text:
Q: Dart Socket one at a time Hi i am building a blockchain and am trying to sync a list of connected peers,
but if the following code is called twice from different nodes the first call is still busy while the second call kicks in does anyone know how i could wait for the first message to be complete
class Peer {
  Peer(
      {required this.us,
      required this.peers,
      required this.allPeers,
      required this.myPeers});
  String us;
  Map<String, int> peers;
  Map<String, List<Online>> allPeers;
  Map<String, List<Online>> myPeers;
  List<String>? keep;
  Map<String, List<NewNodePeerMessage>> nnpms = {};
//listen should never trigger a response to connect we will give the address / ip
//  so your ndoe two will only sync when a thrid node joins the network
  Future listen() async {
    ServerSocket ss =
        await ServerSocket.bind(us.split(':')[0], int.parse(us.split(':')[1]));
    print('listening on ${us.split(':')[1]}');
    // List<ReceivePort> lrp = [];
    ss.listen((client) {
      // ReceivePort rp = ReceivePort();
      utf8.decoder.bind(client).listen((data) async {
        final PeerMessage pm =
            PeerMessage.fromJson(json.decode(data) as Map<String, dynamic>);
        print('recieved msg from ${pm.from}');
        switch (pm.type) {
          case 'new-node':
            {
              // rp.listen((_) async {
              final NewNodePeerMessage nnpm = NewNodePeerMessage.fromJson(
                  json.decode(data) as Map<String, dynamic>);
              print('msg${nnpm.toJson()}');
              peers[pm.code] ??= 3;
              allPeers[pm.code] ??= [];
              final List<Online> news = [];
              print('apl ${allPeers[pm.code]!.length}');
              // ,maby a list would let me know
              //  maby we should have a simple check to the loop bool that it doesnt start looping when it is adjusting the peers
              print(
                  'allpeers before looping ${allPeers[pm.code]!.map((e) => e.toJson()).toList()}');
              for (Online one in allPeers[pm.code]!.where((element) =>
                  element.address != pm.from &&
                  element.address != us &&
                  !nnpm.recieved.contains(element.address))) {
                print(
                    'i am still loopin current one ${one.toJson()} current from ${pm.from}');
                try {
                  final Socket ones = await Socket.connect(
                      one.address.split(':')[0],
                      int.parse(one.address.split(':')[1]));
                  nnpm.recieved.add(us);
                  nnpm.recieved.add(pm.from);
                  // if we would only move ones out of the for loop maby the program wont work at the same point in time
                  // we could have a bool that keeeps track of the msg is working on printstatement you inside off the msg
                  // so 8787 trigger 5442 because it has him in the list
                  // mabe a bool can be added to list if you is inished with listening
                  // isbusy knows iff its stuck in the loop if we write from here we are
                  // if we write ffrom connect we arent or this write could know if it is busy
                  // is busy shoudl be from down
                  // because if we wirte from here or we write from you is busy is true and false
                  // so if we write from below can isbusy stop us
                  // is isusy is true herewe can go into listen but on you we can not
                  ones.write(json.encode(NewNodePeerMessage(
                          isBusy: false,
                          max: peers[pm.code]!,
                          peer: nnpm.peer,
                          type: 'new-node',
                          from: us,
                          code: pm.code,
                          recieved: nnpm.recieved)
                      .toJson()));
                  print('propablywrote ${one.toJson()} from ${nnpm.from}');
                  ones.listen((ppmru) async {
                    print('listentedtoppmru ${one.toJson()}');
                    final PeersPeerMessageResponse ppmr =
                        peersPeerMessageResponse(ppmru);
                    print(
                        'abouttoaddnewonlines ${ppmr.onlines.map((e) => e.toJson())} and from ${ppmr.from}');
                    // news.add(Online(online: true, address: ppmr.from));
                    news.addAll(ppmr.onlines);
                    await ones.close();
                  });
                } catch (err) {
                  one.online = false;
                  // break;
                }
                print('abouttoloopagain ${one.toJson()} from ${nnpm.from}');
              }
              print('gothereagainactuallydonelooping  ${pm.from}');
              // its actually that new node only should write to the client again only if its the first time maby
              allPeers[pm.code]!.addAll(news);
              allPeers[pm.code]!.removeWhere((element) => !element.online);
              print(allPeers[pm.code]!.map((e) => e.toJson()).toList());

              /// the problem occurs because of client clients response will shut down base or we could wrap it inside o try an catch
              /// we need to know if this message will send the code up here or down to printstatement you to ones.listen or to s that listen
              /// one global bool could say like will go down maby even when it goes up herte to printstatement abouttoaddnewonlines
              /// how do we know here below that it will go to the you printstatement or down
              /// so we need a message from up
              allPeers[pm.code]!.add(Online(online: true, address: nnpm.peer));
              // print('abouttowriteto ${client.address.address} ${client.port}');
              print('abouttorespondto ${pm.from}');
              client.write(json.encode(PeersPeerMessageResponse(
                      isBusy: true,
                      peer: nnpm.peer,
                      onlines: allPeers[pm.code]!
                          .where((element) => element.address != pm.from)
                          .toList(),
                      code: pm.code,
                      from: us)
                  .toJson()));
              // await client.close();
              // rp.sendPort.send(null);
              // });
              client.destroy();
              break;
            }
          case 'new-node-through':
            {
              break;
            }
          case 'is-online':
            client.write(null);
            break;
          case 'is-test':
            print('recieved');
            client.write('irespond');
            break;
          default:
            break;
        }
        // client.destroy();
      }, onDone: () {});
    });
  }

  bool loop = false;
  // Future connect(List<dynamic> args) async {
  // is busy shoudl bee ffrom down
  Future connect(String bootnode, String code) async {
    final Socket s = await Socket.connect(
        "${bootnode.split(':')[0]}", int.parse(bootnode.split(':')[1]));
    print('connected to ${bootnode}');
    s.write(json.encode(NewNodePeerMessage(
        isBusy: true,
        max: 3,
        peer: us,
        type: 'new-node',
        code: code,
        from: us,
        recieved: []).toJson()));
    print('befforelistening');
    s.listen((pmmru) async {
      print('whatwas first');
      PeersPeerMessageResponse ppmr = peersPeerMessageResponse(pmmru);
      print(ppmr.toJson());
      allPeers[ppmr.code] ??= [];
      allPeers[ppmr.code]!.addAll(ppmr.onlines);
      allPeers[ppmr.code]!.add(Online(online: true, address: ppmr.from));
      print(allPeers);
      await s.close();
    }, onDone: () {
      print('doschopnescheee');
    });
    //because off up being triggered ffrom this msg we know it will go down because off client that write
    // and client that write is up their and it m
    // final somekindloop;
    //if we would just never listen here would it relay on up might solve problem because up might be busy we could also ssst the isolate
    // s.listen((ppmru) async {
    //   loop = true;
    //   // whenever we recieve here the ppmru could have the isbusy instead
    //   // print('you');
    //   // isBusy
    //   // while (!loop) {}
    //   PeersPeerMessageResponse ppmr = peersPeerMessageResponse(ppmru);
    //   print(ppmr.toJson());
    //   allPeers[ppmr.code] ??= [];
    //   allPeers[ppmr.code]!.addAll(ppmr.onlines);
    //   allPeers[ppmr.code]!.add(Online(online: true, address: ppmr.from));
    //   print(allPeers);
    //   await s.close();
    // });
  }

  PeersPeerMessageResponse peersPeerMessageResponse(Uint8List resp) {
    final PeersPeerMessageResponse ppm = PeersPeerMessageResponse.fromJson(
        json.decode(String.fromCharCodes(resp).trim()) as Map<String, dynamic>);
    return ppm;
  }

  // Future isOnline(String code) async {
  //   for (Online p in allPeers[code] ??= []) {
  //     try {
  //       final Socket peer = await Socket.connect(
  //           p.address.split(':')[0], int.parse(p.address.split(':')[1]));
  //       await peer.close();
  //     } catch (err) {
  //       p.ischis = false;
  //     }
  //   }
  // }
}

its about the new node function inside of the switch statement while the first call is inside off the for loop the second call does not loop but increments the allPeers with new peers which because off the first call evolves into
Unhandled exception:
Concurrent modification during iteration: Instance(length:3) of '_GrowableList'.
#0      ListIterator.moveNext (dart:_internal/iterable.dart:336:7)
#1      WhereIterator.moveNext (dart:_internal/iterable.dart:438:22)
#2      Peer.listen.<anonymous closure>.<anonymous closure> (package:gov/peer/peer.dart:180:53)
<asynchronous suspension>

