One of the best things that ever happened in technology was the invention of email. Since the introduction of email, connecting with people have become easy as a breeze. It became one of the major forms of communication across the world since mobile phone tariffs were still not affordable for everyone to make calls abroad. Gradually email became one of the preferred modes of communication within or outside an organization for work purpose and since then, there has been no looking back.
Today, it's a must to have an email function in the smartphone to keep your work communication going while on the move. However, email is not easy to manage. Sorting your important emails, answering emails on time, deleting the ones you don't need like spam or promotional emails, unsubscribing from unwanted newsletters, and of course managing those property endowing emails from some overseas prince can be totally baffling.
However, to manage this problem, many companies have introduced desktop email clients. Windows being the majorly used operating system, there's more demand for email desktop clients for the platform. There are plenty of email clients for desktops that makes it tough to select the best. We have handpicked some of the best out of them specially for you. Read on..
Mailbird 2.0, an award-winning email client for Windows, is clearly the favourite in the list with its well-arranged tools that works with all the major email providers out there. It's a lightweight software that does not slow down your system. Best of all, it can be customized to make it look the way you want.
One of its main features is that it allows you to use multiple mailboxes at the same time. You can sign in to all these mailboxes at a time and these allow you access to inboxes in the exact condition your web mail inbox is arranged in.
Mailbird puts the widescreens to best of use by offering a calendar view. It also offers support for different third-party apps namely Facebook, WhatsApp Web, Google Calendar, Dropbox, and more. What we especially like about this email client is its function of "Undo Send" which is uncommon.
The best part about Microsoft Outlook is that it already comes bundled with most of the Office 365 plans. However, for advanced features you can buy the paid version. What's interesting is, MS Outlook supports almost every email service known thus, helping you to manage all your email addresses in one single place.
It also includes features like calendar and task integration, along with many other modifiable inbox rules that help you keep you updated. You also get access to many other features like, setting notification sounds as you receive a message from a specific person containing certain keywords, or moving an email to a folder automatically as you receive it from a specific address. This feature helps you manage your work and personal emails separate from each other.
Although the development for Thunderboard ceased in 2012, its maintenance updates are still up and working. A stable version update was released this year proving that its not yet dead. Existing clients would not receive any new features, but the email client can be still used.
Best of all, Thunderbird is the only desktop email client that's absolutely free of cost, and open source. It's the only free email client that deserves to be in the list. It's the best bet for those who do not want to switch to web-based client. Bonus – it comes with large variety of plug-ins, it's simple and stable.
It's a Windows app lets you stay updated with your emails, keeping in touch with people you care about, and even manage your schedule, all at the same time and at one single place. Mail and Calendar app is exclusively developed for both home and work users.
Among its biggest advantages are that this app helps you communicate with your connections fast and allows you to concentrate on what's more essential for all your email accounts. Best of all, it supports all major email accounts such as, Office 365, Exchange, Outlook.com, Gmail, Yahoo! and so on.
eM Client is known for its customization options that includes option for behaviour and appearance. It also provides support for email services like Outlook, Exchange, Gmail, and iCloud. It's a complete solution that helps you manage office tasks and communications simultaneously. Apart from being an email client, it also comes with integrated calendar, contacts organization, chat support, and task management features.
It comes with an intuitive user interface that makes it super smooth to bring in old messages from other services. Additionally, a specially designed sidebar displays message and attachment history along with a plan that consists of any crucial dates with a specific contact.
The app has released a new update offering PGP password support for those who want to send encrypted emails along with live backup. This will now work alongside your work within the app.
Nylas Mail, which was shut down in August 2017 was re-launched as Mailspring by one of its original developers. To keep the software running, he improved several of the internal components that lead to faster syncing, reduces usage of RAM, quick launch times, and so on.
Being an open source software, Mailspring is a great alternative to Thunderbird, especially if you are looking for something fresh, exciting, and full of potential for the future. Although it's free to use for unlimited period, for some advanced features you will buy the subscription.
Some of its major features are, support for email services like Yahoo, IMAP, Gmail, FastMail, iCloud, and Office 365, endless email accounts and consolidated inbox, undoing sent emails within a time-frame, and support for pre-designed themes, emojis, and layouts.
With a single inbox for all accounts, Postbox is a sleek Mozilla Thunderbird that definitely stands out in convenience. It's a simple, clear, and powerful email client that offers easy management, quick search, an aesthetically designed user interface. Moreover, it's known for its flexible email templates and social media integration.
Best of all, it retains some Mozilla Thunderbird traits, while some functionalities like self-learning automation, task management, or social media platforms are still to be explored. What we like about Postbox is that, it offers a thorough email experience, how it groups the emails smartly, and helping with free-form topics that help you organize your emails and focus on them.
It may not be the best email clients for Windows, but it does help you out with synchronizing your WebMail, and other accounts. While it downloads all unread emails automatically from your inbox, it does offer you the option to arrange mails by color coded priorities. It can also arrange mails by the type of attachment.
What we like about Opera Mail is that it's free of cost and designed on Mozilla code which makes it somewhat similar to Thunderbird in its appearance and performance. The user interface is intuitive and has a clean appearance which makes it convenient for the client. Moreover, after a bit of usage, Opera automatically picks up the right messages for the right folders based on last usage. This helps you to do away with manual sorting of emails and rather get it conveniently filtered.
If you are looking for a free and open source desktop email client, then Zimbra Desktop can be a great choice. It's been around for quite sometime and has gone through some big changes. Despite the changes, it still remains the best in the category.
Among its many features are, ability to sync with multiple email services, ability to run without internet connectivity, and best of all, it works on all major platforms such as, Linux, Windows 10, and Mac OS.
We especially love its tabbed layout that helps you to organize your mails easily, and offers useful tools like calendar, briefcase, contacts, and tasks that help you keep going all day. It also allows you to create your own add-ons called as Zimlets, or select from a group of current options.
Availbale for all major platforms, Sylpheed is an email client that has been in the business since 2001. While it may not be at par with the modern email clients, it's still a viable option for many. Its out-fashioned interface and approach to email arrangement is rather much useful.
The best part about Sylpheed is that it knows that it's an email client and so, offers facilities exactly for that. It comes with no added frills that does no good but just inflate the installation and make a mess of the interface. This email client is simple, easy to use, lightweight, and complete with features.
If you are scratching your head with an overloaded inbox quite often, then The Bat! Professional email client works just perfect for you. It's known for offering a wide range of inbox management tools. Installation is rather eas3, and adding your email accounts that work on POP3, MAPI, and IMAP4 is equally easy.
It's a secure desktop email client that safeguards your data through several encryption streams, with the choice to keep all information encrypted on your disc. It also helps protect emails during communication with the help of E2EE (end-to-end encryption). Moreover, it can run without the help of global email providers that store your messages in the cloud, where they can be unsafe. The Bat! protects your emails by keeping it on your computer, thus, making them private.
It blocks harmful codes and tracks pixels that spread via email and this, protects your data from email hackers.
TouchMail for Windows is designed for those with laptop or tablet that's touch enabled. It's mostly designed keeping the Windows 8+ in mind. It supports all accounts, webmail, and more.
What's interesting is that the emails are color coded in the live tiles layout that one can scroll to, till the end of the mailbox. It offers the facility to pinch zoom that helps you to adjust the number of tiles you can see at one time. You can easily move from tiny icons to previews of upto 4 mails at once.
You can use the button at the top right corner of the pane to switch between touch and input devices. You can find a list of unread mails arranged by sender when you move upwards from the bottom the screen.
Claws Mail comes with an old-day user interface and therefore, it's highly simple. Despite its simplicity, it's a powerful app that's tuned for advanced users who are skilled enough to set things up on their own. You can add an endless number of email accounts, however, that has to be done by you.
