We have never promised anyone that we would get their website to the very top of Google. We promise to use the very best techniques that have proven to deliver fantastic results in the past, but we can't force Google to do anything. If they don't want to put your site at number 1 then they won't.
We're trustworthy! However, many, many others aren't and will be happy to promise everything, take your money, deliver nothing and then point to the small print.
Thankfully, Google has come out and gone on the record about these guys. Don't trust them. Trust us instead!


This class offers a possibility to explore the Italic Script. This script is one of the most popular and versatile hands in calligraphy. ENTRY REQUIREMENTS: New students are not required to have any knowledge. It would be helpful though if you would have some idea of what you are aiming for. If, however, some participants have done calligraphy in the past there will be plenty of opportunity to widen and deepen your existing knowledge. WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT TO LEARN: To understand the basics of calligraphy in terms of lettering, spacing composition, and above all the desire to continue. HOW THE COURSE WILL BE TAUGHT: Unfortunately, calligraphy can be a bit off-putting in its initial stage. For those who are serious about learning the art, I will do my best to encourage all to keep at it. Plenty of handouts will usually be provided. MATERIALS REQUIRED BY STUDENTS: New students are expected to bring along: An A 3 Layout Pad by Daler Rowney; 2 Calligraphy markers, width 3.5 mm and 5mm; and a pencil and ruler. Students will be informed about additional material during class. Information about the tutor: Working as Designer, Illustrator, Fine artist and Calligrapher since 1989, extensive teaching activities both in Germany and Britain since 2006, founder of Red Balloon Studio in 2009. Bachelor of Design (Graphic Design) and Master of Design (Illustration). For further information, please see www.redballoonstudio.co.uk NB: There is very limited parking available at this venue, particularly when school events are taking place.


The color of diapers and training pants is typically achieved through the addition of color pigments to the inner and outer cover materials. This is also true for Seventh Generation diapers and training pants.
While most designs on the market use pigments that results in a white color, we use a combination of pigments that results in a light brown color. Without the addition of color pigments, these materials would be colorless, much like a plastic milk jug. We tested that with moms. Turns out, clear diapers are not something any mom wants to see!
We use brown pigments to help distinguish Seventh Generation Chlorine Free diapers and training pants from others in the marketplace that are bleached with chlorine-containing substances. All disposable diapers and training pants, including Seventh Generation's, rely on man-made materials to deliver the high-level performance that parents expect. These materials are mostly petroleum-derived and are not renewable, which adversely impacts the environmental footprint associated with these products. At Seventh Generation, we are pleased to offer an alternative that is not bleached with chlorine, and are working hard to improve further the sustainability of our diaper products.


text:
Scot Ferrell: The New Executive Code To Business Behavior
Cheryl Conner Former Contributor
I write about small businesses doing innovative PR
He's "Dr. Phil Meets Pearl Jam"–best-selling author, radio host, family and business strategist, and yes, a rock aficionado who's releasing the new book Your Rulz, Your Resultz: The Executive Code For Business And Behavior, as a guide for successful business in 2015.
In December I had the chance to visit with Ferrell and his wife, Patricia (she's an entrepreneur, too) about his observations on company culture and what it will take for companies to be successful in 2015. As he prepares for launch, Scot notes a few of his top observations about the state of companies and culture today:
Leaders Should Fix Themselves First
In a nutshell, Ferrell says, the majority of business owners are disconnected from reality today. For companies to become stronger, owners and leaders should fix themselves first. Every person in a business will mirror the values, the integrity and the strengths (or lack of strengths) the company's leaders display.
"Leaders should fix themselves first," says Scot Ferrell, radio personality and author of "Your... [+] Rulz, Your Resultz" (Image courtesy of ScotFerrell.com)
"It's just like a family," he says. "You can't be one person in business and another at home. Leaders set the tone."
"In family management I always maintain that if you've met the parents, you've met the kids, and if you've met the kids, you've met the parents," he maintains. "The principle holds true for leaders in business as well. If the CEO or leader takes shortcuts or lacks integrity, the employees take note. And as employees exhibit leadership's characteristics, for good and for bad, customers will notice as well."
Hire for Character and Desire
Character and desire count more than talent as a company considers new hires, Ferrell says. "You can't 'train away' flawed character," he maintains. "But you can train a person of character to do anything fairly well."
"I suggest taking an employee with desire over an employee with talent anytime," Ferrell says. "Explain to them 'Why should I?' 'What's in it for me?' and they'll come through every time."
"Remember the strategies of your high school coaches. Look for the employee who knows how to be a team player and who knows how to work hard."
Customers Need to Feel at Home in Your Business
If a parking lot is dirty and disorganized, it's an indication the business is likely disorganized and haphazard as well, Ferrell says. "If you have a dirty parking lot, it's a sign. Your business is also a mess."
"But if you illustrate the right value system and discipline, and if you can make me feel at home and feel right, you make it easy for me to spend my money with you," Ferrell says. "Don't forget that your customers have ample choices."
For example, Ferrell notes that he and his wife are happy to seek out the Trump Hotel because Donald Trump upholds a brand that stands for excellence, he says. But in contrast he recounts the frustrating experience of walking into a well-known restaurant chain every day for two weeks to ask for iced coffee as displayed on the menu, complete with photo, only to be told it didn't exist or to be provided with a variety of unfamiliar and undesirable results. In this case, he knows he's discovered a company that is haphazard in training and quality and is unable to provide its customers in even a simple instance with a promised result.
How did Ferrell become so tuned in to company cultures? In part, he notes that as a life and family consultant, company employees and frequently even complete strangers have opened up about not only their lives but their company cultures to him. He's learned plenty. (As have they.) As an interesting side note, Ferrell has coached numerous individuals (employees, families and those who've gravitated to him by instinct) through a scientific approach he's developed for recovering from severe depression and disorders such as bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder and ADD/ADHD.
Interview with entrepreneurs Patricia and Scot Ferrell, CEO Space December Forum, Las Vegas
As a self-described former "sex, drug and rock and roller" (in actuality he is strongly religious) Ferrell's candor and untypical approach to new-world problems comes through strongly to his readers and fans. He's funny, too, as viewers will note from his various appearances on video broadcast and TV. Readers can order the new book and can reach Ferrell directly at www.scotferrell.com. As a fun note, I've learned that as of this posting Ferrell has also completed the launch of a new and nationally syndicated radio show on all things family and business. The new show airs on USA Radio Network affiliated stations at 12:00 p.m. EDT on Monday through Friday each week.
Gallery: 6 Business Deal Disasters
Cheryl Conner
I am an entrepreneur and communications expert from Salt Lake City and founder of SnappConner PR. I am the author of Beyond PR: Communicate Like A Champ In The Digital A...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


This perky player is a great gift idea for your favorite hoopster or the whole team, since we offer it in brunette and African American versions too! The custom details you provide will be hand painted in an attractive font onto these sports ornaments personalized to be cherished mementos and spirit-building gifts. Attractive cording makes it easy to display the blonde female basketball champ Christmas ornament personalized just for her and arriving in our posh velvet gift pouch.


Sofa for small living room design lounge furniture design ideas. Decoration: large size of living room sofa ideas design for small. Appealing small room sofa ideas for living couch elegant furniture. Living room small living alluring sofa ideas for small living rooms.


