0.53% on Clearance Items.


The Principal, Daleep Pandey B.s.c (Joint Honours) A.C.A A.T.I.I, gained extensive experience of taxation planning issues, both personal and corporate, while working for Price Waterhouse and Ernst and Young. He is a Member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Chartered Institute of Taxation.
In accordance with the disclosure requirements of the Provision of Services Regulations 2009, our professional indemnity insurer is Liberty Mutual Insurance (Europe) Limited, of 3rd Floor, Two Minster Court, Mincing Lane, London, EC3R 7YE. The territorial coverage is worldwide excluding professional business carried out from an office in the United States of America or Canada and excludes any action for a claim brought in any court in the United States of America or Canada.


Someday I'll Sleep Autism Blogs: The Society of Jesus and "Women's Reproductive Rights"
The Society of Jesus and "Women's Reproductive Rights"
Lately I've noticed something: let's call it a trend of sorts. If a priest is going to be out there supporting "women's reproductive rights" because it is necessary for "social justice" there is a huge possibility (I think you can actually call it a strong likelihood) that he's going to have the letters S.J. after his name.
The language that people use says a lot about their beliefs and what they stand for. After all, these men who have devoted their lives to God, can feel a lot better about what they're fighting for if they paint it in a pretty light. Calling it "women's reproductive rights" sounds a lot prettier than "murder" and it's much prettier than maybe giving a description of cutting a child piece by piece out of his mother's womb.
There are Jesuits out there who value human life and the respect the Church's teachings. I read about them on their website. And they must be the majority. Unfortunately, I haven't personally encountered any (although I've heard about them from reliable sources!) so far.
Maybe it's because I live in California. Or maybe it's because academia has a way of warping the logic of those who spend too much time in private liberal colleges (and the Jesuits I read about, hear about and meet tend to be from a liberal "Catholic" college). That's why my next post will take a look at exactly why the order exists and what the intent was when it was founded (interestingly enough if we're ever blessed with two little boys the first two names we have picked out both involve Jesuit Saints for the middle names).
But first I have a quote from "Thomist" (and an explanation for how the idea for this series of posts got started). You see Thomist recently came across a magazine that gives a justification from a Jesuit point of view for supporting "women's reproductive rights," or to speak more plainly, abortion. The magazine is apparently in response to the criticism that this particular Jesuit College has received for it's loudly outspoken heretical views.
Thomist was telling me about it yesterday and said that the language that was used makes it sound like people who try to stop women from exercising their "right to choose" (also known as their "right" to murder) are just a bunch of "out there conservatives" who push people away from the Church (another post I'm sure).
The author seems to believe that by pushing for "women's reproductive rights" in the name of "social justice" these particular they are leading people back to God? Can you be led to God through the murder of the unborn?
And killing the unborn is intrinsically evil.
Or maybe they just need to read and reread that link that I posted above and be reminded what the order stands for. A refresher on their vows might help too!
When I think of reproductive rights, I think of contraception, not killing!
Unfortunately the two go hand in hand, particularly since most birth control pills have abortive qualities. Some like the mini pill have abortive qualities 100% of the time because they do nothing to prevent ovulation, only implantation.
But in this case, it's more a matter of this particular magazine using the term as a blanket statement for both contraception and abortion. As in women have the "right" to make "reproductive choices." A prettier (if it's possible) way of saying we should be allowed to kill our babies.


Looks for all of the items in an array whose given property matches the criteria.
Name of the property of each array item to inspect. If no such property exists for any array item that item will simply be skipped.
Criteria by which to test the property of each item in array. If this is a function it will be passed the value of the property and the return value will be coerced to a boolean to see if the property fits the criteria. If this is a regular expression it will be tested against the property to see if the property fits the criteria. Any other type of value will be checked to see if the property is this value to see if it fits the criteria.
An array of the items in array for which tester matches the specified property.
Looks for the first value in an array whose given property matches the criteria.


Call to end violence againist womens and girls.
This entry was posted on Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 8:15 pm	and is filed under Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.


VAC-A-TEE® is a trenchless cleanout system by LMK Technologies. The patented PVC VAC-A-TEE® saddle is prepared and attached to an appropriate length riser pipe which is equal to the depth of the lateral pipe. The installer applies a proprietary hybrid adhesive/sealant to the underside of the saddle. The saddle with a riser pipe is then introduced into the vacuum excavated hole and the saddle is snapped onto the lateral pipe by pressing downward on the riser pipe. The epoxy cures and forms a new watertight cleanout. A diamond core saw is then used to cut open the crown of the pipe. The VAC-A-TEE® system works with VCP, Orangeburg, Concrete, PVC, and Cast Iron pipes. Restoration to the small vacuum excavation site completes the VAC-A-TEE® installation.