how can is use the on done event to wait or the first call to be complete?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
The CQ Researcher Blog
Great research on today's issues starts right here!
Log onto CQR
CQ Researcher on Facebook
career colleges (1)
CQ Global Researcher (2)
digital TV (1)
equal employment (2)
gay and lesbian issues (4)
genetics and cloning (1)
global issues (12)
gun rights (2)
Horn of Africa (1)
international finance (1)
Party Politics (4)
professional sports (4)
Publishing Industry (3)
reproductive ethics (1)
scandals (2)
separatists (1)
state's rights (1)
stimulus funds (2)
tax cuts (2)
Ted Kennedy (2)
women's sports (1)
Worth Reading (1)
Kagan: Parties Split on Reviews
By Kenneth Jost
Supreme Court Editor, CQ Press
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan ended two days of questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee members on Wednesday afternoon [June 30] with reviews of her performance divided along partisan lines but her eventual confirmation seemingly assured.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., ended the third day of the hearing late Wednesday afternoon with an explicit endorsement of Kagan's legal knowledge and judgment. He closed by citing Kagan's pledge in her opening statement on Monday to decide cases "impartially" and "modestly." Leahy concluded: "Solicitor General Kagan, I believe you."
"I thought the president made a wise choice when he made it," Leahy told reporters afterward, "and I feel it even more strongly today."
In his final remarks in the hearing room, however, Alabama's Jeff Sessions, the committee's ranking Republican, laid out a negative portrait. He criticized her as a "legal progressive" — "a pernicious philosophy," he said — and accused her of violating the law in limiting official aid to military recruiters while dean of Harvard Law School.
"The combination of record and statements leave me uneasy," Sessions said. He said he would study the record more before deciding whether or not to vote for Kagan's confirmation.
Earlier in the day, however, Arizona's Jon Kyl, the Senate Republican whip, said a GOP filibuster was "highly improbable." Democrats hold a 58-41 majority, with one seat vacant after the death on Monday of West Virginia Democrat Robert C. Byrd.
Kagan was judiciously guarded in any disclosures of her personal or legal views in roughly 16 hours on the witness stand. Even so, Democrats praised her for what Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse called her "complete and candid" answers. Republican Kyl, however, pronounced Kagan "less forthcoming" than previous nominees.
The final rounds of questions included some that consisted as much of disquisitions by senators than actual interrogation of the nominee. Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island ticked off a list of "telltales" that he saw in Roberts Court decisions as indicating an "activist" agenda. Kagan demurred. "I assume the good faith of everybody on the court, and that is how I approach the institution," she said.
In his turn, Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma asked Kagan about declining public confidence in government, which he linked to what he called a loss of freedom in the past three decades. Kagan had no comment on the current degree of freedom, but agreed on the need for confidence in government. "The welfare of the country is best served if the American people have confidence" in official institutions.
Kagan appeared poised throughout her questioning. She smiled frequently, laughed occasionally, never got evidently angry, and showed nothing more than slight resentment on more than a few occasions. She was guilty, however, of a few misstatements. She referred to "Senator" Kennedy when discussing an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, and she misspoke to Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., by using the name of the doctor in the Supreme Court's partial-birth abortion rulings: Carhart.
The hearing began with a glimmer of light cast by a law review article that Kagan wrote as a law professor in 1995 critical of Supreme Court confirmation hearings as "vapid" and "hollow" because of nominees' reluctance to give direct answers. As a nominee herself, however, Kagan repudiated the article as "out of balance" and proceeded largely to follow the tight-lipped practice of the three most recent nominees to the court: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Sonia Sotomayor.
"There's always some vapid and hollow aspects to a Supreme Court nomination," remarked Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, who noted that he had voted on the confirmation of all eight of the current justices. After a pause, Hatch added of Kagan, "She's been interesting."
Posted by Kenneth Jost on 6/30/2010 06:08:00 PM 0 comments
Kagan Mum on Recent Rulings
Junior Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee used their questioning of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan on Wednesday [June 30] to highlight criticisms of the Roberts Court for closely-divided, precedent-breaking rulings, but Kagan continued to steer clear of substantive comments on recent cases.
Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse opened the second day of questions for Kagan by pointing critically to the Roberts Court's 5-4 votes in Citizens United campaign-finance decisions and two pro-Second Amendment decisions. He said the rulings were driven by what he called "the group of five" Republican appointees and contrasted the close divisions with the court's unanimous vote a half-century ago in the Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation decision.
"What efforts should be made to return to a collegial environment at the court?" Whitehouse asked. Instead of deciding cases by "the slenderest majority," Whitehouse said, would it be better "to try to reach across the partisan divide at the court . . . , to reach their decisions a little more broadly for the sake of the law and the country?"
In her reply, Kagan echoed Whitehouse's endorsement of consensus as a goal, but she also steered clear of even a suggestion of criticism of the justices that she hopes to join as a colleague after Senate confirmation. "You wouldn't want the judicial process to become in any way a bargaining process," Kagan said.
"Every judge has to do what he or she thinks the law requires," Kagan continued. "But on the other hand there's no question that the court is served best and the country is served best when people trust the court as an entirely nonpolitical body."
Whitehouse persisted by noting passages in the Citizens United decision that, in contradiction to Congress, found that corporate spending on political campaigns did not pose a threat of corruption or appearance of corruption. "Anybody who's ever been near an election," Whitehouse said, would see the court's finding as "wrong."
Without accepting Whitehouse's premise, Kagan did pledge deference to Congress in future cases. "I do think that congressional fact-finding is very important," she said, "and that courts should defer to it."
Whitehouse's line of questions was picked up by two other Democrats in the morning session: Delaware's Ted Kauffman and Minnesota's Al Franken. Kauffman pointed to a 2007 decision, overturning a 1911 precedent, to ease antitrust law. Franken complained of a Rehnquist Court decision in 2001 upholding mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts that he said the Roberts Court had expanded by a 5-4 vote last week (Jackson v. Rent-A-Center, West).
Democrats had signaled in advance of the hearing that they would use Kagan's appearance to focus on what they see as the Roberts Court's activist, pro-business rulings. Outside the hearing room, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., called the line of questioning "silly." "I think we should focus more on the nominee," Kyl said, "and find out what we can about her judging."
For their part, Republicans were focusing critically on Kagan's answer on Tuesday endorsing a broad view of congressional power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce. In opening the subject on Tuesday, Oklahoma's Tom Coburn was evidently interested in use of the Commerce Clause as part of the basis for the health insurance mandate included in President Obama's health care plan as passed by Congress with virtually no Republican support.
In comments Wednesday, Coburn said he took Kagan's answer to be a sign that she would vote to uphold the health care plan, which some states are challenging as unconstitutional in federal court. "Anything the federal government tells us to do they can tell us," Coburn said. In the hearing room itself, Utah's Orrin Hatch called the Commerce Clause "the last refuge of a big-government scoundrel."
Kagan continued to steer clear of disclosing personal views or of what she described Tuesday as "grading" Supreme Court decisions. But she did venture a partial criticism of the famous baseball umpire metaphor that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. used in his confirmation hearing in 2005 to illustrate his view of judicial restraint.
The metaphor "has its limits," Kagan said, because it suggests that law "is a kind of robotic enterprise . . . that there's no judgment in the process." She continued: "I do think that's not right, and it's especially not right at the Supreme Court level."
The committee continued questioning past noon even as senators went to the Senate floor to vote on confirmation of Gen. David Petraeus to be commander of the joint U.S.-NATO forces in Afghanistan. Kagan was to face additional questioning after a lunch break.
Kagan Firm, Deft on Stand
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan ended a full day of questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee members on Tuesday [June 29] seemingly comfortable and confident after firmly answering or deftly neutralizing lines of attack from Republican senators.
Kagan combined a command of legal material with recurrent modesty and occasional humor to answer friendly questions from Democrats already committed to supporting her confirmation and more challenging inquiries from Republicans expected to line up against her.
On the most concrete issue raised against Kagan, the former dean of Harvard Law School repeatedly denied preventing military recruiters' access to students because of her opposition to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on service by gays and lesbians. "Military recruiters had access to Harvard students every single day I was dean," Kagan said.
GOP senators, led by ranking Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama, remained unsatisfied. "I'm more troubled today about the nominee than I was yesterday," Sessions told reporters at a break. He said Kagan's answers were "disconnected with reality." But Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., told reporters later he thought the military recruiting issue had been "put to rest."
Kagan also did her best to put down repeated suggestions from GOP senators that she could emerge as an "activist" if confirmed to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens, who formally retired from the court on Tuesday after 34-1/2 years on the bench. Under questioning by senators from both parties, Kagan professed support for "judicial modesty" — narrow judicial decision-making divorced from personal views and respectful of precedent.
"Judges cannot import their own preferences . . . or their own moral values," Kagan told Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, late in the day. "It would be inappropriate to do so."
After initially fending off the question, Kagan did ultimately accept the description of herself as a "progressive." But she declined repeated opportunities to criticize recent Supreme Court decisions, including the Citizens United decision, where she unsuccessfully argued as solicitor general in defense of the law banning corporate spending in federal campaigns.
In nominating Kagan, President Obama on May 10 linked her to his criticism of the decision as inviting corporate domination of the political process. In her answers, however, Kagan went not much further than to say, "I thought we had a strong case."
In advance of the hearing, conservative groups had prepared to criticize Kagan for her support of gun control laws as associate White House counsel and deputy domestic policy director under President Bill Clinton. They also noted that while clerking for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan said she was "not sympathetic" to a Second Amendment gun rights claim in a pending case.
On Tuesday, however, Kagan unhesitatingly said she would respect the Roberts Court's two gun rights precedents: the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and the ruling on Monday, McDonald v. Chicago, extending the Second Amendment protection to state and local gun laws as well. "I do agree that those decisions are settled law," she said.
In their opening statements and in questions on Tuesday, GOP senators repeatedly noted Kagan's clerkship with Marshall as evidence of likely judicial activism. After expressing admiration for Marshall, however, Kagan said, "If you confirm me, what you get is Justice Kagan, not Justice Marshall."
Later, she specifically dissociated herself from Marshall's view, held until his retirement in 1991, that capital punishment is unconstitutional. "I do believe the constitutionality of the death penalty is settled law," she said.
Kagan also dissociated herself from the view of a "living Constitution," anathema to conservatives. "I don't think the term is particularly apt," Kagan said. The term suggests "a loosey goosey method of interpretation," Kagan explained. "I most certainly do not agree with that."
To another critical line of questions, Kagan discounted the role of foreign and international law in interpreting the Constitution, a major complaint of conservatives on and off the court. "The American Constitution is an American document with American history and American precedents," she said. Judges, she said, "should look to that American document and the precedents in interpreting it."
Kagan defended, however, her part in a revamping of the Harvard Law School curriculum that included establishing a mandatory international law course for first-year students. International law, she said, "is something that all law students today should be familiar with." She also rebutted criticism that U.S. constitutional law was not a mandatory first-year course. Constitutional law was covered in a broad first-year course on government processes, she said, and detailed treatment was better deferred until students' second or third year.
Kagan faces a second day of questioning on Wednesday. Leahy says he plans to end the hearing after testimony from public witnesses on Thursday. The committee, with a 12-7 Democratic majority, is seen as all but certain to recommend Kagan for confirmation in a vote sometime in July. A Senate floor vote — where Democrats now hold a 58-41 majority after the death Monday of West Virginia's longtime Democratic senator, Robert Byrd — is expected in early August.
Kagan Moves to Counter Attacks
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan moved quickly on Tuesday [June 29] to refute two lines of attack from Republican senators by promising to leave political views behind if confirmed and denying accusations of anti-military bias because of her actions on military recruiting at Harvard Law School.
Under friendly questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., Kagan insisted that her opposition to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on service by gays and lesbians never blocked military recruiters from access to students while she was dean. "Military recruiters had access to Harvard students every single day I was dean," Kagan said.
But Kagan faced more critical questions from Alabama's Jeff Sessions, the committee's ranking Republican. Sessions accused Kagan of violating a congressional enactment, the Solomon Amendment, by denying military recruiters access to the school's Office of Career Services after the federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled the law unconstitutional. "Your actions helped create a climate on campus that was not healthy for the military," Sessions said.
Kagan insisted that she was trying to ensure military recruiters access through a student veterans' group while at the same time enforcing the school's policy requiring legal employers to sign a pledge of maintaining anti-discrimination policies in hiring. She also acknowledged that eventually the Supreme Court upheld the Solomon Amendment, which barred federal aid to schools unless military recruiters had access equal to that of other employers.
Republican senators used their opening statements on Monday to help frame the military issue along with suggestions that Kagan would be an "activist" judge if confirmed. Sessions picked up on the theme on Tuesday by asking Kagan about comments from friends, including former White House counsel Gregory Craig, characterizing her as a "progressive."
"I'm not quite sure how I would characterize my political views," Kagan answered. But, she continued, "my politics would have to be . . . completely separate from my judging."
Later, Kagan also turned aside a friendly question from Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisc., asking her, "Where are your passions?" Kagan answered: "It would not be right for a judge to come in and say I have a passion for this or that."
After sitting silently on Monday through roughly three hours of opening statements from the committee's 19 senators, 12 Democrats and seven Republicans, Kagan used her first opportunity to speak late in the afternoon to deliver a generally phrased opening statement pledging to decide cases "modestly," "fairly," and "impartially."
On Tuesday, Kagan appeared comfortable and confident as senators began 30-minute rounds of questioning each, alternately friendly from Democrats and critical from Republicans. At times, Kagan joked with senators, just as she had done with Supreme Court justices at times in some of her six arguments as solicitor general before the court.
When asked about her 1996 law review article describing Supreme Court confirmation hearings as "vapid," Kagan jokingly said that she had been reminded of the article many times in recent days. Kagan said that the "basic points" of the review, which called for nominees to be more forthcoming, were "right." But she added, "In some measure I got some of the balance off."
Kagan proceeded to skirt many of the senators' questions. But she did answer directly on the impact of the Supreme Court's decision on Monday extending Second Amendment protections to state and local gun control laws. "That is binding precedent," she told Leahy. "That is settled law."
Later, when Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked about the court's 2007 decision upholding a federal ban on so-called "partial birth abortions" without an exception permitting the procedure to protect a woman's health. Citing previous court rulings, Kagan said, "I do believe the continuing holding . . . is that women's life and health have to be protected in abortion regulation."
Kagan also gave a direct answer on the issue of televising the Supreme Court. "It would be a terrific thing to have cameras in the courtroom," she said. "It would be great for the court and great for the American people."
On constitutional doctrine, however, Kagan skirted a question asking her to choose between Justice Antonin Scalia's "originalist" approach to interpreting the Constitution and retired Justice David H. Souter's approach of adapting the Constitution to changes over time. "I don't think this is an either-or choice," Kagan said. "In some cases looking to the original intent is the determinative [factor]. In other cases, it is likely not to be."
Posted by Kenneth Jost on 6/29/2010 11:27:00 AM 0 comments
Kagan: 'Modest' Role on Court
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan promised the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday that if confirmed she will decide cases "impartially" and "modestly" with an understanding of the court's important but limited role in protecting liberty and the rule of law in the U.S. constitutional system.
Kagan's 12-minute opening statement came after Democrats on the committee showered her with praise for her "stellar" intellect and "mainstream" legal views even as Republicans began laying the groundwork for critical questions to begin on Tuesday.
Alabama's Jeff Sessions, the committee's ranking Republican, criticized Kagan for a lack of "real legal experience" and her admiration for "activist judges," including the Supreme Court justice for whom Kagan clerked in the late 1980s: Thurgood Marshall.
Sessions and other Republicans also signaled they will question Kagan sharply about her role as dean of Harvard Law School in limiting aid to military recruiters for a period to protest the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on service by gays and lesbians.
In her statement, Kagan fondly recalled her service as Marshall's law clerk and praised him for "his great struggle for racial justice." Before serving on the court, Marshall had led the legal strategy that produced the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 outlawing racial segregation in public schools.
Kagan served as an aide to the Senate Judiciary Committee itself during the 1993 confirmation hearing for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and then in the late 1990s in the White House as associate counsel and later deputy domestic policy director to President Bill Clinton.
Serving now as U.S. solicitor general, Kagan used her experience in the legislative and executive branches as the cue to underscore her appreciation of the court's limited role. "The Supreme Court is a wondrous institution," she said. "But my time in the other branches of government remind me that it must also be a modest one — properly deferential to the decisions of the American people and their elected representatives."
Kagan followed the example of the three most recent Supreme Court nominees _ Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Sonia Sotomayor _ in using her opening statement to link her personal narrative to broad themes of public service within the legal profession and devotion to liberty, justice, and the rule of law.
"What the rule of law does is nothing less than to secure for each of us what our Constitution calls 'the blessings of liberty' — those rights and freedoms, that promise of equality, that have defined this nation since its founding," Kagan said. "And what the Supreme Court does is to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint."
Kagan appears all but assured of confirmation from the Democratic-controlled Senate to succeed John Paul Stevens, who formally retires from the court on Tuesday [June 29] after 34-1/2 years on the bench. Stevens retires at age 90, the second oldest person ever to serve on the court; his tenure falls one day short of making him the second longest serving justice in history. He trails the record-setter, Justice William O. Douglas, whom he succeeded in 1975, and the 19th century justice, Stephen Field.
Kagan sat patiently and unflappingly through opening statements from the Judiciary Committee's 19 members, 12 Democrats and seven Republicans. Committee chairman Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont opened by describing Kagan's qualifications as "unassailable" and her legal philosophy "well within the ideological mainstream."
Sessions followed immediately with sharp criticism, noting that Kagan had never tried a case before a jury and made her first appellate court argument only nine months ago as solicitor general. In that case, Kagan unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to uphold the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.
The Roberts Court's decision in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was one of several rulings that Democratic senators cited as examples of the court's conservative-leaning judicial activism that they hoped Kagan would counteract. "We need a justice who can create a moderate majority on this immoderate court," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
For their part, Republicans said they will be using their question time to look for evidence of judicial activism in Kagan's philosophy. "It's important to find whether you'd move the court in a traditionalist or activist direction," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
The hearing resumes at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, with Leahy to begin an opening round in which senators will have 30 minutes each to pose questions for Kagan. Barring unexpected developments, Kagan is likely to remain on the stand into a third day, with the hearing to wrap up by the end of the week after hearing from a total of 24 public witnesses chosen by the Democratic majority and Republican minority.
Gun Rights Ruling Ends Court's Term
The Supreme Court ended its 2009-2010 term in dramatic fashion today with sharply divided, 5-4 decisions extending Second Amendment protection to state and local gun control laws and striking down a part, but only a small part, of a corporate reform law passed in the wake of the Enron scandal.
In two other rulings, the court rejected a Christian group's effort to validate exclusionary membership policies at a California law school and stopped just short of a ruling that could have barred patents altogether for so-called business methods.
The 75-minute-long session marked Justice John Paul Stevens' final day on the bench after 34-and-a-half years on the high court. Barely an hour later, the Senate Judiciary Committee was to begin confirmation hearings on President Obama's nominee to succeed Stevens: Elena Kagan, the current U.S. solicitor general and former dean of Harvard Law School.
At age 90, Stevens is the second-oldest person ever to serve on the Supreme Court. If confirmed — as universally expected — Kagan will join the court at age 50 as the youngest of the current justices.
The court's conservative majority, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., flexed its muscles in three of the four 5-4 decisions on Monday. Moderate conservative Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined the bloc of four liberal justices to produce a majority in the law school case.
Three of the four cases decided on Monday featured justices in dissent reading portions of their opinions from the bench — what amounts to high drama for the Supreme Court. The session opened on a somber note with Roberts noting the death on Sunday of Martin Ginsburg, husband of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a noted tax lawyer and law professor. It ended on a nostalgic note with Roberts reading a farewell letter to Stevens signed by eight of the justices and retired justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David H. Souter.
Roberts praised Stevens for his "vigor and integrity," "unaffected decency," and combination of "genuine collegiality with independent judgment." Stevens responded, in what Roberts introduced as a "rebuttal," mockingly apologizing for having "overstayed my welcome." His voice broke at one point in the reading.
The gun ruling, McDonald v. Chicago, invalidated a ordinance that virtually banned any private possession of handguns in the nation's third-largest city. For the majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. relied heavily on the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, striking down a handgun ban in the nation's capital. Because Washington is a federal jurisdiction, the ruling left open the question whether the newfound Second Amendment right to possession of a handgun in the home for self-defense also applied to state and local governments.
Emphatically, the court said yes. "The Second Amendment is fully applicable to the states," Alito wrote in the opening of a 45-page dissent. In a 35-page dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the ruling intrudes on the states' "quintessential exercise of police power" and invites federal court challenges to every state and local gun regulation.
Roberts spoke for the conservative majority in the final decision of the term, striking down a portion of the Sarbanes-Oxley law enacted in 2002. The act created a new agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, to regulate accounting firms _ which had been blamed for some of the corporate misdeeds implicated in the Enron and other business scandals.
In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the court held the structure of the bond was unconstitutional because of separation of power concerns. The law provided that the board members were to be appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Roberts said that the political insulation of the SEC members combined with the political insulation of the PCAOB members — removable only for cause — infringed on the president's executive powers.
Dissenting again, Breyer warned the ruling cast doubt on tenure-protection provisions for thousands of federal officials, including administrative law judges and what he said was half of the military's officer corps.
The patent case, Bilski v. Kappos, had been closely watched by the patent community as a test of whether business methods were patentable. The ruling invalidated a patent allowed for a method of hedging commodities investments. In his majority opinion, Kennedy said the method was only "an abstract idea" and not patentable.
In an opinion technically concurring in the judgment but amounting to a dissent, Stevens said the court should have completely barred patents for business methods. He criticized the "timid disposition of the case." The court's three other liberal justices joined his opinion.