It's known to track and fix bugs quickly. Moreover, it updates itself pretty regularly. Best of all it takes up minimum amount of your PC memory and processing power which is a big plus for your systems. Bonus – plugins like SapmAssasin are some of the useful tools offered by the app.
There are more such email clients for Windows like the Hiri, FileOne, or the Seamonkey, but the above listed ones are definitely the best among the lot and highly popular due to their efficiency. So, get your preferred email client today and sort your emails easily.


text:
New loans being used for leisure
Chris Henwood
Thu 3rd Oct 2013, 22.22
The government's £232m pot of cash for FE loans could be going on courses not aimed at getting people into a job or higher education, FE Week has learned.
The cash was set aside by the Skills Funding Agency to fund provider "loan facilities" as part of the new 24+ advanced learning loans system, launched two months ago.
But FE Week has found loans being used to fund leisure-focussed courses, despite apprenticeship loan applications failing to take off.
Shadow Skills Minister Gordon Marsden has told of his concerns the loans may not be getting directed towards "retraining" and "reskilling".
"I will be asking the agency to look into the information FE Week has brought to light," he said.
It comes amid a government review of adult qualifications by Nigel Whitehead, BAE Systems group managing director of programmes and support.
Skills Minister Matthew Hancock told FE Week: "One of my goals in reviewing qualifications has always been to ensure they have a clear line of sight to work."
He added: "We plan to deliver that through traineeships and there's no reason that adult qualifications should be any different."
Among the leisure-focussed courses being advertised with the loan offer is a level three Royal Horticultural Society certificate in horticulture. It covers "practical skills" such as planting and pruning.
It is run at, among others, Bicton College, in Devon, where it is taught on a Monday afternoon.
The college has promoted its 24+ loans courses on Twitter with the hashtag #itsnevertoolate, and also advertises an NCFE certificate in creative craft, for learners to "explore and develop your latent creative potential" every Monday morning.
A 24+ government loan of £940 is needed to enrol, while the horticulture course is £750.
Jenny Tyrrell, head of marketing at Bicton College, said: "The college's focus is always on enabling individuals to upskill in order to secure employment or move into higher education and we only offer approved courses to our learners.
"Those who have completed courses, whether in agriculture, horticulture, or in numerous other areas, at Bicton College have gone on to build their own businesses, gain employment or achieve career change ambitions."
She said there was a "very clear skills shortage in areas such as horticulture, and the vast majority of our students leave college into careers or higher education courses of their choice".
Loans are used to pay course fees for those aged 24+ studying at levels three or four.
Course costs used to be halved between the learner and the government, but are now, in theory, paid in full by the learner.
However, to ensure such courses are free at the point of entry, the government pays fees up-front in the form of a loan for 100 per cent of the costs — in effect doubling the initial outlay from the public purse.
There is no suggestion Bicton, which has a loans facility and bursary allocation of £102,409, has broken any loans rules because there is no official stipulation that loans must be used on courses aimed at getting people jobs or into higher education.
But with more than 3,000 loan applications having been submitted for level three certificates, there is concern providers' finite loan facilities could be heading away from job-focussed programmes, such as advanced and higher-level apprenticeships.
These have seen a total of just 77 loan applications — compared to an expected figure for 2013/14 of around 25,000.
Mr Marsden said: "The details FE Week has uncovered are indeed worrying, even if they prove to be isolated examples.
"If they are part of a trend in which funding for 24+ loans is not helping to progress reskilling and retraining, then that would be of even more concern."
A joint statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the agency said: "The value, rigour and relevance of qualifications is currently the subject of a major review being led by Nigel Whitehead as part of government's drive to make the further education system responsive to the needs of employers and the wider economy."
Editorial: Loans not meant for leisure
Should limited public funding be used for level three gardening and creative craft courses that are taught for half a day a week — even if the funding is paid back?
You might think yes, but what if the loan funding (or "facilities") runs out?
This could mean there is nothing left for those wanting to study access to higher education courses or become apprentices.
The stats already indicate that there have been more applications for leisure courses than for apprenticeships.
And with more than 35,000 applications by the end of August — and September likely to be the busiest month for applications — it seems likely the loan funding will indeed be exhausted soon.
But if, like me and seemingly the Skills Minister, too, you think loans should be prioritised for adults wanting to go to university, into work or to do an apprenticeship, then this needs looking into.
The first thing the government should do is provide more detail on who and what loan applications are for.
Providers are screaming out for market analysis as to what is popular, and it would also help establish how significant the leisure course issue is.
From there the sector should come together to look at whether these loans should be directed at specific programmes.
Only then can we ensure funding ends up where it is most needed.
Nick Linford, editor
Steve Hewitt
That "what if" in the first sentence is doing an awful lot of work Nick. There's no suggestion that we're anywhere near anything that looks like the facility running out. Also these are Ofqual approved certificates so to suggest that they are purely "leisure" courses is demeaning to the learner who take them. I'm not a believer in this ridiculous utilitarian model of education as you well know, but these are perfectly reasonable qualifications in an area with real skills shortages, so why shouldn't learners access the funding that's available?
Nick Robin
I think you have to be very careful about condemning such courses, as there is a huge demand for qualified Horticulturalists and craft-orientated businesses in rural areas, which represent the majority of the UK landmass. To write them off as "leisure courses" is both condescending and censorious. Unemployment in rural areas is a major issue, and I think Bicton College should be congratulated on their enterprise in giving older people a new opportunity to train into a vibrant rural market – student loans are not all about University or tertiary education, but about letting people choose and enhance their life-skills for their own future employment, including self-employment – after all, they have to repay the money, so they should have choice at the start.
Fiona Aldridge
The Institute of Horticulture estimate that the total value of output for the horticulture industry in the UK is £9 billion per annum and provides regular employment for over 37,000 people. As their homepage explains "Many people see horticulture as gardening and horticulturists are therefore gardeners. But that is to take a very limited view of a broad and important industry which is vital to the health and quality of life of our nations." It is this trap that this article appears to have fallen into.
This is not an unfamiliar attitude to lifelong learning. We have been here before with 'cake decorating', 'floristry' and 'Pilates'. Again these are areas where thousands of micro and small businesses thrive and are a vibrant part of our economy. As we have said before – you can't tell the motivation of a learner by looking at the title of a course; there is no firm line between 'leisure' and 'vocational' courses.
There is clearly a role for good information, advice and guidance to help adults make the right choices. However if one of the aims of 24+ Advanced Learning Loans is to encourage individuals to make a greater investment in their own learning, then we should not be too hasty in our judgments of whether the learning they have chosen to invest in is worthwhile.
The move to look at learner outcomes might help inform views on whether particular courses are helping people into employment or onto further learning. Whether or not learning leads to a job it results in many wider benefits, including confidence and self esteem, which support people's employability skills. We should be celebrating the fact that many people recognise the value of choosing to invest in their own learning in this way.
Country Bumpkin
This is a non-story driven by a blinkered view of what happens outside London. If you had gathered views from the learners as to what their intentions are by studying such courses, then that might allow some reasoned judgements. Shoddy jounalism.
In related news, it appears that all of the RHS L3 Certs have a max Loan value of £1,246 (as they're PWF E) so these learners are actually getting a bargain if it's only £750 and that won't be far off the co-funding the courses generated last year (depending on provider factor, but this is an Ag college we're talking about), so it's no more of a "drain" on resources than it's ever been… Also if it's anything like our smaller L3 Certs I suspect they'll get people just paying, rather than getting a Loan for a relatively small amount.
Also, it's not the fault of vocational courses that Apps aren't being taken up, it's the fault of Loans for Apps being a bloody stupid idea…
Martin West
It is the SFA that decide what courses are funded and it is they who have included such courses for 24+ loans.