Enjoy another one of Brecht's posts! With some edits by me.
The highway direction Bialystok was at the other side of Warsaw so we spent around two hours to get there. We saw a hostel along the road and went in to ask directions how to get to Struga, a small place where the highway starts. To get there we had to take one bus, one metro and again one bus. While going to this place we met Adelbert, who escorted us towards Struga. He wanted to improve his English (I think he just wanted to cross swords, -Jules) so he was happy to join us for half an hour. We told him we are Belgians and he was excited about our national history. Adelbert was a very friendly gay guy and had a whole story to tell. He was beaten up by Polish police for being gay. He also grew up in a traditional family and had serious problems to feel free in his personal space.
His insights about different lifestyles between West and East were very clever. He made us laugh more than once but the underlying message of his humor was rather sarcastic towards the Polish government and lifestyle. Getting at Struga we drunk a beer with Adelbert.
We thumbed for about 20 minutes when Jack and Tom stopped. They were two friends going to Bialystok and where very amazed by our ambitions to get to Russia by hitchhiking.
The communication was very funny since we do not speak Polish and their English was very poor. The driving was at least a little crazy. The driving pace was very high and taking over was even worse.
Jack and Tomek were very helpful and friendly and offered us several beers at several places, but their driving was a bit stressful. They dropped us at a bar next to the highway where we said goodbye. From this point we got several short rides till the very north east of Poland.
We were picked up by Yuri at a gas station near Augustow. This Russian businessman was living in Poland and going to Kaunas by Via Baltica for a business meeting. We were very happy to meet someone going straight to Kaunas and who spoke decent English.
Юрий (Yuri), The friendliest Russian we had met today.


As editorial director, Jan Stafford plans and oversees strategy and operations for TechTarget's Application Development Media Group. She works closely with the editorial team to keep the group's sites focused on the information needs of software developers, testers, project and QA managers and others in the software development community. Jan has covered the computer industry for the last 20-plus years, writing about everything from personal computers to operating systems to server virtualization to application development. She has served in top editorial positions with several national trade publications, as a contributor to such publications as "PC Week Inside" and "Investor's Business Daily," and as a speaker at industry conferences. She came to Techtarget.com from VARBusiness. At TechTarget Inc., Jan has launched and served as site editor for various sites and blogs, including SearchServerVirtualization.com, SearchVMware.com, SearchEnterpriseLinux.com, SearchWindowsManageability.com, Virtualization Pro, EnterpriseLinuxLog and others. She has also been the editorial director for the Data Center Media Group.
As group managing editor, Bree works with the Application Development team to make sure the sites are up to date with news, tips and expert advice while maintaining a high editorial standard. She also assembles all of the site e-newsletters. Before starting at TechTarget in October 2005, Bree worked at MIT. She graduated with a BA in English from the University of Maine, Orono in 2001. E-mail Bree with any comments or suggestions for the sites.


text:
AAA Survey Shows Increasing Acceptance of Driverless Cars in the U.S.
AutomotiveDriveless carstechnology
For Business Owners: How a Cyber Security Team Can Improve Your Operations
Why Satellite Internet Attracts Numerous Applications in Remote Locations
Fewer Americans now embrace the possibility of sharing roads and highways with driverless cars, according to an American Automobile Association (AAA) survey.
The poll showed that 63% of motorists remain uneasy with the thought of using an automated vehicle, down from 78% during the same survey in March 2017. While the present figure remains large, the reduction meant that an estimated 20 million more Americans no longer have a negative perception of the technology.
Driverless Future
Automakers have tinkered with the development of self-driving cars in the recent years, which — as jtlamerica.com and other industry experts noted — led to an increase in demand for mechanical testing services. The AAA survey's results bode well for them, as many companies plan to launch limited commercial services by 2019 at the earliest.
Younger Americans comprised the most willing group to try the new technology. This seems unsurprising since most Millennials tend to favor the use of digital innovations for everyday life, with less than 50% showing concern about the risks of driverless cars, according to the survey. Nearly 75% of women remain uncomfortable with the use of a self-driving vehicle, however, while 52% of men share the sentiment.
Slow Adoption
AAA based its findings from surveying more than 1,000 respondents. The improved acceptance rate among them serves as good news, but companies still need to prove the technology's safety since 51% of respondents only expects to use semi-autonomous technology in the future.
This means that Americans are still cautious about completely placing their trust on a digital network. Still, proponents of self-driving cars have used the latest federal statistics on car crashes as a basis for the technology's viability. In 2016, drunk driving claimed almost 10,500 lives, while distracted and sleepy drivers caused 3,450 and 803 fatalities, respectively.
READ Guided by Satellites: 4 Applications That Use GPS for Pointing Locations
The survey indicates that automakers need to step up their research, development, and mechanical testing projects for automated cars. How about you? What's your opinion on riding a driverless vehicle?
Here's Why You Need to Get SIP for Your Business
3 Challenges Faced by the Insurance Industry


text:
Wounds, arterial and venous
Deep vein thrombosis/Blood clot
Limb salvage
Stent placement
Atherectomy
Endovenous ablation
Endovascular repair of aneurysm
Embolization
Our physicians are board-certified experts specializing in vascular medicine and endovascular procedures
Dr. Sreejit Nair
Sreejit Nair, MD is board-certified in vascular medicine/vascular interventional radiology/endovascular procedures. He specializes in minimally-invasive treatment of vascular diseases.
Dr. Nair received his medical training at the Cornell University Weill College of Medicine. After graduating from medical school, he completed 6 additional years of post graduate training at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center including specialty training in vascular interventional radiology.
Since graduating medical school, Dr Nair has 13 years of post-graduate experience including 7 years in private and academic practice. His primary objective is to provide safe, effective, and compassionate care for patients affected by vascular diseases using the latest minimally invasive treatments.
He is Assistant Adjunct Professor at Campbell University and is engaged in mentoring medical students. He holds a patent for a vascular biomedical device innovation and other patents pending and remains involved with developing new technologies. He is actively engaged in research and has multiple publications in the field of vascular medicine.
Dr. Ashwani Sastry
Dr. Ashwani "Ash" Sastry is an interventional cardiologist with extensive experience in the treatment of peripheral arterial disease, critical limb ischemia, and venous disease as well as cardiovascular disease. He is triple board certified in cardiovascular diseases, interventional cardiology, and endovascular medicine. He completed his cardiology training at the Duke University Medical Center, where he won the Walter Floyd Fellowship "Best Fellow of the Year" award. He completed his training in interventional cardiology and endovascular intervention at the Center for Interventional and Vascular Therapy at Columbia University. He returned to Duke University as Assistant Professor of Medicine in Cardiology where he taught interventional cardiology trainees at the Duke University Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory and single-handedly built a program for limb salvage and the treatment of critical limb ischemia at a Duke Lifepoint Hospital. He has worked extensively with the FDA office of device evaluation in providing advice and recommendations on the safety and effectiveness of novel vascular and cardiac devices. He holds multiple patents for vascular and cardiac devices.
Call us today on (919) 589-6968
Email: admin@sunrisevascular.net
© 2017 Sunrise Vascular, PLLC


People charged with domestic violence are often surprised to learn that they can be convicted solely based on their partner's testimony, Ottawa criminal lawyer Céline Dostaler tells AdvocateDaily.com.
Dostaler, founder of Céline Dostaler Professional Corporation, tells them that once somebody takes the stand, their testimony becomes evidence.
The judge will measure the credibility of the complainant's testimony, based on other evidence if any, and on how it stands up to cross-examination, she says.
"If the judge believes beyond a reasonable doubt that person's testimony and that all the evidence points toward the fact that something happened, he or she can convict the defendant," says Dostaler, who frequently represents people charged with domestic assault.
However, if the judge can't decide whether to believe the complainant or the accused — and both are potentially credible — he or she must acquit because they have reasonable doubt, she says.
It's the same standard that applies to any other type of assault, Dostaler adds.
Sometimes people are convicted without any physical evidence at all, Dostaler says. For instance, in historical domestic assault cases, a victim might tell police, "Oh, by the way, six years ago he pushed me as well." Then the complainant may go on to recall other past incidents, she says.
Often there isn't any DNA or other physical evidence in such historical assaults, but convictions still occur, Dostaler says.
"For an accused, it's difficult to understand why they would be charged, potentially even sent to jail, based on a person witnessing something that might have happened. It might have even been months or years ago, and there's no pictures, bruises, or videos to support the claim," she says.
The defence has to try to show, through cross-examination, that there are internal inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony as well as discrepancies with their previous statements, Dostaler says.
Sometimes prosecutors will try to introduce, as similar fact evidence, accounts of prior assaults even if the defendant has not been charged with them. That's something defence lawyers must vigorously oppose, she says.
At times, the Crown will prosecute a domestic violence case even if the complainant recants their earlier statements and no longer wishes to participate, Dostaler says.
Under certain conditions, the Crown can cross-examine such a recanting complainant to try to show that although they are not credible now, they were when they made their original statement, she says.
Whether the defence puts the accused on the stand is a strategic decision, Dostaler says.
"I will prepare my client — no matter what, whether or not they need to testify — as to what to expect if testifying," she says. That way they're ready if they do take the stand, Dostaler adds.
It's only after hearing the Crown's case that she and her client decide whether to testify, she says.
Article first posted on March 28th, 2019 at AdvocateDaily.com.