In the fourth case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the court upheld what it called the "all-comers" policy for student organizations at Hastings Law School in San Francisco. The Christian group sought an exemption in order to limit membership to people who shared the group's religious views. Ginsburg wrote for a five-justice majority that included Kennedy in upholding the school's policy.
The court's term will be best remembered for the dramatic Citizens United decision striking down part of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law and giving corporations and unions the right to spend unlimited sums from their own treasuries on federal campaigns. In another significant conservative victory, the court upheld on a 6-3 vote a broad interpretation of an anti-terrorism law prohibiting any "advice or assistance" or "training" to designated foreign terrorist groups.
Liberals counted some significant victories, however, including a 5-4 decision prohibiting life without parole sentences to juvenile offenders (Graham v. Florida). Free-speech advocates also counted a victory in an 8-1 decision striking down a federal law prohibiting depictions of animal cruelty (United States v. Stevens).
In criminal law, the court issued three decisions narrowing Miranda protections but two rulings that somewhat liberalized rules on federal habeas corpus challenges to state criminal convictions and sentences. And in a significant business-related case, the court barred securities fraud suits in U.S. courts for stocks sold on foreign exchanges.
Posted by CQ Press on 6/28/2010 02:18:00 PM 0 comments
Kagan Praised, Blasted on Eve of Hearing
Elena Kagan goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday [June 28] with less known about her legal views than any Supreme Court nominee in the past two decades. Not since then-Judge David Souter was dubbed the "stealth candidate" in 1990 have senators had so little clearly pertinent evidence to use in trying to gauge what kind of justice a presidential nominee will be if confirmed by the Senate for the lifetime post.
One year ago, Republicans and other conservatives had some significant ammunition to use against President Obama's first Supreme Court nominee: then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor. They used Sotomayor's participation in disputed rulings in gun rights and affirmative action cases and her controversial speeches on diversity to fashion a line of attack that eventually produced 31 votes against her confirmation.
Kagan's lack of judicial record or extensive legal scholarship allows the White House and other supporters to call for her confirmation based on general praise for her knowledge, judgment and experience. In a conference call with reporters on Friday, White House senior adviser David Axelrod noted Kagan's service in all three branches of government — as a Supreme Court law clerk, congressional aide, White House adviser and now solicitor general — along with what Axelrod described as Kagan's "respect for the proper role that the [Supreme] Court plays" in the U.S. system of government.
Critics looking for ammunition against Kagan have dug deep into the more than 160,000 documents from Kagan's four years in the White House during President Bill Clinton's second term (1995-1999), first as associate counsel and then as deputy director of the domestic policy council. In addition, they have used memos from her year as a law clerk to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall and her deanship of Harvard Law School, where she briefly limited assistance to military recruiters because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on services by gays and lesbians.
In a press conference in front of the Supreme Court on Thursday, Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice, said the evidence shows Kagan to be a politician and a judicial activist. "The more we've learned about her, the more we're concerned that she's not going to respect the rule of law," Levey said.
Levey and representatives from eight other conservative groups rattled off a laundry list of supposed vulnerabilities for Kagan. They include conventional hot-button issues such as abortion, affirmative action and gun rights along with more arcane topics such as the First Amendment and foreign and international law.
Levey acknowledged, however, that Kagan is drawing less scrutiny than Sotomayor did a year ago. "She's a stealth candidate," Levey. "There's still a lot we don't know."
So far, only one Republican senator, Oklahoma's James Inhofe, has declared his opposition to Kagan's confirmation. But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., says he expects most of the GOP's 41 senators will vote against her. None of the 57 Democrats or the two independents who caucus with Democrats have publicly voiced doubts about Kagan's confirmation.
With the hearings less than a week away, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Utah's Orrin Hatch, a former Republican Judiciary Committee chair, both went to the Senate floor with critical speeches depicting Kagan as a political appointee and a potential judicial activist. For his part, Leahy told reporters at a Senate press gallery session that Kagan has a "great record" and understands the Constitution and the law and their effects on "hardworking Americans."
The Judiciary Committee hearing opens at 12:30 p.m. on Monday, less than two hours after the Supreme Court ends its current term with four final decisions, including the closely watched test case on the applicability of Second Amendment gun rights to state and local laws. It will also be the final day on the court for Justice John Paul Stevens, whose decision to retire midway through his 35th year on the court created the vacancy that Kagan has been chosen to fill.
The hearing will begin with opening statements from the committee's members: 12 Democrats and seven Republicans. Kagan is expected to give an opening statement late Monday afternoon, with questions then to begin on Tuesday. Leahy says the hearing will be concluded by the end of the week — the same schedule followed in the recent confirmation hearings for Sotomayor and for President George W. Bush's two nominees: Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Late Friday, Leahy and ranking Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama released a list of two dozen public witnesses for the final day of the hearing. The Democrats' witnesses include Harvard colleagues of Kagan's, her Bush-appointed predecessor as solicitor general, and two one-time employment discrimination plaintiffs who lost closely divided decisions from the Roberts Court.
The Republicans' list of 14 witnesses is heavy with current or retired military officers and also includes conservative law professors and representatives of anti-abortion and pro-gun rights groups. The committee will also hear from two representatives of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which gave Kagan its highest rating for the position: "well qualified."
Levey says he expects "some tough questions" for Kagan from GOP senators. Axelrod said Kagan has been prepping for the hearing by "fielding questions for several hours a day" over the past week. "She's certainly prepared to deal with whatever comes," he told reporters.
'Honest Services' Law Narrowed
A unanimous Supreme Court has substantially narrowed a federal criminal statute that federal prosecutors had used as one of the most flexible legal weapons to go after corporate and government misconduct.
The ruling set aside convictions in two high-profile white-collar criminal cases, including the 2006 conviction of former Enron chief executive Jeffrey Skilling for his part in overstating the company's financial picture in the years prior to its collapse. Skilling had also attacked jury selection in his trial in Enron's hometown of Houston, but the justices rejected his appeal on that issue by a 6-3 vote.
In a second case, the court also set aside the 2007 conviction of Canadian publishing magnate Conrad Black for an alleged conflict of interest in a multimillion-dollar side deal in connection with the sale of a California newspaper.
Both Skilling and Black had received lengthy prison sentences: 24 years for Skilling; six-and-a-half years for Black. The Supreme Court's rulings in both cases leaves it up to federal appeals courts to determine whether the convictions can stand under the new, narrow definition of the federal "honest services" statute.
The statute makes it a crime for a defendant to defraud someone — for example, a company or an officeholder's constituents — of the "intangible property" of the defendant's "honest services." Congress enacted the current version of the law in 1988 following a Supreme Court decision aimed at cutting back federal prosecutors' expansive use of the statute in its previous form.
The court's ruling in Skilling's case says, in effect, that Congress's re-enactment left the law perilously close to unconstitutional vagueness. To cure the problem, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for a six-justice majority in Skilling v. United States, the law would be limited to bribery or kickback schemes, not to more amorphous offenses.
"Reading the statute to proscribe a wider range of offensive conduct," Ginsburg wrote, "would raise the due process concerns underlying the vagueness doctrine."
Three justices would have gone further and ruled the provision flatly unconstitutional. "In transforming 'honest services fraud' into a prohibition of 'bribery and kickbacks,' [the court] is wielding a power we long ago abjured: the power to define new federal crimes," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy joined his opinion.
In a third case, the court also ordered a new hearing for an Alaska legislator, Bruce Weyhrauch, who had been indicted under the honest-services law for an alleged conflict of interest in seeking legal work from an oil services company with a bill affecting the industry pending before the legislature. A federal district court judge threw out the charge, but the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the charge.
The Supreme Court had indicated its concern with the "honest services" statute by agreeing to hear Black's and Weyhrauch's appeals a year ago and then adding Skilling's case to its calendar in October after the start of a new term. Briefs urging the justices to narrow the law were filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
With the Supreme Court nearing the end of its term — now set for Monday — court watchers had been waiting expectantly for the ruling. Experts appeared to have formed a consensus that the justices would narrow the law. Even so, the unanimous vote to confine the law to no more than what Ginsburg called its "bribe-and-kickback" core seemed something of a surprise.
Douglas Berman, a sentencing law expert at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio, and publisher of Sentencing Law Blog, said the decisions may have been prompted in part by the hefty prison terms available in federal court. "It is reasonable to speculate that the very lengthy prison sentences that are now often prescribed under the federal sentencing guidelines for fraud may have played a role in the justices' thinking," Berman wrote on his blog.
In Houston, one of Skilling's lawyers said his attorneys were "extremely pleased and relieved" with the decision. "The Supreme Court unanimously decided that Jeff Skilling did not violate the honest services law, and that is fatal to the government's case," attorney Daniel Petrocelli told the Houston Chronicle.
Skilling was convicted of a total of19 nineteen counts: one count of conspiracy to commit wire honest-services fraud, 12 counts of securities fraud, five counts of making false statements to auditors, and one count of insider trading. Since Skilling was not charged with accepting any "side payments," Ginsburg said, he could not have been guilty of honest-services fraud under the new construction.
Skilling's lawyers argued in effect that the government's honest-services count influenced the jury's convictions on the other counts. The Supreme Court ruling left it up to the federal appeals court in New Orleans to consider whether the other counts could stand.
Black, chief executive officer of Hollinger Company, owner of the Chicago Sun Times among many other newspapers, was convicted under a general jury verdict of three counts of mail and wire fraud and one count of obstruction of justice. He was charged with negotiating an agreement to be paid $5.5 million in exchange for a non-compete agreement after the sale of a small community newspaper in Mammoth Lake, Calif.
The short, unanimous ruling in Black v. United States left it up to the federal appeals court in Chicago to determine whether Black's conviction should be reversed because the case was tried under the now-rejected broad view of the honest-services law.
For background, see Kenneth Jost, "Corporate Crime," CQ Researcher, Oct. 11, 2002.
Privacy Controversy Prompts Facebook Changes
By Caroline Young
The recent global outcry over Facebook's lax privacy controls is forcing the social-networking site to better protect users' personal information.
Privacy regulators are blaming Facebook for breaking its promise not to release personal information about its more than 400 million members without their permission. In May The Wall Street Journal first reported that a software loophole had allowed advertisers to obtain information about Facebook users, such as their name, hometown, age and occupation.
Although it is not unusual for Web advertisers to receive the Web address where users click on their ads, non-social networking sites only send a scramble of letters and numbers that can't be connected to a single person. But Facebook and other social networking sites were using members' names in links to advertisers.
Ben Edelman, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School, studied the computer code of social-networking sites for The Journal and confirmed the exposure of users' private information. "If you are looking at your profile page and you click on an ad, you are telling that advertiser who you are," he told The Journal. Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg admitted the company had erred and promised to create straightforward and safer ways to share personal information. In a column in The Washington Post on May 24, three days after The Journal revealed the glitch, he seemed to be blaming the problem on Facebook's success. "It's a challenge to keep that many people satisfied over time, so we move quickly to serve that community with new ways to connect with the social Web and each other," Zuckerberg said. "Our intention was to give you lots of granular controls, but that may not have been what many of you wanted. We just missed the mark."
Craig Wills, a professor of computer science at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, studies the privacy dilemma. "Most social networks haven't bothered to obscure user names or ID numbers from their Web addresses," he told The Journal. A Facebook spokesman acknowledged the company had erred. "We were recently made aware of one case where if a user takes a specific route on the site, advertisers may see that they clicked on their own profile and then clicked on an ad."
Facebook's complex way of providing users with information-control options adds to the problem.
While Internet users are in favor of protection policies, most find the settings to be difficult to understand and adjust to their liking. To navigate Facebook's privacy settings, users are presented with more than 50 privacy buttons followed by over 170 options. Facebook's written privacy statement is longer than the 4,400-word U.S. Constitution.
Zuckerberg says that easier-to-use privacy controls are in the works. "We are working hard to make these changes available as soon as possible," he told The Post. "We will also give you an easy way to turn off all third-party services." While his goal is to help in creating a more connected and open society, he says he knows users have the right to choose and control their level of exposure.
Facebook's user directory now reveals less searchable information -- only the user's name, gender and picture. In addition, the computer code that enables ad companies to receive users' private information is being reconstructed to parallel how advertising functions across the Web.
In the wake of the Facebook controversy, lawmakers in Congress are considering legislation to control the leakage of users' personal information to advertisers.
For background, see Patrick Marshall, "Online Privacy,"
CQ Researcher, Nov. 6, 2009, and Marcia Clemmitt, "Cyber Socializing," CQ Researcher, July 28, 2006.
Caroline Young is a summer 2010 CQ Researcher editorial intern. She is a rising senior at Flagler College, where she is co-editor of The Flagler College Gargoyle.
New Concern About Child Soldiers
By John Felton
CQ Global Researcher contributor
Three events in recent weeks have brought renewed attention to the issue of children serving as fighters in civil conflict, a topic covered in CQ Global Researcher in July 2008. On May 21, the United Nations made public its latest annual report on Children and Armed Conflict, written by the secretary-general's special representative on that topic, Radhika Coomaraswamy. This year's report listed, for the first time, the "most persistent violators" of children in conflict -- 16 armed groups (including the "transitional government" of Somalia) repeatedly cited for the past five years for using children as soldiers.
Nine of the groups (again including the Somali government) were cited as having killed, maimed, raped or used sexual violence against children. Uganda's notorious Lord's Resistance Army – which has terrorized in civilians in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chad and other countries -- was one of the most prominent groups on the list.
The New York Times on June 14 focused on the use of child soldiers by the Somali transitional government, which has received millions of dollars in aid from the United States and other countries. Reporter Jeffrey Gettleman documented cases in which both the government's military and the Islamist insurgency that controls much of the country use children – some 12 years of age or even younger – as active fighters.
Gettleman's story raised the possibility that the United States is indirectly paying these child soldiers as part of its aid program intended to help the wobbly government survive a strong challenge by the powerful Islamist insurgent group known as al-Shabaab. The report prompted some senators to press the U.S. government to pressure the Somali government to stop recruiting children, and to consider withholding U.S. aid to the transitional government until it assures the United States that such activities have been halted. The Somali government has vehemently denied that it recruits child solders.
After a day-long meeting on the subject of child soldiers, the U.N. Security Council on June 16 – for the first time ever – expressed its readiness to take "targeted measures" against persistent violators of laws prohibiting the use of child soldiers. The council asked its Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict to work with sanctions committees and other groups to develop appropriate measures. Coomaraswamy and other child-rights advocates had been pressing the council to take this step for the past several years. However, the Security Council did not set a timetable for implementing the measures.
More Research Urged on Football Injuries
By Seth Shapiro
The NFL and its critics are hoping that a recent concussion forum will usher in a new era of health consciousness that ultimately will make professional football safer for its players.
The Traumatic Brain Injury in Professional Football forum, hosted by Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine on June 2 in Washington, was called because of concerns that the NFL needed to do more to protect its players. After repeated congressional chastising, the league, with new co-chairmen leading the head, neck, and spine committee, believe it is poised for change.
Dr. H. Hunt Batjer and Dr. Richard G. Ellenbogen were introduced as the new co-chairmen by the NFL in March after the former heads resigned amidst widespread discontent among players and football safety advocates. Dr. Ira Casson, one of the previous chairmen, came under strong criticism for his reluctance to acknowledge the evidence linking concussions NFL players suffered in games and later brain diseases they developed.
While no official policy changes took place at the forum, many potential alterations were discussed, according to coverage in The Baltimore Sun. Suggestions were made to limit offseason practice, to minimize the amount of hitting during in-season practice, and to educate players about the dangers of head-first tackling.
In addition, Batjer and Ellenbogen are hoping to institutionalize reform to overthrow the play-through-the-pain mantra that pervades the NFL and other sports. Batjer and Ellenbogen noted typical consequences that make players wary of leaving the field after an injury, including financial losses as well as reduced playing time even after recovery. The physicians suggested guaranteeing players the resumption of their roles on the team when they return from injury as well as financial incentives for players to report injuries.
Constantine Lyketsos, the head of the planning committee for the forum, said in a press conference that the gathering was called to focus on gathering scientific evidence regarding head trauma. Research is still needed to draw conclusions about the short- and long-term outcomes of head injuries suffered by NFL players.
Despite the attempts of the NFL to make football safer for its players, there are those that deny the feasibility of that goal. "It is fundamentally impossible to take the violence and brutality out of football," former Super Bowl champion Dave Pear stated in an email. Pear believes that the NFL is "interested in limiting their liability from" the professional football players by conducting research and hosting forums that examine making the NFL safer. He called the recent forum a "[public relations] stunt."
In an opening statement to the forum, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said the league was committed to using its position "to lead the way and have a positive impact" not only on pro football but also on the sport "at all levels."
The culture that predominates in the NFL is often replicated by subordinate sectors of football, including collegiate and youth football leagues. The NFL hopes that its concussion forum and its own reform will spark awareness and similar change across all levels of football.
Concussions and head trauma are areas of concern for more than just the NFL. In addition to independent physicians and scientists who will contribute to the research, the forum also included attendance by military doctors. The same research that could help NFL players who suffer head injuries could likewise help injured soldiers.
This forum was the third of its kind the NFL has had since 1997, and much of the rhetoric has been heard before. In Goodell's opening remarks to the forum, he said the NFL's goal is "to make sure medical decisions always override competitive decisions." This, however, was almost a verbatim repetition of his comments at the 2007 forum: "Medical decisions must always take priority over competitive concerns," according to Training and Strength, a sports medicine magazine, which heralded the 2007 forum as "momentous."
Dr. Thom Mayer, the medical director of the players association, cautioned the NFL not to let a divide develop between promises made and the fulfillment of those promises. "We look forward to assuring that the shadow between what is said and what is done is as short as possible," Mayer said at the forum. He also sternly told the NFL that change cannot be done by the players alone; the league must play a role.
For background, see Kenneth Jost, "Professional Football: Is the NFL doing enough to protect its players?," CQ Researcher, Jan. 29, 2010.
Seth Shapiro, Cornell '11, is a staff member of The Cornell Daily Sun and a CQ Researcher editorial intern for summer 2010.
'Law and Order' Exception to Miranda Rule
"Law and Order" may have ended its 20-year run, but Briscoe, Curtis, and all the other cops and prosecutors on the compelling TV series can rest content after a Supreme Court decision on Tuesday [June 1] that eases the rule on police interrogation established in the landmark Miranda case. By a 5-4 vote, the justices gave the green light to the kind of subtle coercion that "Law and Order" detectives still practice in nightly reruns and that Miranda had sought to prevent.
Like many of the perps on "Law and Order," Van Chester Thompkins had nothing to say while two detectives from Southfield, Michigan, questioned him on Feb. 22, 2001, about a drive-by shooting outside a strip mall a year earlier. In Thompkin's case, he sat on a hard chair in an eight-foot by ten-foot interrogation room for three hours — long enough for three episodes — after refusing to sign a waiver of his Miranda right to remain silent.
For two hours and 45 minutes, Thompkins said nothing more substantial than to complain about the chair and to decline Detective Christopher Helgert's offer of a mint. In the real world, one would see that Thompkins did not want to talk. But, at the cop house, a different rule applies. Helgert kept up his monologue and finally figured out Thompkins' weak spot. "Do you believe in God?" he asked. Thompkins said yes. "Do you pray?" Again, Thompkins said yes. "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" Helgert asked. Tearing up, Thompkins answered in one word: "Yes."
As a district attorney in California in the 1930s, Earl Warren had experience with old-style police interrogations: slapping suspects around, and the like. As chief justice, he learned that police had adopted other techniques. "The modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically, rather than physically, oriented," Warren wrote in the 1966 Miranda decision. Police manuals, Warren explained, tell officers to isolate the suspect, display confidence, assume the suspect's guilt, and get him simply to elaborate on what the police pretend already to know.
The Supreme Court created the Miranda rule to combat what Warren aptly described as the inherently coercive nature of that kind of interrogation. Everyone is now familiar with the recitation of Miranda rights: the right to remain silent, the right to cut off questioning, the right to have a lawyer, and the right to have the lawyer present during interrogation. To safeguard those rights, the court said that police cannot use a suspect's statement unless they show that a suspect knowingly and intelligently waived those rights. And a valid waiver could not be shown, the court said, simply by the fact that a confession was in fact obtained.
In Thompkins' case, Michigan courts drove right by those waiver rules. Thompkins' statement was introduced and, in a close case, helped the prosecution get a conviction. On appeal, the Michigan courts said, counterintuitively, that Thompkins had to speak up in order to assert his right to remain silent. And, in seeming contradiction, the state courts said that Thompkins had waived that right with three one-word answers uttered after nearly three hours of interrogation.
The Supreme Court agreed. "The record in this case shows that Thompkins waived his right to remain silent," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the Roberts Court's conservative majority in Berghuis v. Thompkins. The suspect's one-word answer about praying, Kennedy continued, "was sufficient to show a course of conduct indicating waiver." True, Kennedy conceded, Thompkins sat in a straight-backed chair for three hours, but — overlooking Miranda — the justice said there is "no authority" for the proposition that an interrogation under these circumstances is "inherently coercive."
For the four liberal dissenters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a former local prosecutor, labeled the decision "a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination" established by Miranda. That decision places a "heavy burden" on the prosecution to show that a suspect has waived the right to remain silent, she explained, and it was "objectively unreasonable" to conclude that the prosecution had shown a waiver in Thompkins' case on the basis of "three one-word answers, following 2 hours and 45 minutes of silence . . . ."
Sotomayor also criticized the court's new rule that a suspect must make a "clear statement" in order to assert a right to remain silent. "Advising a suspect that he has a 'right to remain silent' is unlikely to convey that he must speak (and must do so in some particular fashion) to ensure the right will be protected," she wrote.
For the majority, Kennedy suggested that the "clear statement" rule would not affect many cases. In a footnote, however, Sotomayor listed a raft of lower court decisions holding that suspects had not invoked a right to silence despite "an array of statements whose meaning might otherwise be thought plain." Like the suspect who said, "I just don't think I should say anything," but his later statements admitted anyway.
The new decision is not the first retreat from Miranda— and is unlikely to be the last. Yes, Miranda is still good law. But two decades of "Law and Order" show that fictional police know how to work around it. And the Roberts Court is OK with that in real life.
The opinions expressed in this blog are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the CQ Press or SAGE Publications, or any individual employee. Links to external sources are provided solely as a courtesy to our blog visitors. We are not responsible for and do not endorse or warrant in any way any materials, information, goods or services available through such linked sites or any privacy or other practices of such sites.
Garland Wordpress Theme by Steven Wittens and Stefan Nagtegaal. Modified for Blogger by www.jackbook.com
CQ Researcher Authors
Twitter: @cqresearcher
Suggest a topic for CQ Researcher
Log onto CQ Researcher