Providers do advertise the courses they provide and if an applicant is not eligible for agency funding full cost fees apply.
I think you should be making this point to the Agencies and not the Providers.
Sorry Nick poor journalism you missed the point.
Ian Nash
This FE week story hits the point and hits it well. It exposes the nonsense divide between so-called leisure and work-related courses. It shows the government's policies coming apart at the seams. As Steve Hewitt suggests, it is a folly to try and distinguish between work-related and leisure courses. Labour tried and failed woefully, as did the Tories before them with Schedule 2 of the 1992 FHE Act, and the Coalition has fallen into the same trap in the name of austerity. Yes, you have to make some judgments, attempt to draw some distinction for funding priorities. But such decisions have to left to the college, individuals and local agreements involving the whole community. All the rest is red tape and bureaucracy.
Martin West hits a key point when he says: "It is the SFA that decide what courses are funded and it is they who have included such courses for 24+ loans." The SFA's function here is to do the bidding of government paymasters first, to ration resources and put government priorities before locally identified needs or priorities. Deep down, for all their sweet talking, ministers do not trust colleges and other providers to get it right.
And your point, Nick, is spot on when you ask in your editorial: what happens when the money runs out? The perverse logic of government policy that sees private or work-based spending as "investment" and public or leisure-orientated spending as a drain on resources inevitably means that the limited cash will run out well before the skills needs of the UK are met. It is short-termism.
There is no one Royal work-based road to skills heaven; if education and training are really worth investing in, then we should invest properly, not cut corners and redefine what is valid and what is not simply to suit short-term economic expediency.
David Henley
This FE Week piece is a storming illustration of the prejudice and lack of understanding that is often directed at land based qualifications. At Bicton College in Devon we are proud of the real difference we make to peoples lives, providing new skills and work related qualifications across a wide range of land based industries. We are grateful for the commentators that have made some excellent rebuttal points in the remarks above.
To suggest that horticulture is a leisure subject misses the point that this industry needs an estimated 11,000 new entrants in the next decade to satisfy skills needs within the sector. Well trained horticulturalists can and do earn good money in landscape design, grounds and gardens maintenance, crop production, plant breeding and in the South West are in as much demand as a good plumber!
The slur directed at creative craft courses is also misdirected and obviously carelessly made. We support adult students, often women returners, whose ceative talents are released and inspired by our passionate teachers. Many go on to start their own businesses and make a worthwhile contribution to the rural economy.
Bicton offers courses that are valued by people living and working in the rural economy. Last year our work was inspected by Ofsted as 'good' in all graded areas. We don't make the rules regarding fundable qualifications or loans. We just follow them to provide all our learners with the best opportunities that we can. We don't discriminate: we cater for young and mature learners alike, men and women, though more women returners and career changers tend to study creative crafts. The vast majority of our learners across all subjects progress into useful careers.
The case study was prompted by a prejudice towards land-based qualifications, Nick Linford's Tweet seems to imply it was triggered by a throwaway remark made by a Principal in a meeting of Colleges. One would think that serious journalism would warrant a little more careful research!
Try this website for some serious minded insights: http://www.rhs.org.uk/News/Horticulture-Matters
Again, FE Week – Nick – looking for a story where none exists. Exactly what is the issue here? Loans being used for courses you define condecendingly as 'leisure', when many can and clearly are being used as a route to some form of work. Even if they do not lead to work, again, what is the issue?
Education is not purely driven by a utilitarian model of work-focus, or at least it shouldn't be.
If you don't like it, campaign for a change of rules.
While we're at it, have a go at the other providers who own awarding bodies, and shame the actual derisory minimum wage levels.
Hayley Monckton
This article reinforces misconceptions that are damaging to horticulture, implying that it isn't a skilled career and is only a hobby or leisure activity. As I work in the PR team at the RHS, you probably think that I would say that RHS qualifications are highly valued within the horticultural industry, but they undoubtedly are. They are used by the National Trust for their Horticultural Academy students and by RBG Kew as part of their academic studies for their horticultural apprenticeship students. In addition, over half the students who enrol on Level 3 RHS Certificate at RHS Qualification Centres, do so to further their careers.
Only a few months ago we launched an industry wide report to Government, called Horticulture Matters, which highlighted that more than 70% of horticultural businesses can't fill skilled vacancies, nearly 20% are forced to recruit overseas and almost 70% say career entrants are inadequately prepared for work. http://www.rhs.org.uk/Media/PDFs/News/1016-RHS-Hort-Careers-Brochure-AW-low-res-spreads
The shortage of horticultural skills impacts on every level of the industry; from the scientist researching plant diseases to the crop grower seeking a more sustainable secure harvest and the horticulturist advising architects on biodiversity in our cities.
Colleges shouldn't be shamed for advertising 24+ FE Loans with the RHS Level 3 Certificate as we urgently need to encourage new talent into the horticultural industry. One of the great things about RHS Qualifications is that they are accessible to all, from the amateur to the professional, what needs to be carefully considered is the reason behind the application for the 24+ loan scheme rather than this particular qualification itself.
Well that puts my 31 year career in Horticulture into perspective doesn't it!
If you are going to write an article at least try to research it properly.
Mr Young
Non story. As a garden professional myself I'd have been very interested to build on the success of my business with the skills and knowledge the RHS courses provide.
clearly a disappointing uptake in apprenticeships should surely beg the question, why are apprenticeships not as popular… ?
More time and energy directed toward that question would surely be a better use of resource.
To quote the Bicton College website about the RHS level 3 practical course
"Students who have completed this course go onto RHS level 3 theory certificates, or become self-employed gardeners and work for other organisations in a gardening role, plus working in plant nurseries and garden centres in a supervisory role."
There is no mention of it being a "leisure-focussed" course. It took a couple of minutes for me to check that.
Responses to David Henley

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Published 04/20/2019 02:42:22 pm at 04/20/2019 02:42:22 pm in Queen Size Mattress Topper Cover.
queen size mattress topper cover medical sheepskin bed pad underlay queen size queen size mattress topper pad.
mattress pad cover (queen size)- cooling mattress topper with thick cotton,queen size mattress pad cover,queen-size memory foam mattress topper cover,queen size mattress topper pad,queen size mattress topper cover, shop sunbeam waterproof queensize heated electric mattress pad sunbeam waterproof queensize heated electric mattress pad, foam sofa bed mattress pillow top by science of sleep pad cover foam sofa bed mattress pillow top by science of sleep pad cover queen, best sofa bed mattress topper reviews the sleep judge this is one of those pillowtop mattress pads , queen mattress toppers mattress pads bedding bath the home queen , biddeford heated queen size mattress pad page qvccom biddeford heated queen size mattress pad, solved making the foam mattress pad fit the queen size mattress mattress.


My onions were rather pitiful this year as well. Congrats on the canning marathon. Yowza!
Well, sort of. I'm moving. I just haven't decided yet if I'm going launch it over here now or wait until our farm site is going and move it all again to wordpress.org. I'm thinking I'll just stick with this, I like it way better than the old one.


text:
EASTLAND v. UNITED STATES SERVICEMEN'S FUND
EASTLAND v. UNITED STATES SERVICEMEN'S FUND, 421 U.S. 491 (1975)
EASTLAND v. UNITED STATES SERVICEMEN'S FUND(1975)
Argued: January 22, 1975Decided: May 27, 1975
The Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, pursuant to its authority under a Senate resolution to make a complete study of the administration, operation, and enforcement of the Internal Security Act of 1950, began an inquiry into the various activities of respondent organization, to determine whether they were potentially harmful to the morale of United States Armed Forces. In connection with such inquiry it issued a subpoena duces tecum to the bank where the organization had an account, ordering the bank to produce all records involving the account. The organization and two of its members then brought an action against the Chairman, Senator Members, Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee, and the bank to enjoin implementation of the subpoena on First Amendment grounds. The District Court dismissed the action. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, although courts should hesitate to interfere with congressional actions even where First Amendment rights are implicated, such restraint should not preclude judicial review where no alternative avenue of relief is available, and that if the subpoena was obeyed respondents' First Amendment rights would be violated. Held: The activities of the Senate Subcommittee, the individual Senators, and the Chief Counsel fall within the "legitimate legislative sphere," and since it is determined that such is the case, those activities are protected by the absolute prohibition of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution against being "questioned in any other Place" and hence are immune from judicial interference. Pp. 501-511.