EV3DMPrinting filament is high quality grade filament manufactured to very tight tolerances for consistent feeding and stable prints.EV3DM Premium is the professional and quality choice of filament.
PLA Filament is a common type of filament for desktop 3D Printers because it is easier to print with and doesn't require a heat bed. PLA is more brittle than ABS and does not sand or machine as well as ABS does.
EV3DM Premium PLA 1.75mm filament is suitable for any FDM 3D printers consuming 1.75mm filament. The EV3DM Premium formula is odourless when printing and leaves out the rough spots other filaments have trouble delivering.


Music Disc Studio, The easiest way to burn Audio CDs, MP3 Discs and Data Discs. A fast Audio CD ripper is integrated in the program, as well as erasing any re-writable disc.
Many settings are also available to enhance your discs. . .


text:
Der Begriff Camelback bezeichnet
 eine amerikanische Lokomotivenbauart, siehe Camelback (Lokomotive)
 einen amerikanischen Berg, der Camelback Mountain bei Phoenix, Arizona

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Recently we've been developing an application that runs on a Win7 PC and has a slimmed down version that runs on Win7 Tablets. In our case we're using the HP Slate. Our development machines are running Win7 and VS2010. The development machines are on our domain while the HP Slates are not. The project has been going for some months now and we've been relying heavily on logging using Enterprise Library to know what errors we're up against. However, we all know that as the complexity of an application increases so does the likelihood that we may log incorrect, useless, or unrelated data. Enter the need for remote debugging. I thought this would be straightforward and easy but I was very much mistaken.
I started on the (MSDN http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/y7f5zaaa.aspx) in the section (How to: Set Up Remote Debugging http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bt727f1t.aspx). Here I learned that firewalls and permissions are the first huge hurdle called out by Microsoft. I must say when it comes to limited time firewalls are out. So instead of fighting my way through setting up firewalls to work correctly I just disabled them for all machines involved for this remote debugging session. Later in this same article it tells how to install the software required for the remote machine in order to debug remotely. There is broken link to the download center for the software required, but the optional location is on the VS2010 installation media in the folder (VS Media)\Remote Debugger. Be sure to install the correct version on the remote machine. Instructions for this are in the article.
STOP! Why? Because you really should figure out which users you're going to use on both the VS2010 host machine and the remote machine before trying to run the Debugging Monitor.
Two domains without two-way trust.
Two computers on a workgroup.
One computer on a workgroup, and the other on a domain.
Running the Remote debugging monitor (msvsmon) or Visual Studio as a local account.
Therefore, you must have a local user account on each computer, and both accounts must have the same user name and password. If you want to run msvsmon and Visual Studio under different user accounts, you must have two user accounts on each computer.
You can run Visual Studio under a domain account if the domain account has the same name and password as a local account. You must still have local accounts that have the same user name and password on each computer.
We will cover the last part in detail since that is the scenario I was faced with. In simple terms if your domain is named us and the user account is danny (us\danny) then the VS2010 hosting machine must have a local user account named danny with admin privileges with the same password as the us\danny account. Also, the remote machine, in my case the HP Slate, must have a local user account named danny with the same password as the other two danny accounts and must also be an admin on the machine. After all accounts are created and have been accessed for the first time restart all machines and boot the VS2010 hosting machine into the domain account (us\danny) and the remote machine into the local account with the same name as the domain account (machine name\danny).
This essentially means that three(3) accounts named danny must exist: us\danny, vs2010 machine name\danny, and remote machine name\danny and all of them must be admins on their respective boxes and all must use the same password.
Again returning to the list of articles on the (MSDN http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/y7f5zaaa.aspx) the next article is (How to: Run the Remote Debugging Monitor http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/xf8k2h6a.aspx). You have two choices at this point. Run the monitor as needed or run the monitor as a service. Because we will be constantly debugging using the HP Slate I decided to run the monitor as a service which requires a little extra work. You will need to run Local Security Policy. Then under Local Policies\User Rights Assignment there is a policy named Log on as a service that must be granted for the user that will be running the debugging monitor.
I'm still struggling with this a little. I cannot figure out how to have VS2010 compile and launch the application I want to debug on the remote machine. Instead copy the compiled project files from the bin\debug folder of your project to the remote machine (I suggest a location easy to access and replace files in). Run the executable on the remote machine then in VS2010 of the hosting machine open the Attach to Process dialog (ctrl + alt + p). There is a drop down name Qualifier that when opened will detect the machine you're trying to remote debug. Select the remote machine then attach to the process on the remote machine like you would as if the process were on the VS2010 hosting machine.
It only took a few hours to figure this all out. The part that kept killing me was the fact that even after you create a user account if you don't log on as that user then it will not be available for use. Remote debugging is definitely cool! It helped us figure out quite a few issues in our remote code very quickly. Now that I know how to set up a remote debugging environment I will be using it more often.


Is your business in crisis?
Do you feel things are spiralling out of control?
Is the ATO chasing you for unpaid taxes, GST or PAYGW?
Are you facing unexpected liabilities or legal action, and don't know where to turn?
Are you being kept awake at night, worrying about your business' future?
We have helped prevent many businesses from being forced into liquidation by negotiating with the ATO, ASIC and Lawyers to solve immediate statutory and payment problems, resolving commercial disputes, addressing operational inefficiencies and improving systems, processes, controls and cash flow.
Once control has been restored we focus on your recovery. We aim to bring this about as quickly as possible.
Recently Graeme Beveridge undertook an assignment to resolve a long-standing construction company failure where the 3 directors and their wives were declared Bankrupt in 2012 with personal guarantees of approx. $9.5 mill. Graeme was able to negotiate settlements with all the creditors for a fraction of the amounts owing and worked with the Bankruptcy Trustee with the ultimate result that all Bankruptcies were annulled, and the 3 families retained their homes and were able to move forward with their lives.
Your business has a greater chance of survival if problems are addressed sooner rather than later. The longer you leave it the harder it gets!