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Bobwhites Rio Grande Plain Texas Val is good choice for you that looking for nice reading experience. We hope you glad to visit our website. Please read our description and our privacy and policy page.
Finally I get this ebook, thanks for all these Bobwhites Rio Grande Plain Texas Val can get now!


As the Greek medical practitioners of the 5th century, we are here to deliver the message of complete wellness. With the use of 22nd century technology combined with elixers, teas & tonics, and Ayurvedic practices a visit to this suite starts your journey of discovering wholeness.
Most people have experienced traditional saunas in classical settings of sports clubs/day spas, however we have done some reconnaissance for our members. Infrared heat absorbs through your skin and raises your core temperature to facilitate detoxing, weight and inches loss during treatment.
Your mind is clear, and your body is detoxing. The work your therapist does in each session builds on itself, helping your body maintain its relaxed state and your muscles to remain loose even during times of physical and mental stress.
Herbs have been an important source of healing long before clinics or hospitals. In order to limit the risk of the herbs we use for cooking and making tinctures being adulterated with any other substances, such as pesticides and insects we grow our own.
Energy medicine is now one of the most widely studied fields of medicine today. In the Wellness Suite we provide our members with the most leading edge technology that is used to treat all aspects of an individual's health.
Savor deep calm and inner peace in our private secluded meditation garden. The garden is the perfect completion to the pathway which connects the mind, body and spirit. Through the energy of meditation, sound and light therapy we will accomplish synergistic wholeness of peace and happiness.