We studied Ruth, a beautiful girl from Moab, who was chosen by God to also become a laborer for him. Within ten years Ruth's father in law, Elimelech and husband, Mahlon died in Moab after leaving Bethlehem from a prevailing famine. They left Ruth and her mother in law, Naomi alone and destitute not knowing which way to turn.
The other widowed wife and sister-in-law named Orpah chose to return to Moab, but a bitter Naomi chose to go back to Bethlehem to be among her people. Rather than staying in Moab, an idolatry society, Ruth chose to cling and follow behind her mother in law, who was also a believer in God.
Ruth's love for her husband's mother is as pure as gold and as strong as death. Ruth's declaration of love and loyalty for Naomi is one of the purest and most unselfish form of devotion.
In an age like ours with its ever-growing number of broken relationships, homes and loveless lives it is most refreshing to go back to the charming picture of loyalty to family. Because Naomi showed love to Ruth, she became a devout worshiper of the true God.
It was no mere chance that brought Boaz and Ruth together, for the steps of God's children are directed by Him. Little did she know that she would become his much-loved wife and mother of King David's grandfather, Obed.
A Gentile by birth, Ruth still became the chosen line through which later the Saviour of the world appeared.
Our 4th and last week of Harvest Is Plenty Laborers Are Few starts today! We'll be reading the story of Paul – The Apostle.
I pray that you are enjoying this study this far as your personal time with God or in a bible study group! Feel free to share with friends and family.


text:
Police: Killer invoked Old Testament in 'stoning' death
By MDI on June 9, 2014 • ( 1 Comment )
MDI Comment 'An individual killed a man for being homosexual, citing holy scripture as his justification. A simple question comes to mind, 'what if a Muslim did this?', no doubt you would see mass outrage as media pundits, politicians and Islamophobes call out from rooftops 'see what sharia is doing to our society?!' However, the individual in question cited the Bible as his justification for 'stoning the homosexual'. Recently, he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia as an explanation for his actions. However, when was the last time such an generous excuse was offered to clearly mentally unstable Muslims who may have done similar (but less grievous) crimes? It seems that if an ordinary Westerner commits a crime in the name of religion, he 'must' be insane, but a Muslim who commits a similar crime 'must' be a sane individual driven purely by Quranic teachings'
By Mari A. Schaefer, INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
A Delaware County man has been arrested and charged with murder in the beating death of an elderly Landsdowne man who had befriended him and made him executor and sole beneficiary of his will.
John Joe Thomas, 28, of the first block of Sunshine Road in Upper Darby, allegedly told police he killed Murray Joseph Seidman, 70, because the older man had made sexual advances and that the Old Testament spelled out stoning as the punishment for homosexuality.
"I stoned Murray with a rock in a sock," Thomas said to police, according to court documents.
Thomas, who was charged with murder, was silent as he was led past photographers this morning.
According to the court documents, Thomas called police Seidman's apartment on Jan. 12 and they found Thomas sitting in the hallway crying: "I'm not going down there again, there is too much blood."
Police found Seidman in his apartment face down. The medical examiner later ruled Seidman died as a result of blunt force trauma at least five days before being discovered.
Neighbors described Seidman as a friendly soul who liked to eat out, watch movies, and bowl. He worked in the laundry of Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital for 40 years until he retired. Hospital officials said he was well liked by his coworkers and a "landmark" at the institution.
It was at the hospital where Seidman met and befriended Thomas, according to neighbors. The young man and Seidman were often seen together grocery shopping and going to church.
Lansdowne police Chief Daniel Kortan said the break in the investigation came when Thomas allegedly told a witness he beat an older man to death.
"I killed a man," Thomas allegedly told the witness. He then described how he placed batteries and rocks in a sock, and hit Seidman in the head at least 10 times. Thomas then returned to Seidman's apartment several days later and called police, saying he had discovered the body, according to court documents.
When police interviewed Thomas on Wednesday he said Seidman had been making advances toward him over a period of time. Thomas said he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned in certain situations.
Categories: Responses to anti-Islamic Polemics
Tagged as: homosexuality, Islamophobia
Video: Zara Faris on Islam Channel discusses 'Should Islam be Modernised?'
Professor of Biology talks about his research, and why he is skeptical of Darwinian evolution
This design is steller! You certainly know how to keep a reader amused.
(well, almost…HaHa!) Wonderful job. I really enjoyed
what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it.


text:
Abasi and Rosborough lost touch for several years following school. They reconnected three years later over coffee and an idea Rosborough had formulated.
While working at Ralph Lauren, Rosborough had asked the senior Italian tailors how they thought the men's suit would evolve over time, and what it might look like in 50 years. The tailors told him that the suit was perfect, and it would never change. As a young designer just beginning his career, Rosborough found it confounding that in his entire lifetime as a designer, the hallmark of menswear, the suit, would not change.
Months later Rosborough witnessed a male flight attendant wearing a suit trying to help a woman to lift a bag into the overhead compartment, but could not raise his arms above his head because of the restriction of the suit. He got off the flight and got in touch with Abasi.
Abasi and Rosborough initially experimented with how to break the modern connotations of the suit — stiff, uncomfortable, and representative of the status quo. Their designs focused on evolving the suit to not only be flexible and comfortable, but also architecturally modern — as they were inspired by architect Zaha Hadid. This experimentation lasted over a year before they had prototypes and committed to starting a company, a label, together.
The Abasi Rosborough aesthetic focuses on comfort, flexibility, and natural clothing made sustainably and with integrity in New York. Their modern tailored militancy with refined functional and utilitarian references has been shaped by Abasi's eight years as a sergeant in the US Military, and Rosborough's background in basketball. Although their work has evolved to include sportswear, Abasi and Rosborough have stayed true to their initial vision to steadily reimagine tailoring for the 21st century.
Abasi Rosborough collections are made in New York, using recycled deadstock fabrics found in warehouses throughout the city, and sold in boutiques around the world. In 2017, Abasi Rosborough was a finalist for the prestigious Louis Vuitton (LVMH) Emerging Designer Prize and in 2019 was a finalist for the CFDA/Vogue Fashion Fund – the top American emerging designer award.
The Abasi Rosborough men's collection for Fall 2018, shown during New York Fashion Week. Casting by John Tan. Photography Alexander Thompson. http://abasirosborough.com/
FALL 2018 N. HOOLYWOOD