text:
TellyMix / News / Britain's Got Talent 2020 /
Britain's Got Talent star Lucy Kay announces new album
Posted December 17, 2018 13:18 by Josh Darvill
Britain's Got Talent 2020
Britain's Got Talent star Lucy Kay has revealed plans for a new album.
Lucy appeared on Britain's Got Talent in 2014 where she was runner up to classical group Collabro.
After the final, she signed a record deal and her debut album 'Fantasia' went on to reach number one in the classical album charts.
Now Lucy has announced details of her new highly anticipated follow up record via PledgeMusic. The record is due for release on 13th September 2019.
Lucy said: "I'm so excited to get cracking on this new album, and I would really love for YOU to be a part of this as it's my way of thanking you for making my dream become reality.
"I couldn't do any of this without all of the support you continue to give me"
You can get involved simply by pre-ordering the signed album exclusively on PledgeMusic here.
But if you want to get a bit more involved, you can grab unique experiences such as pledging for Lucy to sing in your living room, or join Lucy at an album recording session, or even to get a signed copy of unique memorabilia such as original scores of music or lyric sheets with Lucy's own working notes.
As well as working on her album, Lucy recently appeared as the Narrator in UK tour of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice musical Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.
The talented singer is currently appearing in Aladdin at Civic Hall, Ellesmere Port.
More on: Lucy Kay Britain's Got Talent 2020