Get Control Over Your Life with Hypnosis!
HYPNOTHERAPY CAN CHANGE YOUR LIFE AND RELATIONSHIPS RADICALLY!
The primary focus for hypnosis and hypnotherapy is to help you get control over your emotions rather than your emotions having control over you. Hypnotherapy can help you change your perspective from the half empty cup to a quenching half full cup. Use hypnotherapy to get control over your anxiety, panic attacks, low self-esteem, depression, lost memories, and OCD! Hypnosis is useful for so many things, we can't list them all!
During the hypnotic trance state you remain in full control of your session. This means You can come out of hypnosis at any point you wish to. Its a myth that control is lost, born from movies and TV. I will help you understand hypnotherapy before we begin any hypnotic trances.
Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.At NY Hypnosis, I not only do hypnosis to you, I teach you how hypnosis is done so you can do it to yourself at home! I will teach you how my hypnotherapy works and give you the hypnotic power you may have never known was available to you.
WHY LET YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES CREATE YOU,WHEN YOU CAN CREATE YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES AND YOURSELF?
I can help you and that is what this is all about. So YES, I can help you quit smoking and lose weight as I have helped so many before; however, there is so much more available to you.You are only limited by your imagination - so take a moment and imagine what you would change and ask yourself, "what would I like to become?"
Online via video chat. Amazing results, very private, very safe, very convenient, and discounted rates!