(a) The applicability of the Clause to private civil actions is supported by the absoluteness of the term "shall not be questioned" and the sweep of the term "in any other Place." P. 503.
(b) Issuance of subpoenas such as the one in question is a legitimate use by Congress of its power to investigate, and the subpoena power may be exercised by a committee acting, as here, on behalf of one of the Houses. Pp. 503-505.
(c) Inquiry into the sources of the funds used to carry on activities suspected by a subcommittee of Congress to have a potential [421 U.S. 491, 492] for undermining the morale of the Armed Forces is within the legitimate legislative sphere. Pp. 505-507.
(d) There is no distinction between the Subcommittee's Members and its Chief Counsel insofar as complete immunity from the issuance of the subpoena under the Speech or Debate Clause is concerned, and since the Members are immune because the issuance of the subpoena is "essential to legislating," their aides share that immunity. P. 507.
(e) The subpoena cannot be held subject to judicial questioning on the alleged ground that it works an invasion of respondents' privacy, since it is "essential to legislating." P. 508.
(f) Nor can the subpoena be held outside the protection of speech or debate immunity on the alleged ground that the motive of the investigation was improper, since in determining the legitimacy of a congressional action the motives alleged to have prompted it are not to be considered. Pp. 508-509.
(g) In view of the absolute terms of the speech or debate protection, a mere allegation that First Amendment rights may be infringed by the subpoena does not warrant judicial interference. Pp. 509-511.
159 U.S. App. D.C. 352, 488 F.2d 1252, reversed and remanded.
BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BRENNAN and STEWART, JJ., joined, post, p. 513. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 518.
Herbert J. Miller, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Nathan Lewin and A. Raymond Randolph, Jr.
Nancy Stearns and Jeremiah S. Gutman argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to decide whether a federal court may enjoin the issuance by Congress of a subpoena duces tecum that directs a bank to produce the bank records of an organization which claims a First Amendment [421 U.S. 491, 493] privilege status for those records on the ground that they are the equivalent of confidential membership lists. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that compliance with the subpoena "would invade the constitutional rights" of the organization, and that judicial relief is available to prevent implementation of the subpoena.
In early 1970 the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security was given broad authority by the Senate to "make a complete and continuing study and investigation of . . . the administration, operation, and enforcement of the Internal Security Act of 1950 . . . ." S. Res. 341, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). The authority encompassed discovering the "extent, nature, and effect of subversive activities in the United States," and the resolution specifically directed inquiry concerning "infiltration by persons who are or may be under the domination of the foreign government . . . ." Ibid. See also S. Res. 366, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. (1950). Pursuant to that mandate the Subcommittee began an inquiry into the activities of respondent United States Servicemen's Fund, Inc. (USSF).
USSF describes itself as a nonprofit membership corporation supported by contributions. 1 Its stated purpose is "to further the welfare of persons who have served or are presently serving in the military." To accomplish its declared purpose USSF has engaged in various activities 2 directed at United States servicemen. [421 U.S. 491, 494] It established "coffeehouses" near domestic military installations, and aided the publication of "underground" newspapers for distribution on American military installations throughout the world. The coffeehouses were meeting places for servicemen, and the newspapers were specialized publications which USSF claims dealt with issues of concern to servicemen. Through these operations USSF attempted to communicate to servicemen its philosophy and attitudes concerning United States involvement in Southeast Asia. USSF claims the coffeehouses and newspapers became "the focus of dissent and expressions of opposition within the military toward the war in [Southeast Asia]." 3
In the course of its investigation of USSF, the Subcommittee concluded that a prima facie showing had been made of the need for further investigation, and it resolved that appropriate subpoenas, including subpoenas duces tecum could be issued. Petitioner Eastland, a United States Senator, is, as he was then, Chairman of the Subcommittee. On May 28, 1970, pursuant to the above authority, he signed a subpoena duces tecum, issued on behalf of the Subcommittee, to the bank where USSF then had an account. The subpoena commanded the bank to produce by June 4, 1970:
"any and all records appertaining to or involving the account or accounts of [USSF]. Such records to comprehend papers, correspondence, statements, checks, deposit slips and supporting documentation, or microfilm thereof within [the bank's] control or custody or within [its] means to produce."
From the record it appears the subpoena was never actually served on the bank. 4 In any event, before the [421 U.S. 491, 495] return date, USSF and two of its members brought this action to enjoin implementation of the subpoena duces tecum.
The complaint named as defendants Chairman Eastland, nine other Senators, the Chief Counsel to the Subcommittee, and the bank. 5 The complaint charged that the authorizing resolutions and the Subcommittee's actions implementing them were an unconstitutional abuse of the legislative power of inquiry, that the "sole purpose" of the Subcommittee investigation was to force "public disclosure of beliefs, opinions, expressions and associations of private citizens which may be unorthodox or unpopular," and that the "sole purpose" of the subpoena was to "harass, chill, punish and deter [USSF and its members] in their exercise of their rights and duties under the First Amendment and particularly to stifle the freedom of the press and association guaranteed by that amendment." 6 The subpoena was issued to the bank rather than to USSF and its members, the complaint claimed, "in order to deprive [them] of their rights to protect their private records, such as the sources of their contributions, as they would be entitled to do if the subpoenas had been issued against them directly." The complaint further claimed that financial support to [421 U.S. 491, 496] USSF is obtained exclusively through contributions from private individuals, and if the bank records are disclosed "much of that financial support will be withdrawn and USSF will be unable to continue its constitutionally protected activities." 7
For relief USSF and its members, the respondents, sought a permanent injunction restraining the Members of the Subcommittee and its Chief Counsel from trying to enforce the subpoena by contempt of Congress or other means and restraining the bank from complying with the subpoena. 8 Respondents also sought a declaratory judgment declaring the subpoena and the Senate resolutions void under the Constitution. No damages claim was made.
Since the return date on the subpoena was June 4, 1970, three days after the action was begun, enforcement of the subpoena was stayed 9 in order to avoid mootness and to prevent possible irreparable injury. The District Court then held hearings and took testimony on the matter. That court ultimately held 10 that respondents [421 U.S. 491, 497] had not made a sufficient showing of irreparable injury to warrant an injunction. The court also purported to strike a balance between the legislative interest and respondents' asserted First Amendment rights, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). It concluded that a valid legislative purpose existed for the inquiry because Congress was pursuing its functions, under Art. I, 8, of raising and supporting an army, and had a legitimate interest in "scrutiniz[ing] closely possible infiltration of subversive elements into an organization which directly affects the armed forces of this country." 11 Relying on Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959), the District Court concluded that the legislative interest must prevail over respondents' asserted rights, and denied respondents' motions for preliminary and permanent injunctions. It also dismissed as to the petitioner Senators after concluding that the Speech or Debate Clause immunizes them from suit. Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967).