text:
Justia › US Law › Case Law › California Case Law › Cal. App. 3d › Volume 25 › Walters v. Calderon
Walters v. Calderon
[Civ. No. 29315. Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division Two. May 22, 1972.]
DONALD WALTERS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOLA CALDERON, Individually and as Special Administratrix, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents
(Opinion by Taylor, P. J., with Kane and Rouse, JJ., concurring.) [25 Cal. App. 3d 864]
Charles M. Giovanetti for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Ryersen & Comstock and Harrison L. Comstock for Defendants and Respondents.
TAYLOR, P. J.
Donald Walters (hereafter Donald) appeals from an adverse judgment in his action to impose a constructive trust on the proceeds of a note and deed of trust assigned to respondent, Lola Calderon, by Donald's deceased adoptive father, William S. Walters fn. 1 (hereafter decedent). [25 Cal. App. 3d 867] Donald contends that: 1) as a donee beneficiary, he is entitled to quasi-specific performance of decedent's promise to convey the property to him in a 1942 agreement between the Tauzers and decedent; 2) his 1950 contract with decedent was valid, enforceable and supported by consideration; 3) Lola Calderon was not a bona fide purchaser and gave no adequate consideration for the assignment of the note and deed of trust; and 4) his remedies at law are inadequate. The case presents a question not previously decided in this state.
Viewing the record most strongly in favor of the judgment, the following facts appear. Donald, who was born in 1914, was the adopted son of William S. Walters who died on January 15, 1966, at the age of 84. About April 2, 1942, decedent and his first wife, Ruth, entered into an agreement with their attorney and friend, C. J. Tauzer, and his wife, Olive, which provided that: 1) the Tauzers were to pay off certain indebtednesses existing against some properties of decedent; 2) decedent would convey one-half interest in certain real and personal properties to the Tauzers; 3) the 4,370-acre Mountain Ranch owned by decedent would be conveyed one-half to the Tauzers, and operated jointly by decedent and the Tauzers, and all monies therefrom deposited in a joint account; decedent was to manage the ranch, and the Tauzers the business operations. Paragraph 6 of the agreement provided that "First parties [decedent and Ruth] are to execute a Will or Wills giving to their adopted daughter, Helen, fn. [2] the 52-acre ranch on Russian River [hereafter referred to as the lower ranch]; and to their adopted son a 294 acre ranch fn. [3] [hereafter referred to as the upper ranch], pursuant to certain trust provisions."
On September 11, 1949, after the death of his first wife, decedent married his second wife, Nell. Sometime before 1950 and concluding in the latter part of 1950, decedent and Olive Tauzer, the widow of C. J., settled all of their conflicting property rights arising out of the 1942 agreement.
After his marriage to his second wife, decedent discussed with his attorney, Henry Irwin, the possibility of creating a life estate for his second wife on the upper ranch and whether the 1942 agreement might cause any difficulties. Irwin advised decedent that in order to protect against any possible litigation with Donald, decedent should make an agreement with Donald, whereby Donald would waive the provisions of any other documents. On February 15, 1950, the parties executed an agreement prepared [25 Cal. App. 3d 868] by Irwin that provided, so far as pertinent: "(b) That for and in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements hereinafter contained, and for and in consideration of the love and affection each party hereto bears toward the other, the parties hereto agree as follows:
"1. Donald Walters, the Second Party, hereby waives and relinquishes, revokes and releases any and all agreements and any and all provisions contained in any and all agreements heretofore made by William S. Walters, First Party, with any person or persons wherein and whereby First Party agrees by his Will to devise and bequeath any property to Second Party.
"2. First Party agrees by his Last Will to devise and bequeath to Second Party the real property hereinafter described, subject to and reserving unto First Party the right by his Last Will to devise and bequeath a life estate to the wife of First Party living at the time of his death in and to the said real property, together with the rents, issues and profits therefrom to such wife during her lifetime.
"3. First Party, in his lifetime, may sell, lease and mortgage said property." At about the same time, Irwin prepared a will for decedent devising the upper ranch to Donald, subject to a life estate in favor of Nell.
Donald had no knowledge of the 1942 agreement until after his father's death, when he was advised of its existence. All that Donald knew about the 1950 agreement was that his father handed it to him and asked him to sign "to keep peace in the family."
Irwin represented decedent with respect to his divorce from Nell in 1956 or 1957. In the property settlement agreement executed on February 18, 1957, Nell relinquished all of her rights in the upper ranch.
Thereafter, pursuant to the provision in the 1950 agreement, Irwin represented decedent in a number of transactions, wherein decedent first sold 50.54 acres of the upper ranch to the Basalt Rock Company and on December 9, 1958, then sold 4.37 acres of the upper ranch to Joe Rochioli. Finally, on May 6, 1961, decedent sold the balance of the upper ranch to the Griffins, taking back the promissory note and deed of trust here in issue (hereafter the Griffin note).
On September 2, 1961, Irwin prepared another will for decedent, wherein decedent made specific cash bequests to various persons totaling $26,000, including a $5,000 bequest to Donald, and left the residue of his estate in trust for Donald's son. Irwin advised decedent that the will of September [25 Cal. App. 3d 869] 1961 was inconsistent with the 1950 agreement with Donald and could lead to litigation.
The Calderons worked for decedent and lived on the upper ranch from 1956 until May 1961. On May 6, 1961, they moved with decedent to the lower ranch and there provided a home for him until his death on January 15, 1966. On various occasions, decedent sought and received advice from Irwin that decedent had the right to use the proceeds of the Griffin note as he saw fit. Decedent spent some of the proceeds of the note to repair and remodel the home on the upper ranch so that he and the Calderons could live there.
On May 7, 1962, decedent, after consulting another attorney, executed a will making cash bequests of $3,800 to various persons and the personal property on the lower ranch to the Calderons. The residue of the estate was left to respondent, Lola Calderon.
Sometime before June 24, 1965, decedent asked Lola to drive him to Santa Rosa to see an attorney. After driving around Santa Rosa for several hours, he spotted a sign indicating the low offices of Richard L. Cooper. After several meetings with decedent, during which Cooper talked alone with decedent and assured himself of decedent's competency, Cooper prepared the assignment of the Griffin note and deed of trust to Lola. At the time of the execution of this document, Lola paid decedent $10. The assignment provided that Lola, besides paying the amount of $10, was to "provide a home for and considerately care for W. S. Walters, including medical and burial expenses, for the remainder of W. S. Walters' life." From the date of the execution of this assignment, Lola collected all the payments on the Griffin note and deed of trust, advanced funds of her own to pay decedent's bills and continued to provide him with a home. As of January 15, 1966, the outstanding balance due on the Griffin note and deed of trust was in excess of $60,000. The verified petition for special letters of administration filed by Lola indicated that at the time of his death, decedent's estate consisted of about $5,000 of personal property.
The trial court found that decedent's June 24, 1965 assignment of the note and deed of trust to Lola Calderon was executed for valuable consideration, was not executed as the result of any undue influence, was executed at a time when decedent was of sound mind and understood the nature of his act and was his free and voluntary act. As to the agreement of February 1950 between decedent and Donald, the trial court found that under the terms of that agreement, decedent had the right during his lifetime to sell, lease and mortgage the property that he therein had agreed [25 Cal. App. 3d 870] to devise to Donald, and that during his lifetime decedent sold the property. The court further found that: the terms of the 1950 agreement were not just and reasonable; the agreement was not supported by adequate consideration; and Donald had adequate remedies at law to enforce the 1950 agreement. The trial court then concluded that: 1) Donald was not entitled to have a constructive trust imposed against the proceeds of the note in the hands of the Calderons; 2) the agreement of February 1950 was invalid and ineffective for any purpose; and 3) the assignment of June 24, 1965, was legally valid and effective, and entered judgment accordingly.
[1a] The first question on appeal is that of Donald's status under the 1942 agreement between his father and the Tauzers. Donald argues that as donee beneficiary of the 1942 agreement, he is entitled to equitable relief. The trial court, however, found that he had no legal right to enforce the agreement as he was not a donee of the promisee.
Civil Code section 1559 provides: "A contract, made expressly for the benefit of a third person, may be enforced by him at any time before the parties thereto rescind it." Although the statute does not set forth the various categories of beneficiaries, California has generally adopted the categories of the Restatement of Contracts, section 133, set forth, so far as pertinent, in the footnote below. fn. 4 (Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. ABC Construction Co., 204 Cal. App. 2d 747 [22 Cal. Rptr. 540].)
[2] The question of whether a third party is a donee, creditor or incidental beneficiary is a question of construction and the intent must be gathered from reading the contract as a whole under the light of the circumstances under which it was entered (Ralph C. Sutro Co. v. Paramount Plastering, Inc., 216 Cal. App. 2d 433 [31 Cal.Rptr. 174]). The test is whether an intent to benefit the third party appears from the terms of the contract (Le Ballister v. Redwood Theatres, Inc., 1 Cal. App. 2d 447, 449 [36 P.2d 827]).
Here, there is no question that Donald was the adopted son referred to in paragraph 6 of the 1942 agreement. [3] However, it is not every [25 Cal. App. 3d 871] contract for the benefit of a third person that is enforceable by the beneficiary. The fact that he is incidentally named in the contract, or that the contract, if carried out according to its terms, would inure to his benefit, is not sufficient to entitle him to demand its fulfillment. It must appear to have been the intention of the parties to secure to him personally the benefit of its provisions.
[1b] In the instant case, a cursory reading of the 1942 agreement indicates the intent of decedent's promise to devise the upper ranch to Donald. But the crucial factor is the intent of the promisee to confer a benefit on the third party, as in a normal situation, the promisor is interested only in obtaining whatever consideration the promisee will provide for entering into the contract rather than in benefiting a third party. Normally, it is the promisee who is the one who must intend to benefit the third party (4 Corbin on Contracts, § 776, p. 18). Under the 1942 agreement, decedent is the promisor and the Tauzers the promisees of the promise to devise the ranch in question to Donald. Thus, if Donald obtained valid, enforceable third party beneficiary rights under the 1943 agreement, it must be established that there was also an intent by the Tauzers to confer a benefit on him.
While our research has disclosed no California case precisely in point, the leading case is Ridder v. Blethen (1946) 24 Wn.2d 552 [166 P.2d 834], which is on all fours with the instant case. In that case, Blethen, Sr., made a general overall business agreement with three brothers named Ridder for the organization of a corporation to publish the Seattle Times, then controlled by Blethen, Sr. The contract included a provision that Blethen, Sr., would make a last will and testament leaving his Class B stock in the corporation in trust for 21 years and on termination of the trust, the remainder to Blethen's four sons, equally. Subsequently, Blethen, Sr., made a will disinheriting one of his four sons and died. Clarence, Jr., the disinherited son, thereafter sued on the above contract, alleging that he had acquired an enforceable third party donee beneficiary right. The court, however, held that Clarence had no rights under the contract between his father and the Ridders and cited section 133 of the Restatement of Contracts for authority that the test in determining whether a party is a donee beneficiary is whether the promisee had an intent to make a gift to the purported donee beneficiary.
After reviewing all of the pertinent evidence, the court concluded that the principal purpose of the provision was to provide for management and control of the corporation by the Blethen family. The court particularly noted at page 838 that none of the Ridders knew any of the Blethen sons; [25 Cal. App. 3d 872] thus, there was no basis for any motive and purpose on their part to bestow a gift on Clarence. The court in Ridder also cited Hutton v. Gonser (1930) 159 Wash. 219 [292 P. 743], wherein a husband and wife made mutual and reciprocal wills. The wife died first and the husband then made a new will disinheriting some of his own collateral heirs who then sued in attempting to enforce the agreement. In denying the plaintiffs' right to recovery, the court noted at page 744 that under the contract in question, it would be unreasonable to assume any intent on the part of the wife to confer donee beneficiary rights upon her husband's collateral heirs.