In the high-pressured modern world of business and commerce, especially in large organizations, it can be difficult for them to spot the internal problems of the company. This can hinder a businesses growth and prevent them from reaching their full potential, and in doing so allow other competitors in the market to steal in on market share. Small decisions such as implementing tangible business strategies can make all the difference between success and failure. For consulting firms like Pragmatium Consulting in Chicago, helping businesses formulate coherent philosophies and strategies is central to their advisory services. On top of this, the team, led by CEO Haris Ahmed make it their duty to leave businesses in better conditions than they were before.
The big question that many companies ask before seeking consultancy advise is Do Organizations need Change Management? For Haris Ahmed, the answer is usually a simple yes. Whilst some companies may be able to recognize the faults in the business, being able to implement effective change to drive a businesses growth is not an easy task. This is why firms such as Pragmatium Consulting are so important to large organizations seeking to take steps for evolution and growth.
Their services and tools are used in varying combinations to match the particular needs of their roster of large clients. Typically, Pragmatium Consulting utilize a blend of our consulting services toward their overarching objective of bringing about sustained change. They work at the intersection of strategic clarification, organizational alignment, and leadership effectiveness to drive organizational performance.
Haris Ahmed and his team have a differentiated approach grounded in management and behavioral sciences to design and implement strategic change that has more sticking power and can be sustained in an organization. Change is a given, but how organizations drive change is what separates high-performing companies from the others.
Bringing together coherent change is no easy task, and why so many consultancy firms fail. What Pragmatium Consulting do so well is listen to the goals and visions of the companies shareholders and leaders, to formulate realistic, satisfactory and ambitious targets to help build a coherent strategy. This is why the services of Pragmatium Consulting are so valued by their clients. If you you want to find out more about how to improve your business and take it the next level, visit Haris Ahmed, the Best Consultant For Work practices in the business arena.