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding first that, although courts should hesitate to interfere with congressional actions even where First Amendment rights clearly are implicated, such restraint could not preclude judicial review where no alternative avenue of relief is available other than "through the equitable powers of the court." 159 U.S. App. D.C. 352, 359, 488 F.2d 1252, 1259 (1973). Here the subpoena was directed to a third party which could not be expected to refuse [421 U.S. 491, 498] compliance; unless respondents could obtain judicial relief the bank might comply, the case would become moot, and the asserted violation of respondents' constitutional rights would be irreparable. Because the subpoena was not directed to respondents, the Court of Appeals noted, the traditional route for raising their defenses by refusing compliance and testing the legal issues in a contempt proceeding was not available to them. Ansara v. Eastland, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 29, 442 F.2d 751 (1971).
Second, the Court of Appeals concluded that if the subpoena were obeyed respondents' First Amendment rights would be violated. The court said:
"The right of voluntary associations, especially those engaged in activities which may not meet with popular favor, to be free from having either state or federal officials expose their affiliation and membership absent a compelling state or federal purpose has been made clear a number of times. See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 ; Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 ; Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 366 U.S. 293 (1961); Gibson v. Florida Legislative Committee, 372 U.S. 539 (1962); Pollard v. Roberts, 393 U.S. 14 (1968), affirming the judgment of the three-judge district court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, 283 F. Supp. 248 (1968)." 159 U.S. App. D.C., at 364, 488 F.2d, at 1264.
In this case that right would be violated, the Court of Appeals held, because discovery of the identities of donors was the admitted goal of the subpoena, id., at 367, 488 F.2d, at 1267, and that information could be gained as easily from bank records as from membership lists. Moreover, if donors' identities were revealed, or if donors reasonably feared that result, USSF's contributions would [421 U.S. 491, 499] decrease substantially, as had already occurred merely because of the threat posed by the subpoena. 12
The Court of Appeals then fashioned a remedy to deal with the supposed violation of rights. It ordered the District Court to "consider the extent to which committee counsel should properly be required to give evidence as to matters without the `legislative sphere.'" Id., at 370, 488 F.2d, at 1270. 13 It also ordered that the court should "be liberal in granting the right of amendment" to respondents to add other parties if thereby "the case can better proceed to a decision on the validity of the subpoena." Ibid. Members of Congress could be added as parties, the Court of Appeals said, if their presence is "unavoidable if a valid order is to be entered by the court to vindicate rights which would otherwise go unredressed." Ibid. The Court of Appeals concluded that [421 U.S. 491, 500] declaratory relief against Members is "preferable" to "any coercive order." Ibid. The clear implication is that the District Court was authorized to enter a "coercive order" which in context could mean that the Subcommittee could be prevented from pursuing its inquiry by use of a subpoena to the bank.
One judge dissented on the ground that the membership-list cases were distinguishable because in none of them was there a "showing that the lists were requested for a proper purpose." Id., at 377, 488 F.2d, at 1277. Here, on the other hand, the dissenting judge concluded, "there is a demonstrable relationship between the information sought and the valid legislative interest of the federal Congress" in discovering whether any money for USSF activities "came from foreign sources or subversive organizations," id., at 377, 378, 488 F.2d, at 1277, 1278; whether USSF activities may have constituted violations of 18 U.S.C. 2387 (a), which prohibits interference with the loyalty, discipline, or morale of the Armed Services; or whether the anonymity of USSF donors might have disguised persons who had not complied with the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, 22 U.S.C. 611 et seq. Finally, he noted that the prime purpose of the Subcommittee's inquiry was to investigate application of the Internal Security Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C. 781 et seq., and that, too, provided a legitimate congressional interest.
The dissenting judge then balanced the congressional interests against private rights, Barenblatt v. United States, supra; Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 198 (1957), and struck the balance in favor of the investigative role of Congress. He reasoned that there is no right to secrecy which can frustrate a legitimate congressional inquiry into an area where legislation may be had. 159 U.S. App. D.C., at 378-379, 382, 488 F.2d, at 1278-1279, [421 U.S. 491, 501] 1282. Absent a showing that the information sought could not be used in the legislative sphere, he concluded, judicial interference was unwarranted.
We conclude that the actions of the Senate Subcommittee, the individual Senators, and the Chief Counsel are protected by the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, 6, cl. 1, and are therefore immune from judicial interference. We reverse.
The question 14 to be resolved is whether the actions of the petitioners fall within the "sphere of legitimate legislative activity." If they do, the petitioners "shall not be questioned in any other Place" about those activities since the prohibitions of the Speech or Debate Clause are absolute, Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 312 -313 (1973); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 516 (1972); Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 623 n. 14 (1972); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 502 -503 (1969); Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S., at 84 -85; United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 184 -185 (1966); Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 569 (1959).
Without exception, our cases have read the Speech or Debate Clause broadly to effectuate its purposes. Kilbourn [421 U.S. 491, 502] v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 204 (1881); United States v. Johnson, supra, at 179; Powell v. McCormack, supra, at 502-503; United States v. Brewster, supra, at 508-509; Gravel v. United States, supra, at 617-618; cf. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 376 -378 (1951). The purpose of the Clause is to insure that the legislative function the Constitution allocates to Congress may be performed independently.
"The immunities of the Speech or Debate Clause were not written into the Constitution simply for the personal or private benefit of Members of Congress, but to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators." United States v. Brewster, supra, at 507.
In our system "the clause serves the additional function of reinforcing the separation of powers so deliberately established by the Founders." United States v. Johnson, supra, at 178.
The Clause is a product of the English experience. Kilbourn v. Thompson, supra; United States v. Johnson, supra, at 177-179. Due to that heritage our cases make it clear that the "central role" of the Clause is to "prevent intimidation of legislators by the Executive and accountability before a possibly hostile judiciary, United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 181 (1966)," Gravel v. United States, supra, at 617. That role is not the sole function of the Clause, however, and English history does not totally define the reach of the Clause. Rather, it "must be interpreted in light of the American experience, and in the context of the American constitutional scheme of government . . . ." United States v. Brewster, supra, at 508. Thus we have long held that, when it applies, the Clause provides protection against civil as well as criminal actions, and against actions brought by private individuals [421 U.S. 491, 503] as well as those initiated by the Executive Branch. Kilbourn v. Thompson, supra; Tenney v. Brandhove, supra; Doe v. McMillan, supra; Dombrowski v. Eastland, supra.
The applicability of the Clause to private civil actions is supported by the absoluteness of the term "shall not be questioned," and the sweep of the term "in any other Place." In reading the Clause broadly we have said that legislators acting within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity "should be protected not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves." Dombrowski v. Eastland, supra, at 85. Just as a criminal prosecution infringes upon the independence which the Clause is designed to preserve, a private civil action, whether for an injunction or damages, creates a distraction and forces Members to divert their time, energy, and attention from their legislative tasks to defend the litigation. Private civil actions also may be used to delay and disrupt the legislative function. Moreover, whether a criminal action is instituted by the Executive Branch, or a civil action is brought by private parties, judicial power is still brought to bear on Members of Congress and legislative independence is imperiled. We reaffirm that once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" the Speech or Debate Clause is an absolute bar to interference. Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S., at 314 .
In determining whether particular activities other than literal speech or debate fall within the "legitimate legislative sphere" we look to see whether the activities took place "in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it." Kilbourn v. [421 U.S. 491, 504] Thompson, 103 U.S., at 204 . More specifically, we must determine whether the activities are
"an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House." Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S., at 625 .
See Doe v. McMillan, supra, at 313.
The power to investigate and to do so through compulsory process plainly falls within that definition. This Court has often noted that the power to investigate is inherent in the power to make laws because "[a] legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change." McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 175 (1927). See Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204 (1821); United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 46 (1953). 15 Issuance of subpoenas such as the one in question here has long been held to be a legitimate use by Congress of its power to investigate. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S., at 188 .
"[W]here the legislative body does not itself possess [421 U.S. 491, 505] the requisite information - which not infrequently is true - recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed." McGrain v. Daugherty, supra, at 175.