Also in accord is the ruling in In re Conay's Estate (1953) 29 Misc.2d 1090 [121 N.Y.S.2d 481], adhered to on rehearing, 29 Misc.2d 1095 [125 N.Y.S.2d 62], and affirmed 284 App. Div. 950 [135 N.Y.S.2d 626]. In that case, two brothers, Louis and Max, partners in business, entered into an agreement, whereby each agreed to bequeath 50 percent of his interest in the business to the other, and the rest of his interest in the business to "other persons." Thereafter, each brother executed a will in accordance with the terms of their agreement. Max died and Louis inherited Max's entire interest in the business on condition that Louis pay the debts of the company and a sum to Max's widow. Louis did so. Several years later, Louis married and thereafter executed a new will that made no provision whatsoever for the persons named in the agreement with Max as legatees of his interest in the business. The legatees then sued on the theory that they were third party donee benficiaries of the original agreement between the brothers. In denying recovery, the court held at page 483 that a person not a party to the contract "acquires the status of donee beneficiary, and is therefore entitled to enforcement of the contract, if and only if the promise is particularly exacted by the promisee for the benefit of such third person" (italics supplied). The court relied on section 133 of the Restatement of Contracts and an earlier New York case, Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N.Y. 280, that held: "To give a third party, who may derive a benefit from the performance of the promise, an action, there must be, first, an intent by the promisee, to secure some benefit to the third part, ..."
Similarly here, as in Conay, supra, the evidence surrounding the execution of the 1942 agreement between decedent and the Tauzers indicated that the primary purpose of the agreement was the adjustment of their business affairs. As in Ridder, the Tauzers had no obligation of any kind to Donald. It follows that here, the trial court properly concluded that although Donald was expressly referred to in the 1942 agreement, he was merely an incidental beneficiary of that agreement. We note that Donald's sister in a prior litigation acquired her residuary interest in the lower ranch [25 Cal. App. 3d 873] mentioned in the 1942 agreement not by virtue of that agreement but because decedent had delivered a deed to her to the Tauzers.
Donald here, relying on Smith v. Anglo-California Trust Co., 205 Cal. 496, 502 [271 P. 898], and Fruitvale Canning Co. v. Cotton, 115 Cal. App. 2d 622, 625 [252 P.2d 953], argues that to permit a third person to bring an action on a contract, there must be "an intent clearly manifested by the promisor" to secure some benefit to a third person. However, in Lucas v. Hamm, 56 Cal. 2d 583, at page 591 [15 Cal. Rptr. 821, 364 P.2d 685], our Supreme Court said with reference to the Smith and Fruitvale cases: "This language, which was not necessary to the decision in either of the cases, is unfortunate. Insofar as intent to benefit a third person is important in determining his right to bring an action under a contract, it is sufficient that the promisor must have understood that the promisee had such intent. (Cf. Rest., Contracts, § 133, subds. 1(a) and 1(b); 4 Corbin on Contracts (1951) pp. 16-18; 2 Williston on Contracts (3d ed. 1959) pp. 836-839.) No specific manifestation by the promisor of an intent to benefit the third person is required. The language relied on by defendant is disapproved to the extent that it is inconsistent with these views." Here, as we have indicated above, there was no evidence indicating that the Tauzers had any intent to benefit Donald or that decedent understood that they had any such intent.
[4a] We turn next to the 1950 agreement between Donald and decedent. Donald contends that the agreement was supported by adequate and valid consideration. As indicated above, the agreement recited that the mutual promises of the parties were made in consideration of the love and affection that each party bears toward the other and also upon Donald's waiver. [5] As to love and affection, it is well settled in this state that while love and affection may constitute a sufficient consideration to uphold an agreement against creditors and subsequent purchasers, it does not constitute the valuable consideration necessary to support the validity of a contractual promise (Hanscome-James-Winship v. Ainger, 71 Cal. App. 735 [236 P. 325]; Ehret v. Ichioka, 247 Cal. App. 2d 637, 643 [55 Cal. Rptr. 869]; 1 Corbin on Contracts, § 131).
[4b] We turn next to the more complex question of whether, by the 1950 agreement, Donald relinquished any rights that he had under the 1942 agreement. Although we have concluded that Donald as an incidental beneficiary did not acquire any enforceable rights under the 1942 agreement, this is not necessarily determinative. [6] The rule is that relinquishment or forbearance of a claimed right is good consideration for the creation of a new right, regardless of whether the claimed right actually [25 Cal. App. 3d 874] was effective or not (Fuller v. Towne, 184 Cal. 89 [193 P. 88]). The determinative question is whether the purported right waived or relinquished was one that the promisee could have urged in good faith and which presented some bona fide question of validity, however slight, rather than whether the right was actually legally valid and effective (cf. Cuenin v. Lakin, 146 Cal. App. 2d 855, 858 [304 P.2d 157]).
It is clear, however, that where the right allegedly waived and relinquished was obviously worthless and ineffective, a promise to relinquish it would not constitute a valid consideration. City Street Improvement Co. v. Pearson, 181 Cal. 640 [185 P. 962, 20 A.L.R. 1317], so held where a promissory note was given in consideration of forbearance to foreclose a lien on a street assessment that both parties believed was valid. The assessment was void for technical reasons that were ascertainable from the public record. Also in accord are Goldner v. Jaffe, 171 Cal. App. 2d 751 [341 P.2d 354], Doria v. International Union, 196 Cal. App. 2d 22 [16 Cal. Rptr. 429], and Union Collection Co. v. Buckman, 150 Cal. 159, 164 [88 P. 708].
[4c] In the instant case, as indicated above, Donald testified that he had no knowledge of the existence of the 1942 agreement. The first time he ever saw the copy of the original of the 1942 agreement was on June 21, 1968, at a time when his deposition was being taken in the instant matter. He did not even know of the existence of the 1942 agreement until he was told about it after decedent's death. fn. 5
Donald also testified that at the time of the execution of the 1950 agreement, there was no discussion of consideration. All that occurred was that decedent brought the document to Donald and told him to sign "to keep peace in the family." Donald had no other discussion with decedent at that time and did not discuss it with Irwin until later. Even then, the only discussion with Irwin consisted of Irwin's statement that he was glad Donald had signed the document to keep peace in the family. fn. 6 Therefore, it appears that the purported right that Donald waived on entering into the 1950 agreement was not one that he could have advanced in good faith since he did not even know of the existence of the 1942 agreement at the time he executed the 1950 agreement. [25 Cal. App. 3d 875]
Even if we were to conclude that Donald's waiver of the unknown right would constitute technical legal consideration, there is the further question of whether the consideration is adequate to warrant the equitable relief requested. As indicated above, Donald sought to impose a constructive trust on the proceeds of the note from the sale of the upper ranch that decedent had allegedly promised to devise to Donald in the 1942 agreement. The remedy of constructive trust in this context is usually referred to as "quasi-specific performance" as it is not true specific performance of the original agreement to make a will. Accordingly, the classic requirements for specific performance must be met before the plaintiff is entitled to his remedy by way of constructive trust. It is a well settled equitable principle that specific performance of a contract cannot be granted unless the consideration is fully adequate and equitable. Civil Code section 3391 provides that specific performance cannot be enforced against the party to a contract "If he has not received an adequate consideration for the contract." [7] Where quasi-specific performance of a contract to make a will is sought, the existence of consideration is not sufficient. In addition, the consideration must also be equitably adequate (54 Cal.Jur.2d, Wills, § 532). (Notten v. Mensing, 20 Cal. App. 2d 694 [67 P.2d 734]; Baumann v. Kusian, 164 Cal. 582 [129 P. 986].)
Baumann is particularly pertinent as there, a husband and wife promised to their two adopted children at the time the children were taken from the orphanage that if the children remained at home as part of the family, they would receive all of the property. The children stayed home until their respective marriages. Thereafter, the husband and wife died leaving wills making different dispositions of their property. When the children attempted to sue for specific performance by way of a constructive trust, the court held that they were not entitled to the equitable remedy as the consideration they had given was not sufficiently adequate in a court of equity. The court noted that they gave up and sacrificed nothing of value.
[4d] The third clause of the 1950 agreement giving decedent all rights to mortgage and dispose of the upper ranch is completely inconsistent with the retention of any interest by Donald. Furthermore, decedent, before his death, totally divested himself of the upper ranch and thereby, by his conduct, revoked his promise to devise the property to Donald as he was entitled to do. Contracts to bequeath or devise property because of their ambulatory nature, are distinct from ordinary third party agreements (see 58 Va.L.Rev. 41).
Donald also argues that he is entitled to equitable relief as his remedy at law to enforce the 1950 agreement is clearly inadequate since the estate [25 Cal. App. 3d 876] of decedent, as indicated by the special letters filed, had assets of $5,000. We will not discuss this question as we have here concluded that Donald had no enforceable rights under the 1950 agreement.
[8a] Finally, Donald contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the 1965 assignment from decedent was supported by valuable consideration. Donald first argues that Mrs. Calderon was not a bona fide purchaser. [9] A bona fide purchaser is one who has purchased property for value without notice of any defects in the title of the seller. [8b] As Donald does not contend that Mrs. Calderon had any knowledge of any possible defects, his contention is confined to the question of value. [10] In dealing with the question of testing the status of a person as a bona fide purchaser, the question is one of legal consideration necessary to sustain an action for damages rather than the amount of consideration required in an equitable action for specific performance. As noted in Estate of Freeman, 238 Cal. App. 2d 486, 488-489 [48 Cal. Rptr. 1], ordinarily, a court will not weigh the sufficiency of the consideration once it is found to be of some value. "Generally, some value means any value whatsoever, even that of a peppercorn, a tomtit, fn. [7] or one dollar in hand" (italics added). [8c] In the instant case, the uncontroverted evidence indicates that decedent had independent advice concerning the making of the assignment. The assignment also specifically provided that Mrs. Calderon was to pay him $10 at the time of execution and was thereafter to provide a home and care for decedent, including medical and burial expenses, for the remainder of his life. The evidence also indicates that for several years prior to the 1965 agreement, decedent had lived with and been provided a home by Mrs. Calderon and her husband. Accordingly, the trial court properly concluded that the agreement, the 1965 assignment, was supported by adequate consideration and was enforceable.
Kane, J., and Rouse, J., concurred.
FN 1. Lola Calderon was named individually in her capacity as special administratrix of the estate; the remaining respondent is her husband, Paul Calderon.
FN [2]. In October 1949, decedent's adopted daughter Helen filed a complaint against decedent and won a judgment decreeing that decedent owned a life estate and she a remainder interest in the lower ranch. This result was not based on the 1942 agreement but on a gift deed that had been prepared and delivered to the Tauzers.
FN [3]. At the trial, the upper ranch was referred to as the "300 acre ranch."
FN 4. "(a) a donee beneficiary if it appears from the terms of the promise in view of the accompanying circumstances that the purpose of the promisee in obtaining the promise of all or part of the performance thereof is to make a gift to the beneficiary or to confer upon him a right against the promisor to some performance neither due nor supposed or asserted to be due from the promisee to the beneficiary;
"(b) a creditor beneficiary if no purpose to make a gift appears from the terms of the promise in view of the accompanying circumstances and performance of the promise will satisfy an actual or supposed or asserted duty of the promisee to the beneficiary ...
"(c) an incidental beneficiary if neither the facts stated in Clause (a) nor those stated in Clause (b) exist."
FN 5. Donald did testify that at one time his mother had told him that he would inherit the upper ranch from decedent. There was, however, no indication in the record of any relationship between decedent and Donald's mother or any connection between this statement and the provision in the 1942 agreement.
FN 6. Obviously, the trial court, as it was entitled to do, disbelieved Irwin's testimony that prior to the signing of the 1950 agreement, Donald had been informed of the 1942 agreement.
FN [7]. Defined by Webster's as a titmouse, e.g., a wren.