text:
// Copyright (c) 2010-2014 SharpDX - Alexandre Mutel
//
// Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
// of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
// in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
// to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
// copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
// furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
//
// The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
// all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
//
// THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
// IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
// FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
// AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
// LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
// OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
// THE SOFTWARE.

namespace SharpDX.Direct3D9
{
    public enum DeviceState
    {
        DeviceHung = -2005530508,

        DeviceLost = -2005530520,

        DeviceRemoved = -2005530512,

        Ok = 0,

        OutOfVideoMemory = -2005532292,

        PresentModeChanged = 0x8760877,

        PresentOccluded = 0x8760878
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Q: Android App - Fires onCreate whenever bluetooth keyboard connects / disconnects I have a fairly simple android app, which uses a bluetooth barcode scanner connected to it.
The problem I'm having, is that whenever the bluetooth scanner connects or disconnects from the android device (as it does when it goes to sleep/wakes up), it causes the onCreate method of the active window/layout to be called.
Is there some way I can stop this?

A: Sounds like your activity is being restarted, because the connection of the scanner (which appears to your Android device as a keyboard) is considered a configuration change.
I would strongly recommend that you modify your app so that any data is properly cached and restored when your activities are restarted - just like when the screen is rotated. Then connecting and disconnecting the scanner will not impact your users.
Alternatively, you can tell Android that your app will handle "keyboard" configuration changes and it will not restart your activities when the keyboard connects/disconnects. However, it will still restart your activities for all the other configuration changes that you do not handle - and the list of configuration changes is kind of long.


The Challah Blog: Happy Purim! - Hamantaschen Challah!
Well, I didn't quite get this recipe up on time... but I hope you all enjoy it anyway. Hamantaschen Challah are inspired by those tasty, delicious treats for Purim - Hamantaschen!!!! Tradition tells us that a Hamantasch is shaped like the hat of Haman (boooo!), the bad guy in the Book of Esther.
My Hamantaschen Challah were inspired by A Taste of Challah by Tamar Ansh, a funny little cookbook that includes these ridiculous, massively huge recipes for challah that are big enough to fulfill the mitzvah of taking challah. Tamar makes little Hamantaschen sized rolls but filled with garlic and onion mixture. I just wasn't crazy about that idea, even though I am a fan of savory breads. But something about Purim just screams sweetness to me!
Use any recipe of challah you like (woo hoo!). I used the halved version of my challah recipe, using 2 eggs instead of just 1. Chop one apple (I used Gala) in small pieces, about 1/4 inch squares. Mix with a sprinkle of sugar, sprinkle of nutmeg, and about a 1/2 teaspoon of cinnamon. Just imagine apple pie filling.
Pull off small balls of challah. Flatten with your fingers. Fill with a heaping teaspoon of the filling and pinch shut like a regular hamantaschen.
Now, here's the important part. FLIP THE HAMANTASCHEN and place on a parchment-papered cookie sheet. Allow rise for about a half hour. Top with an egg wash. Bake at 350 for about a half hour.
I love these rolls so much. They're so darling. You think you have a little triangle-shaped roll and then you turn it over, and it's a hamantaschen!
the apple filling doesn't leak out at all?
No, they really stayed nice. I think I could have done even more filling. I would definitely recommend parchment paper though, because I would hate to have to get them off of a metal sheet.


Wolfmother.net, in collaboration with Wolfmother's management team at 5b, present to you an amazing competition. We're giving away a pair of tickets for every show on the Austalian New Moon Rising Tour.
Yes, I said, giving away, as in for free, gratis, no charge.
One pair of tickets for every one of the six shows on the New Moon Rising Tour, including the sold out gigs in Brisbane and Sydney.
Watch this space for the first competition to win tickets for the Brisbane gig – full details on how to enter will be in the following post.
Very cool Chimmy! I knew I loved this site!


Special visitors at last Saturday's Legion crab feed included, from left, Chris Brock, Ninth District Commander, Jim Pisa, second from right, National Vice Commander, and Ken Lee, right, National Executive Commander. Also pictured is Area Three Commander Denny Pittman, second from left, and Pateros senior Amanda Baird, holding her appreciation award for six years of working the annual feed.
The Pateros-Brewster-Bridgeport Senior Center honored Okanogan County Transportation and Nutrition Site Director Dorothy (Dot) Jess who retired last month after 24 years of service at the Senior Center. The Center served a custom-made cake with ice cream for the occasion and presented Jess with cards and gifts. She also received a dozen yellow roses from her daughter. Rose Guzman, left, cuts the retirement cake for Jess, center, as Senior Center President Kathy Lowry observes.
Brewster City Councilman Tim Rieb knew where the action was during Super Bowl Sunday, Feb. 3; at the cookers full of chili ready to sample at the Brewster American Legion Columbia Post 97.
Crosetto Lake is a four-acre water resource at Spiva Butte.


Local pork and fennel snags, mash, peas & mushroom cream sauce.
A delicious selection of house made desserts, cakes, slices, biscuits, muffins, scones & locally made chocolate truffles.
A fine selection of regional wines, beers, ciders, fruit juice and mineral waters are available to enjoy in or take home.


Happy Tuesday Friends! It seems like it's been forever since I've visited this little space of mine. It has been sooooo nice soaking up time with my family.
We still have a week of winter break over here but today I'm recapping the first half of it along with NYE.
After Christmas we did lots of lounging around. Seriously I haven't sat around and done nothing in forever and it's been awesome. We watched tons of movies, did puzzles, played board games, played with new toys and did more laying around.
We took the kids to a fun arcade in our mall and they had a blast.
Saturday brought NYE - we decided to stay home and my BIL & SIL and nieces came over. We made dinner and hung out. We played foosball, left right center, and this gross mystery jelly belly game. The kids were loving it!
My in laws stopped by before their party, the kids were happy to see them!
Our friends whose parents live in our neighborhood stopped by for a little and the kids were happy to have more playmates!
Earlier in the day I ran to Party City to get this giant balloon bag that you fill up for a balloon drop. Thanks to our compressor it only took Rick and I 15 minutes to fill it up. The kids loved this!
Everyone left a little after 10 and we hung out a little while more then it was time to put the crazed kids to bed. They loved staying up so late!
New Years Day we did pretty much nothing and it was awesome. We did manage to get outside for a walk/scooter/bike ride and took the kids to the park. Avery insisted on riding Ella's old bike so Rick lowered the seat for her and off we went. Except girlfriend doesn't understand yet how to peddle so we just switched off pushing her and she was loving it.
Yesterday was Rick's last day home for vaca so we played, went out to lunch and watched a movie.
Today we are going to be crafting and hanging out (I should probably get my wifely/mommy duties back in check as well) and later we are all going to see Sing.
Hope everyone enjoys their day!
I love the balloon drop, how fun for the kids. And the car getting stuck in the hair...AHHH! Glad you didn't have to cut any hair :) Have a wonderful rest of your break.
I know, thank goodness no hair had to get cut!!
It looks like you all took full advantage of break! And that balloon drop is genius!
You still have a week left?!?! That is crazy and amazing friend. Love that balloon drop, looks like the kiddos did too!
It looks like you've been having a lot of fun! I'm so jealous that you have one more week of winter break. My kids went back today and it was a tough return to reality!
I know next week is going to be rough!!
Oh man, I got a car like that stuck in my hair as a kid!! I don't remember if my mom had to cut it out or not but vividly remember it getting stuck! Looks like a fun NYE (ummm that balloon drop!) and a relaxing break! Enjoy the rest of it!
That car in the hair is killing me...how does that even happen?! haha. Loving the balloon drop - super fun!! And now I am craving a shake. Sounds like you guys enjoyed time off and the celebrated the new year in the best way!
What a fun time. Love that you got that much time with the whole family. That puzzle is so cool. Love how big it is. I think all kids get some car or something stuck in their hair. Ha. So great that you got two date nights. Those are the best. Have a great first week of the New Year!
Your break sounds awesome! Love that you got so much quality family time! I hope you have a very happy new year!
OMG that balloon drop was amazing!!!! I so need to remember that for our kids for next year! They would go crazy!
What a great break you've all had! That arcade looks like ton of fun. Mason would love it! Sadly, we do not have a mall or arcade anywhere near us. Two dates? Major score! I hope you guys enjoyed every minute of it. The balloon drop adds such a fun tough! That's awesome!