It also has been held that the subpoena power may be exercised by a committee acting, as here, on behalf of one of the Houses. Id., at 158. Cf. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S., at 377 -378. Without such power the Subcommittee may not be able to do the task assigned to it by Congress. To conclude that the power of inquiry is other than an integral part of the legislative process would be a miserly reading of the Speech or Debate Clause in derogation of the "integrity of the legislative process." United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S., at 524 ; and United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S., at 172 .
We have already held that the act "of authorizing an investigation pursuant to which . . . materials were gathered" is an integral part of the legislative process. Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S., at 313 . The issuance of a subpoena pursuant to an authorized investigation is similarly an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking; without it our recognition that the act "of authorizing" is protected would be meaningless. To hold that Members of Congress are protected for authorizing an investigation, but not for issuing a subpoena in exercise of that authorization, would be a contradiction denigrating the power granted to Congress in Art. I and would indirectly impair the deliberations of Congress. Gravel, supra, at 625.
The particular investigation at issue here is related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress. [421 U.S. 491, 506] Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S., at 187 . On this record the pleadings show that the actions of the Members and the Chief Counsel fall within the "sphere of legitimate legislative activity." The Subcommittee was acting under an unambiguous resolution from the Senate authorizing it to make a complete study of the "administration, operation, and enforcement of the Internal Security Act of 1950 . . . ." S. Res. 341, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). That grant of authority is sufficient to show that the investigation upon which the Subcommittee had embarked concerned a subject on which "legislation could be had." McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S., at 177 ; see Communist Party v. Control Board, 367 U.S. 1 (1961).
The propriety of making USSF a subject of the investigation and subpoena is a subject on which the scope of our inquiry is narrow. Hutcheson v. United States, 369 U.S. 599, 618 -619 (1962). See Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 294 -295 (1929). "The courts should not go beyond the narrow confines of determining that a committee's inquiry may fairly be deemed within its province." Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, at 378. Cf. Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S., at 316 n. 10. Even the most cursory look at the facts presented by the pleadings reveals the legitimacy of the USSF subpoena. Inquiry into the sources of funds used to carry on activities suspected by a subcommittee of Congress to have a potential for undermining the morale of the Armed Forces is within the legitimate legislative sphere. Indeed, the complaint here tells us that USSF operated on or near military and naval bases, and that its facilities became the "focus of dissent" to declared national policy. Whether USSF activities violated any statute is not relevant; the inquiry was intended to inform Congress in an area where legislation may be had. USSF asserted it [421 U.S. 491, 507] does not know the sources of its funds; in light of the Senate authorization to the Subcommittee to investigate "infiltration by persons who are or may be under the domination of . . . foreign government," supra, at 493, and in view of the pleaded facts, it is clear that the subpoena to discover USSF's bank records "may fairly be deemed within [the Subcommittee's] province." Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, at 378.
We conclude that the Speech or Debate Clause provides complete immunity for the Members for issuance of this subpoena. We draw no distinction between the Members and the Chief Counsel. In Gravel, supra, we made it clear that "the day-to-day work of such aides is so critical to the Members' performance that they must be treated as [the Members'] alter egos . . . ." 408 U.S., at 616 -617. See also id., at 621. Here the complaint alleges that the "Subcommittee members and staff caused the . . . subpoena to be issued . . . under the authority of Senate Resolution 366 . . . ." The complaint thus does not distinguish between the activities of the Members and those of the Chief Counsel. Contrast, Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S., at 84 . Since the Members are immune because the issuance of the subpoena is "essential to legislating," their aides share that immunity. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S., at 621 ; Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S., at 317 .
Respondents rely on language in Gravel v. United States, supra, at 621:
"[N]o prior case has held that Members of Congress would be immune if they executed an invalid resolution by themselves carrying out an illegal arrest, or if, in order to secure information for a hearing, themselves seized the property or invaded [421 U.S. 491, 508] the privacy of a citizen. Neither they nor their aides should be immune from liability or questioning in such circumstances."
From this respondents argue that the subpoena works an invasion of their privacy, and thus cannot be immune from judicial questioning. The conclusion is unwarranted. The quoted language from Gravel referred to actions which were not "essential to legislating." Ibid. See United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966). For example, the arrest by the Sergeant at Arms was held unprotected in Kilbourn v. Thompson, supra, because it was not "essential to legislating." See Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521, 537 (1917). Quite the contrary is the case with a routine subpoena intended to gather information about a subject on which legislation may be had. See Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161 (1955).
Respondents also contend that the subpoena cannot be protected by the speech or debate immunity because the "sole purpose" of the investigation is to force "public disclosure of beliefs, opinions, expressions and associations of private citizens which may be unorthodox or unpopular." App. 16. Respondents view the scope of the privilege too narrowly. Our cases make clear that in determining the legitimacy of a congressional act we do not look to the motives alleged to have prompted it. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S., at 200 ; Hutcheson v. United States, 369 U.S., at 614 . In Brewster, we said that "the Speech or Debate Clause protects against inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts." 408 U.S., at 525 (emphasis added). And in Tenney v. Brandhove we said that "[t]he claim of an unworthy purpose does not destroy the privilege." 341 U.S., at 377 . If the mere allegation that a valid legislative [421 U.S. 491, 509] act was undertaken for an unworthy purpose would lift the protection of the Clause, then the Clause simply would not provide the protection historically undergirding it. "In times of political passion, dishonest or vindictive motives are readily attributed to legislative conduct and as readily believed." Id., at 378. The wisdom of congressional approach or methodology is not open to judicial veto. Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S., at 313 . Nor is the legitimacy of a congressional inquiry to be defined by what it produces. The very nature of the investigative function - like any research - is that it takes the searchers up some "blind alleys" and into nonproductive enterprises. To be a valid legislative inquiry there need be no predictable end result.
Finally, respondents argue that the purpose of the subpoena was to "harass, chill, punish and deter" them in the exercise of their First Amendment rights, App. 16, and thus that the subpoena cannot be protected by the Clause. Their theory seems to be that once it is alleged that First Amendment rights may be infringed by congressional action the Judiciary may intervene to protect those rights; the Court of Appeals seems to have subscribed to that theory. That approach, however, ignores the absolute nature of the speech or debate protection 16 [421 U.S. 491, 510] and our cases which have broadly construed that protection.
"Congressmen and their aides are immune from liability for their actions within the `legislative sphere,' Gravel v. United States, supra, at 624-625, even though their conduct, if performed in other than legislative contexts, would in itself be unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to criminal or civil statutes." Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S., at 312 -313.
For us to read the Clause as respondents suggest would create an exception not warranted by the language, purposes, or history of the Clause. Respondents make the familiar argument that the broad protection granted by the Clause creates a potential for abuse. That is correct, and in Brewster, supra, we noted that the risk of such abuse was "the conscious choice of the Framers" buttressed and justified by history. 408 U.S., at 516 . Our consistently broad construction of the Speech or [421 U.S. 491, 511] Debate Clause rests on the belief that it must be so construed to provide the independence which is its central purpose.
This case illustrates vividly the harm that judicial interference may cause. A legislative inquiry has been frustrated for nearly five years, during which the Members and their aide have been obliged to devote time to consultation with their counsel concerning the litigation, and have been distracted from the purpose of their inquiry. The Clause was written to prevent the need to be confronted by such "questioning" and to forbid invocation of judicial power to challenge the wisdom of Congress' use of its investigative authority. 17
When the Senate case was in the Court of Appeals it was consolidated with three other cases 18 because it was assumed that "a decision in [the Senate] case might well control the disposition of [the others]." Those cases [421 U.S. 491, 512] involved subpoenas from the House Internal Security Committee to banks for the bank records of certain organizations. As in the Senate aspect of this case, the organizations whose bank records were sought sued, alleging that if the subpoenas were honored their constitutional rights would be violated. The issue of speech or debate protection for Members and aides is presented in all the cases consolidated in the Court of Appeals. However, the complaints in the House cases are different from the complaint in the Senate case, additional parties are involved, and consequently additional issues may be presented.