text:
Index of Military Strength
Index of Economic Freedom
America's Biggest Issues
Heritage Explains
Open Navigation Open Search
Explore Issues
Government Regulation
American Founders
Budget and Spending
Coal, Oil, Natural Gas
Infrastructure & Technology
Poverty & Welfare
Hunger and Food Programs
International Economies
Markets and Finance
Green Protectionism
COMMENTARY Environment
Aug 11th, 2010 3 min read
COMMENTARY BY
James M. Roberts
Research Fellow For Economic Freedom and Growth
James M. Roberts' primary responsibility is to edit the Rule of Law and Monetary Freedom sections of Index of Economic Freedom.
European policy makers and environmental groups want to restrict imports—but not in order to save the planet.
A recent article in the New York Times featured unsubstantiated accusations by Greenpeace that Indonesian pulp, paper, and palm oil conglomerate Sinar Mas is "secretly planning a massive expansion of pulp mills and cutting down essential forests, including habitats for endangered tigers." Alleging serious ecological harm, Greenpeace—along with the World Wildlife Fund, Friends of the Earth, and the Rainforest Action Network—is advocating trade restrictions on these products from Indonesia.
This attack on Indonesia's forestry sector bookends a recent blitz by Greenpeace activists against Indonesia's palm oil industry on similar grounds. Meanwhile, companies in Europe, North America, and Australia that produce competing agricultural commodities have lobbied their governments to impose trade restrictions against lower-cost products from Asia.
Welcome to the world of "green protectionism."
Western policy makers know it is against established trade law to block imports for protectionist purposes; no trade court would allow it. So they have shifted strategy. Policy makers who are hostile to foreign trade now echo the claims of radical environmental NGOs in an attempt to block imports on ecological grounds. In this way they achieve traditional protectionist goals via non-traditional means.
Take the forestry industry. The first "green shoots" of trouble for free trade in that sector began sprouting in the last couple of decades, when pulp and paper exports from Asia started to significantly impact world trade flows.
Serious efforts to block imports of forestry products began in the European Union (EU) when its "Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade" (FLEGT) Action Plan was published in 2003. It included provisions for "voluntary partnership agreements" between developing countries and the European Union, whereby both sides committed to government procurement policies allowing the purchase only of "legally harvested" timber.
But the FLEGT apparently did not hinder enough imports. In 2008, European protectionists and NGOs pushed through new EU regulations imposing additional regulatory "due diligence" burdens on European importers of pulp and paper products to ensure that EU officials would be the final arbiters of what constitutes "legal timber."
The global economic downturn of the past two years has engendered additional protectionist pressures and this summer the European Parliament actually voted to close EU markets to "illegal" timber. The new law covers "the whole timber supply chain from logging sites to European consumers [and] aims to guarantee legally sourced products access to EU markets while halting deforestation in third countries."
European protectionism is also now being found in sectors such as palm oil, which has made big gains in the European market against competitor products. The palm oil industry has been an important source of private-sector foreign direct investment, economic development, and employment for millions worldwide, including 570,000 Malaysians and more than 3 million Indonesians.
Greenpeace and the other environmental NGOs are leveling the same charges against palm oil producers that they employ against the forestry sector. They allege that companies buying goods from Asia's tropics are complicit in the destruction of rainforest and habitats for endangered species.
Thus these NGOs are pushing for adopting the EU's "Renewable Energy Directive" (RED), which would restrict imports of biofuels by imposing more onerous environmental standards on them than on biofuels produced in the EU such as rapeseed oil. Such favoritism is prohibited under the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) nondiscrimination and national treatment rules.
Contrary to Greenpeace's claims, palm oil is environmentally friendly, as it consumes less energy in production, uses less land, requires less input of fertilizers or pesticides, and generates more oil per hectare than other leading vegetable oils.
The EU should put a stop to green protectionism as it contravenes decades of beneficial work opening markets by the United States and its trading partners at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the WTO.
Green protectionism that undermines sustainable, private sector-led development and economic growth in Indonesia and elsewhere is reprehensible. The WTO should define green protectionism as an illegitimate (and actionable) intervention by governments in the marketplace.
The campaign by European-funded NGOs to restrict production in developing countries of forestry products, palm oil, and other commodities—coupled with efforts by the EU to limit access to its markets through protectionist measures such as the FLEGT and RED—would block future job creation, higher living standards, and poverty reduction in the very countries the NGOs claim to be protecting.
The EU should uphold its member states' principles of poverty alleviation through free trade and investment to encourage economic growth. If not, the losers will be both Western consumers and the industrious people of Indonesia, Malaysia, and many other countries whose citizens are seeking improved living standards and a better future for their children.
James M. Roberts is a research fellow for economic freedom and growth at the Center for International Trade and Economics at the Heritage Foundation.
First appeared in The Journal of American Enterprise Institute
More on This Issue
COMMENTARY 4 min read
Supreme Court Can and Should Resolve "Waters of the United States" Issue
A Different Perspective on Global Warming
Supreme Court Takes Up Challenges to Near Limitless Power of EPA