text:
No hiding place from Covid
April 23, 2021 April 30, 2021 Dean	Everest 2021
At least one climber on Mount Everest has tested positive for Covid-19, just weeks after the world's tallest peak reopened to climbers following a year of closure.
Norwegian climber Erlend Ness was isolated in hospital for eight nights due to the virus.
Reports say a sherpa in his party had also tested positive for the virus.
The outbreak is a blow to Nepal, which relies heavily on income generated from Everest expeditions.
Mr Ness is unsure where he could have caught the virus, but raised the possibility of catching it whilst in one of the tea houses along the Khumbu Valley.
He added that he could have "done more" to protect himself, such as being more diligent with handwashing, and wearing a mask all day.
"Not many people used masks on the trek," recalled Mr Ness, who had been feeling sick for about six days in the mountains before being evacuated on April 15 by helicopter.
He was taken to two different hospitals in the Nepali capital Kathmandu, and tested positive for the virus three times.
He has since recovered – testing negative on April 22 – and is now staying with friends in the city.
Hundreds of foreign climbers are expected to attempt the ascent this spring season, which began in April, after the slopes were shut off due to the pandemic.
Aside from wider tourism revenue, Nepal earns $4m (£3.1m) by issuing Everest climbing permits every year, according to the Kathmandu Post.
All travellers entering Nepal must present a negative Covid report, taken within 72 hours of their first flight, according to Nepal's Department of Immigration.
Passengers from counties with new Covid variants will be subject to an additional 10 days of hotel quarantine. If a test comes back negative after five days, they will be allowed to spend their remaining five days in home quarantine.
← Everest 2021 Update – April 13
Everest 2021 Update – Everest ER – 23rd April →
4x International Everest Summiteers for 'Seven Summit Treks' – 12th May
Everest 2021 Update – Pawel Michalski – 28th April
Exhaustion claims two Everest deaths – 12th May


Win an accordion mini-album–these cute little albums are 3×3 and have 12 customizable panels. Contest begins tonight and the drawing will happen on Friday, January 14 at midnight! The winner will be chosen through a random generator.
To win, you must be a fan on our Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Katana-Photography/153524862357).
For extra chances to win, tweet or put a message on your Facebook status about this contest and then leave a comment here on the blog for each extra entry.
Kristin came to me not too long ago wanting "slightly naughty" maternity photos–and she said the former with this really lovely European accent (I think she's from Norway?). Now of course, due to the nature of some of the photos, I can't publish them all. But here are a handful that she gave me permission to post publicly.
I'll be seeing Kristin again this week and meeting her 5 day old daughter!


30+ years of traditional values, cutting-edge technology, and first-class service.
Do you need a Ridgefield CPA and accounting firm that you can trust? At Opsahl Dawson we combine traditional values with a progressive edge. Our CPAs provide accounting services in Ridgefield using the latest technologies and tools. Our innovative tax and accounting solutions are designed to help you succeed.
Our firm was founded in 1979 and we have the experience needed to provide the best accounting services in Ridgefield! If you're looking for an accounting firm you can trust, look no further than Opsahl Dawson.
Keep reading to learn more about our accounting and tax services for Ridgefield businesses and individuals.
We provide year-round tax planning and prep services to our clients in Ridgefield, WA. We'll work with you to create a tax plan that minimizes your liability and maximizes your deductions. We don't believe that you should only hear from your accountant during tax season!
Are you planning a new business venture in Ridgefield? Not sure whether you should go with an LLC or a corporation or maybe a partnership? We can explain the different options available to you and help you make the best decision for your long-term business goals.
Is your business growing? Are you selling to or merging with another business? The M&A team at Opsahl Dawson is here to help you! We'll work with your legal team to make sure the process goes as smoothly as possible.
Do you know the ins-and-outs of Washington State tax law? The CPAs at Opsahl Dawson do! We're also experts in Oregon taxes, too! That's why we're better equipped to help Ridgefield business owners than any other accounting firm. We'll help you understand your tax requirements, minimize liabilities, and save you money long term. Let us guide you when it comes to navigating state and local taxes.
Building an estate takes a lifetime of hard work. Let the estate planning team and Opsahl Dawson help you avoid unnecessary tax liability and preserve your wealth. We'll help you feel confident about the future of your estate.
Any interaction with the IRS can be confusing, overwhelming and stressful. If you're audited, you need an accounting team you can trust. We'll represent you and work with you and the IRS to resolve any situation.
Need help compiling, reviewing, analyzing, and making sense of complicated financial statements?
Our Certified Public Accountants in Ridgefield would love to help!
Our Ridgefield CPAs are here to help you!
At Opsahl Dawson, we support a new era of Certified Public Accountants. The world is changing faster than ever, and we help businesses and individuals in Ridgefield stay ahead. Our proactive staff and high-tech tools will help you stay abreast of changing tax laws and other financial developments.
We only hire the very best accountants. You'll love working with our friendly staff. They're hip, innovative, and always on their toes.
Together, we'll make the perfect team that's dedicated to your success!
9418 NE Vancouver Mall Dr.
Yes! Your accounting firm should be doing more than just filing your taxes. At Opsahl Dawson we always have your best interests in mind. We want to see your business grow and thrive as much as you do! We'll take the time to get to know you and help you develop a comprehensive approach to your financial growth. Remember: your success is our success!
Yes. Paperless accounting is more than just a buzzword at Opsahl Dawson! Our accountants spend less time managing paperwork and more time working for you. Our sustainable paperless accounting services are more streamlined and more effective than any other system.
We're in it for the long haul. Our entire team is focused on delivering real results for you and your unique goals.
We bring the best of both worlds: decades of experience with a drive for innovation.
We constantly strive for progress, exploring new technologies and sustainable business practices to expand our services and better meet your needs.
We love what we do. And it shows. We can't wait to come to work in the morning.


Whoa, we spent about four hours on the beach this morning, and by noon, I had to call it a day. I love heat but sitting on sand and baking in it really saps me. The kids fished, kayaked and boogie-boarded and just had the best-ever time but I spent much of the afternoon happily inside. Can you believe I've finished another chapter of a book I started months ago? Yippee! Consider the Fork by Bee Wilson is such an intriguing read. It's all about the evolution of cooking techniques and kitchen utensils, large and small, and Wilson makes what could be a rather dry subject truly engaging. While cleaning up from dinner tonight, I was struck by the sunset which both came and went at an urgent pace. It was stunning to watch.


text:
Grande Popô (Grand-Popo) é uma localidade, distrito e comuna no departamento de Mono do sudoeste da Benim. Segundo censo de 2013, havia  pessoas numa área de 289 quilômetros quadrados.

Bibliografia

Comunas do Benim
Distritos do Benim
Localidades no Benim

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Myurella wellsilviae is een slakkensoort uit de familie van de Terebridae. De wetenschappelijke naam van de soort is voor het eerst geldig gepubliceerd in 1994 door Aubry.

Terebridae


text:
By Mary
NSO Group Spyware Reportedly Used by Israeli Police Force Spyware from controversial Israeli software firm NSO Group was reportedly used by the nation's civilian police force, according to a new report from an Israeli business publication, Calcalist. The new findings allege that the Israeli police conducted warrantless phone taps on Israeli politicians and activists, among others. According to the report, NSO Group, which was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Commerce in November 2021, provided its flagship spyware…
Roughly half the Twitter accounts pushing to 'reopen America' are bots, researchers found There's been a surge in bot activity in the past month in online discussions about reopening America from COVID-19 shutdowns, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University said this week. The researchers analyzed over 200 million tweets discussing COVID-19 and found that roughly half the accounts were likely bots. They identified the bots by looking for accounts that tweeted more frequently than humanly possible…


text:
package com.droid.bean;

import android.widget.ImageView;
import android.widget.RelativeLayout;
import android.widget.TextView;

public class AppItem {

	public RelativeLayout layout;
	public ImageView imageView1,imageView2,imageView3;
	public TextView textView;
	public String packageName = null;
}