Progress in the House cases was suspended when they were in the pleading stage awaiting the outcome of the Senate aspect of this case. The issues in them, therefore, have not been joined. Additionally, it appears that the Session in which the House subpoenas were issued has expired. Since the House, unlike the Senate, is not a continuing body, McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S., at 181 ; Gojack v. United States, 384 U.S. 702, 706 -707, n. 4 (1966), a question of mootness may be raised. Moreover it appears that the Committee that issued the subpoenas has been abolished by the House, H. Res. 5, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., Jan. 14, 1975. In view of these problems, and because the House aspects of this case were not briefed or argued here, we conclude it would be unwise to attempt to decide any issues they might present that are not resolved in the Senate aspect of this case. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S., at 496 n. 8; id., at 559 (STEWART, J., dissenting).
Judgment with respect to the Senate aspect of this case is reversed and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for entry of a judgment directing the District Court to dismiss the complaint. The House aspects of this case are remanded with directions to remand to [421 U.S. 491, 513] the District Court for further consideration consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
[ Footnote 1 ] USSF is, or has been, listed with the Internal Revenue Service as a tax-exempt charitable organization.
[ Footnote 2 ] According to the complaint filed in this action USSF has helped provide civilian legal defense for military personnel, and books, newspapers, and library material on request. App. 11.
[ Footnote 3 ] Ibid.
[ Footnote 4 ] The subpoena at issue here directed "Any U.S. Marshal" to serve and return, but there is no proof of service in the record. The [421 U.S. 491, 495] Subcommittee had issued two previous subpoenas duces tecum to the bank, but they had been withdrawn because of procedural problems. Apparently, at least one of those subpoenas actually was served on the bank. Id., at 13. The other subpoena also may have been served because the bank informed respondents of its existence. Id., at 14. Respondents claim all three subpoenas are substantially identical.
[ Footnote 5 ] Apparently, at least partially because the bank was never served, Tr. of Oral Arg. 22, 46, it has not participated in the action. Id., at 15, 19-20, 21-22. Therefore, as the case reaches us only the Senators and the Chief Counsel are active participants.
[ Footnote 6 ] App. 16.
[ Footnote 7 ] Id., at 17-18.
[ Footnote 8 ] Id., at 18.
[ Footnote 9 ] On June 1, the District Court refused to enter a temporary restraining order, but on June 4 the Court of Appeals stayed enforcement of the subpoena pending expedited consideration of the matter by the District Court. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the threat of irreparable injury if the subpoena were honored, and the significance of the issues involved, necessitated "the kind of consideration and deliberation that would be provided by . . . a hearing on an application for injunction." Id., at 22. One judge dissented.
[ Footnote 10 ] After the Court of Appeals stayed enforcement of the subpoena the District Court held an expedited hearing on respondents' motion for a preliminary injunction and petitioners' motion to dismiss. Afterwards the District Court denied both motions; however, the Court of Appeals again stayed enforcement of the subpoena pending further order. At that time the Court of Appeals ordered the District Court to proceed to final judgment on the merits, with a [421 U.S. 491, 497] view to consolidating any appeal from that judgment with the appeal on the denial of a preliminary injunction. The District Court then took testimony on the merits and, finally, denied respondents' motion for a permanent injunction against the subpoena. Appeal from that decision apparently was consolidated with the appeal from the denial of the preliminary injunction.
[ Footnote 11 ] Id., at 31.
[ Footnote 12 ] It appears that the District Court finding of failure to show irreparable injury was held clearly erroneous. 159 U.S. App. D.C. 352, 367, 488 F.2d 1252, 1267 (1973). See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52 (a).
[ Footnote 13 ] Respondents had made a motion in the District Court to compel petitioner Sourwine, the subcommittee counsel, to give testimony. The Senate passed a resolution, S. Res. 478, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., Oct. 13, 1970, authorizing Sourwine to testify only as to matters of public record. Respondents moved to compel further testimony from Sourwine, but the District Court denied the motion. The court ruled Sourwine's information "has been received by him pursuant to his official duties as a staff employee of the Senate . . . [and as] such, the information is within the privilege of the Senate . . . Senate Rule 301, Senate Manual, Senate Document No. 1 of the 90th Congress, First Session." App. 38. The court also ruled that the Senate made a timely and appropriate invocation of its privilege. Thus information held by Sourwine was not discoverable. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 26 (b) (1). Respondents' appeal from this ruling was heard by the Court of Appeals with their appeals from the denial of injunctive relief. 159 U.S. App. D.C., at 358, 488 F.2d, at 1258.
[ Footnote 14 ] On this record the Court of Appeals correctly held that the District Court properly entertained this action initially. 159 U.S. App. D.C., at 359-360, 488 F.2d, at 1259-1260. The Court of Appeals saw a significant difference between a subpoena that seeks information directly from a party and one that seeks the same information from a third person. In the former case the party can resist and thereby test the subpoena; in the latter case, however, unless a court may inquire to determine whether a legitimate legislative purpose is present, Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 312 -313 (1973); Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 624 (1972); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 376 (1951), compliance by the third person could frustrate any judicial inquiry.
[ Footnote 15 ] Although the power to investigate is necessarily broad it is not unlimited. Its boundaries are defined by its source. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 197 (1957). Thus, "[t]he scope of the power of inquiry . . . is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution." Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959); Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 291 -292 (1929). We have made it clear, however, that Congress is not invested with a "`general' power to inquire into private affairs." McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 173 (1927). The subject of any inquiry always must be one "on which legislation could be had." Id., at 177.
[ Footnote 16 ] In some situations we have balanced First Amendment rights against public interests, Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957); Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959), but those cases did not involve attempts by private parties to impede congressional action where the Speech or Debate Clause was raised by Congress by way of defense. Cf. United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 46 (1953). The cases were criminal prosecutions where defendants sought to justify their refusals to answer congressional inquiries by asserting their First Amendment rights. Different problems were presented from those here. Any interference with congressional action had already occurred when the cases reached us, and Congress was seeking the aid of the Judiciary to enforce its will. Our task was to perform the judicial function in criminal prosecutions, [421 U.S. 491, 510] and we properly scrutinized the predicates of the criminal prosecutions. Watkins, supra, at 208; Flaxer v. United States, 358 U.S. 147, 151 (1958); Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 162 , 169 (1955); Hutcheson v. United States, 369 U.S. 599, 630 -631 (1962) (Warren, C. J., dissenting); 640 (DOUGLAS, J., dissenting). As Mr. Justice Frankfurter said concurring in Watkins: "By . . . making the federal judiciary the affirmative agency for enforcing the authority that underlies the congressional power to punish for contempt, Congress necessarily brings into play the specific provisions of the Constitution relating to the prosecution of offenses and those implied restrictions under which courts function." 354 U.S., at 216 . Where we are presented with an attempt to interfere with an ongoing activity by Congress, and that activity is found to be within the legitimate legislative sphere, balancing plays no part. The speech or debate protection provides an absolute immunity from judicial interference. Collateral harm which may occur in the course of a legitimate legislative inquiry does not allow us to force the inquiry to "grind to a halt." Hutcheson v. United States, supra, at 618.
[ Footnote 17 ] Although the Speech or Debate Clause has never been read so broadly that legislators are "absolved of the responsibility of filing a motion to dismiss," Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 505 n. 25 (1969); see Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S., at 376 -377, the purposes which the Clause serves require that such motions be given the most expeditious treatment by district courts because one branch of Government is being asked to halt the functions of a coordinate branch. If there is a dismissal and an appeal, courts of appeals have a duty to see that the litigation is swiftly resolved. Enforcement of the Subcommittee's subpoena has been restrained since June 1970, nearly five years, while this litigation dragged through the courts. This protracted delay has frustrated a valid congressional inquiry.