Zombies took over the peaceful city. As the member of elite SAS squad your goal is simple: eliminate every Zombie that approaches you. Shoot right in the head, and better be quick, Zombies can eat your brain within seconds, once they catch you. Defend and repair your outpost, buy and upgrade your weaponry and try to survive every new Zombies wave. Dark, gloomy and engaging experience for all Zombie games fans!


Last week I had the honor of being the mission speaker at the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's Students of the Year Grand Finale in Philadelphia. It was an amazing event raising over $200k in the fight against blood cancers. Fox 29 and Penn Medicine's Dr. Mike Cirigliano was the evening's emcee.
PASSION – Find something that you are passionate about, give 100% to it, and savagely devour it.
HUMILITY – You can be proud but still humble if you just focus your energy on the size of your footprint and not the sound of your footsteps.
KINDNESS – Yea, it really does matter. It's easy. It costs nothing and it can change two lives at a minimum. Yours and the recipient of your kindness. And sometimes the smallest acts can have the biggest impacts.
CHOICE – AHHHH yes. CHOICE. The one thing that every single person has that can create, define, or destroy depending on how you use it. Use it wisely.
And lastly – LIVE BOLDLY. ALWAYS sign up for tough and scary things in life because they better prepare you for the toughand scary things that WILL come your way that you DIDN'T sign up for.
This entry was posted in cancer, charity, leukemia & lymphoma society and tagged leukemia & lymphoma society, Lls, students of the year. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


text:
Defeated Sanity: Passages Into Deformity
Let me just state for the record that I love technical death metal...give me massive, twisting riffs, jazz-fusion influenced bass lines & lead guitar solos, flailing drum work & blast beats, menacing vocals, and complex, progressive song structures any day of the week and I'm a happy camper. Passages Into Deformity has a lot to like for myself and fans of this sort of thing, as Germany's Defeated Sanity look to take things to places even more extreme than on their previous efforts.
For the most part, I'm on board, as this platter is filled with intense riffing, acrobatic drum work, killer lead bass & guitar lines, and some absolutely pulverizing arragements, like on the brutal "Verblendung". It's when the band tries to be too brutal and too technical at the same time that the album tends to fail. Tracks like "Verses Of Deformity" and "Naraka" have some good moments, and some really slow, grinding breakdown dirges, but the manic blasting mixed with overly technical and sometimes noises passages just come across as unfocused and disjointed in spots. In addition, I'm just not feeling the growls & grunts here. They just don't add anything to these tunes, and are so low and incomprehensible that they become a distraction.
Bad vocals and a lack of direction on some songs aside, there are some crushing tunes on Passages Into Deformity that feature some blazing, jaw dropping instrumentation. While these guys aren't yet in the same league as Suffocation, Obscura, Spawn of Possession, and Nile, you'll definitely want to keep an eye on them.
1. Initiation
2. Naraka
3. Verblendung
4. Lusting For Transcendence
5. The Purging
6. Verses Of Deformity
7. Perspectives
8. Frenzy
9. Martyrium
Added: March 12th 2013
Related Link: Band @ Willowtip Records


Description: Community First National Bank is a business categorized under others depository institutions, which is part of the larger category national commercial banks. Community First National Bank is located at the address Centennial Square Shopping Center, 1610 Hover Street, Longmont, CO 80501 in Longmont, Colorado 80501-2445. The Manager is Janet Haas who can be contacted at (303)651-7777.


text:
Various Villains
By Jeff Smith, April 15, 2009
Marc Blitzstein's play The Cradle Will Rock had one of the most famous premieres in theater history. The Federal Theatre Project commissioned, then dumped, the piece, which the powers that be deemed too far left by even New Deal standards. On opening night, June 16, 1937, an injunction prevented the cast from performing and the government allegedly locked the theater's doors. Director Orson Welles found an empty space, the Venice Theatre, 20 blocks north, and the cast and audience paraded to the new site, protesting all the way. Instead of an orchestra, Blitzstein played his songs on a piano. So as not to violate their union contracts and perform on a stage, the cast sat in the audience and sang amid the most humble setting imaginable.
Everyone believed the feds locked the doors. But remember: along with being a theater artist, Orson Welles was a master promoter (a year later he went on CBS radio and convinced Americans that Martians were invading). In the classic agent provocateur tradition, Welles could easily have fastened the padlocks himself, cried "censorship," found the empty theater (on amazingly short notice), and garnered undreamed of press for the show.
Though performed rarely, productions of Cradle reproduce the original conditions: bare stage, piano, with the piano player shouting out scene numbers, à la Bertolt Brecht. The proletarian look was as radical for Broadway at the time as were Cradle's political underpinnings.
Called "a play with music," Cradle's an exposé of corruption in high places. It begins with poor Moll, streetwalking so she won't starve. In the scenes that follow, Blitzstein has various citizens prostitute themselves, to robber baron-like Mr. Mister, in order to thrive: Reverend Salvation waffles on the virtues of peace; Editor Daily slants the news; even artists cop to the lure of loot. Into this lion's den of iniquity charges stern-jawed, union-organizing Larry Foreman. He rocks the "cradle of liberty" and performs a secular harrowing of hell.
Stone Soup Theatre follows the Venice staging. When not performing, the cast sits on a raised area, as if part of the audience. Rocky DeHaro's costumes add a touch: the villains (evil Mr. Mister and the Steeltown Liberty Committee) dress in black and white; while the oppressed menchen — Foreman, Moll, and poor Harry Druggist, who loses his son in a nonunion bombing — are in living color.
The production's both fun and frustrating. Vocally it's a mix of able singers (Christopher T. Miller's uncaped crusader, Larry Foreman, vitalizes the room; Byran Curtiss White's Rev. Salvation ladles understated ironies) and performers for whom the rapid-fire score is either beyond their range or their abilities. All tend to blast through the lyrics and garble the words.
In a way, playing the various villains goes against an actor's training. Most of them are types, not dimensional beings, and should be played as generic sellouts. Brett Daniels, who looks a lot like Orson Welles, has a strong presence and obvious talent but underplays Mr. Mister, who could be more obviously evil.
The whole production feels toned down, in fact. It needs a major dose of agitprop: angry, screwball (cartoony if necessary), eager to irritate. These folks finally have the chance — maybe their first and last — to tell their story. They'll do anything to shake up the status quo. Anything.
The printer who erred with the one- and two-cent Mauritius stamps in 1847 — inked "post office" instead of "post paid" — would be astonished at the hubbub he caused 150 years later. So is passive Jackie, who brings her ancestral stamp collection to an appraiser, expecting to pick up a few shekels for the lot. Those two "tiny pieces of paper" turn out to be the "crown jewel of philately" worth, in Theresa Rebeck's talky thriller Mauritius, lying, cheating, and conniving for.
Along with her half-sister Mary, whose greed grows in every scene, Jackie encounters a trio straight out of American Buffalo but with a twist. They're competent: the stamp appraiser knows his stuff, the young wannabe's streetwise, and the moneyman's loaded with ill-gotten gains and an ill temper to match. Each is a practiced tactician, but so, it turns out, is Jackie.
Jessica John heads a game Cygnet Theatre cast as nerdy Jackie, the lamb that John expertly metamorphoses into a lion. John DeCarlo's compulsive-talking Dennis, Sandy Campbell's upscale, backstabbing Mary, and Jack Missett's sleazy Philip contribute. Skin-headed Manny Fernandes (who's getting scary good in these roles) ladles essentially comic scenes with a palpable menace as Sterling. George Ye's fight choreography, some of the best around here in many a moon, turns Sean Fanning's inventive two-way set into a danger zone, especially when Sterling doesn't have his way.
The Cradle Will Rock, by Marc Blitzstein
10th Avenue Theatre, 930 Tenth Avenue, downtown
Directed by Lindsey Duoos Gearhart; cast: Calah Beck, Andy Collins, Sarah Michelle Cuc, Brett Daniels, Tom Doyle, Katie Harroff, Christopher T. Miller, Amy Northcutt, Doug Shattuck, Anthony Simone, Billy Thompson, Bryan Curtiss White; scenic design, Lindsey Duoos Gearhart; costumes, Rocky DeHaro; lighting, Kandice Smalley; musical director, Billy Thompson
Playing through April 26; Thursday through Saturday at 8:00 p.m. Sunday at 7:00 p.m. 619-287-3065 or www.stonesouptheatre.net
Mauritius, by Theresa Rebeck
Cygnet Theatre, Rolando Stage, 6663 El Cajon Boulevard, College Area
Directed by Francis Gercke; cast: Jessica John, Sandy Campbell, John DeCarlo, Manny Fernandes, Jack Missett; scenic design, Sean Fanning; costumes, Jessica John; lighting, Eric Lotze; sound, Matt Lescault-Wood
Playing through May 10; Wednesday at 7:30 p.m., Thursday through Saturday at 8:00 p.m. Sunday at 7:00 p.m. Matinee Sunday at 2:00 p.m. 619-337-1525.
More stories by Jeff Smith
Mania with Meaning — Jan. 20, 2010
Two Against Nature — Sept. 2, 2009
A Smidge of the Harpy — April 29, 2009
When People Lost Their Ideals — Jan. 28, 2009
One Down, One Up — May 14, 2008