[ Footnote 18 ] Progressive Labor Party v. Committee on Internal Security of the U.S. House of Representatives (C. A. No. 71-1609); National Peace Action Coalition v. Committee on Internal Security of the U.S. House of Representatives (C. A. No. 71-1693); Peoples Coalition for Peace and Justice v. Committee on Internal Security of the U.S. House of Representatives (C. A. No. 71-1717).
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART join, concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court that the Speech or Debate Clause protects the actions of the Senate petitioners in this case from judicial interference, and that the House aspects of this case should be reconsidered by the District Court. As our cases have consistently held, however, the Speech or Debate Clause protects legislators and their confidential aides from suit; it does not immunize congressional action from judicial review. I write today only to emphasize that the Speech or Debate Clause does not entirely immunize a congressional subpoena from challenge by a party not in a position to assert his constitutional rights by refusing to comply with it.
When the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security subpoenaed the records of the bank account of respondent USSF (hereinafter respondent), respondent brought this suit in the District of Columbia against the Members of the Subcommittee, its counsel, and the bank to declare invalid and restrain enforcement of the subpoena. Suit was brought in the District of Columbia because the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had held one week before in a suit against the same Subcommittee and its counsel that jurisdiction and venue lay only in the District of Columbia. Liberation News Service v. Eastland, 426 F.2d 1379 (1970). Having sued in the District of Columbia, however, respondent found that it could not get proper service on the New York [421 U.S. 491, 514] bank. Consequently, the only parties that it brought before the courts were the Senators and their counsel.
As the Court points out, the District Court properly entertained the action in order to provide a forum in which respondent could assert its constitutional objections to the subpoena, since a neutral third party could not be expected to resist the subpoena by placing itself in contempt. Ante, at 501 n. 14; see Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 12 (1918); United States v. Doe, 455 F.2d 753, 756-757 (CA1), vacated sub nom. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972); see also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 691 (1974). But a court's inquiry in such a setting is necessarily quite limited once defendants entitled to do so invoke the privilege of the Speech or Debate Clause, as was done here. If the Senators' actions were within the "legitimate legislative sphere," the matter ends there and they are answerable no further to the court. If their counsel's actions were in aid of that activity, then as a confidential employee of the Members, he is equally shielded from further judicial interference. Compare Gravel v. United States, supra, at 616-622, with Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 314 -316 (1973). 1 [421 U.S. 491, 515]
The Court applies this well-settled doctrine to the present case and holds that since the issuance of the subpoena fell within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity, the proceedings against the petitioners must come to an end. I do not read the Court to suggest, however, nor could I agree, that the constitutionality of a congressional subpoena is always shielded from more searching judicial inquiry. For, as the very cases on which the Court relies demonstrate, the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause is personal. It extends to Members and their counsel acting in a legislative capacity; it does not preclude judicial review of their decisions in an appropriate case, whether they take the form of legislation or a subpoena.
Modern legislatures, and particularly the Congress, may legislate on a wide range of subjects. In order to discharge this function, and their related informing function, they may genuinely need a great deal of information in the exclusive possession of persons who would not make it available except under the compulsion of a subpoena. When duly subpoenaed, however, such a person does not shed his constitutional right to withhold certain classes of information. If he refuses to testify or to produce documents and invokes a pertinent privilege, he still runs the risk that the legislature will cite him for contempt. 2 At trial he may defend on the basis of the constitutional right to withhold information from the legislature, and his right will be respected [421 U.S. 491, 516] along with the legitimate needs of the legislature. As the Court said in Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 188 (1957):
"The Bill of Rights is applicable to [congressional] investigations as to all forms of governmental action. Witnesses cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves. They cannot be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure. Nor can the First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, religion, or political belief and association be abridged."
Accord. Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U.S. 539 (1963); see Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161 (1955); Reinstein & Silverglate, Legislative Privilege and the Separation of Powers, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 1113, 1173-1176 (1973).
The Speech or Debate Clause cannot be used to avoid meaningful review of constitutional objections to a subpoena simply because the subpoena is served on a third party. Our prior cases arising under the Speech or Debate Clause indicate only that a Member of Congress or his aide may not be called upon to defend a subpoena against constitutional objection, and not that the objection will not be heard at all.
The privilege of the Speech or Debate Clause extends to Members of Congress when their action is "essential to legislating," in order to assure the independence of the legislators and their freedom from vexatious and distracting litigation. See United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 180 -182 (1966); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 512 (1972). Further, "a Member and his aide are to be `treated as one'" under the Clause, "insofar as the conduct of the latter would be a protected legislative act if performed by the Member himself." Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S., at 616 , 618. At the same time, however, the Speech or Debate Clause does not insulate [421 U.S. 491, 517] legislative functionaries carrying out nonlegislative tasks. Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S., at 315 .
Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1881), was an action to recover damages for false imprisonment. The Court held that the Speech or Debate Clause afforded the defendant Members of Congress a good defense since they had taken no part in Kilbourn's arrest other than to vote that the Sergeant at Arms accomplish it. The Sergeant at Arms, however, was held to answer for carrying out their unconstitutional directive; and Kilbourn later recovered $20,000 from him. See Kilbourn v. Thompson, MacArth. & M. 401, 432 (Sup. Ct. D.C. 1883). The basis for the Court's holding was not, however, as the Court seems at one point to suggest, ante, at 508, that the arrest was inessential to legislating. We have already twice observed that the "resolution authorizing Kilbourn's arrest . . . was clearly legislative in nature. But the resolution was subject to judicial review insofar as its execution impinged on a citizen's rights as it did there. That the House could with impunity order an unconstitutional arrest afforded no protection for those who made the arrest." Gravel, supra, at 618 (emphasis added); Doe v. McMillan, supra, at 315 n. 9.
This case does not present the questions of what would be the proper procedure, and who might be the proper parties defendant, in an effort to get before a court a constitutional challenge to a subpoena duces tecum issued to a third party. 3 As respondent's counsel conceded at oral argument, this case is at an end if the Senate petitioners [421 U.S. 491, 518] are upheld in their claim of immunity, as they must be. 4
[ Footnote 1 ] Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967), was a damages action against the same Chairman and Counsel Sourwine of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, based on allegations of a conspiracy with state officials to violate the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. The Court distinguished between the Senator and counsel, remanding only the case involving the latter for trial because there was disputed evidence in the record giving "more than merely colorable substance" to the claims against him, id., at 84; the record contained no evidence of the Senator's involvement in any activity that could give rise to liability. The Court noted that the doctrine of immunity for acts within the legislative sphere is "less absolute, although applicable, when applied to officers or employees of a legislative body, rather than to legislators themselves." Id., at 85. In the present case, where counsel is alleged [421 U.S. 491, 515] only to have joined with the Senators in causing the subpoena to be issued, we have no occasion to distinguish between Mr. Sourwine and the Senators.
[ Footnote 2 ] In the federal system, this is done by the appropriate chamber referring the matter to the United States Attorney for presentation to a grand jury, indictment, and trial in the federal courts. See 2 U.S.C. 192-194.
[ Footnote 3 ] See the opinion below, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 352, 370, 488 F.2d 1252, 1270 (1973); Liberation News Service v. Eastland, 426 F.2d 1379, 1384 n. 10 (CA2 1970); cf. Stamler v. Willis, 415 F.2d 1365, 1369 (CA7 1969).
[ Footnote 4 ] In the House aspects of this case, where the banks to which the subpoenas were directed are within the jurisdiction of the District Court, this would not necessarily be true if that court were to determine that the issues are not moot.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.
I would affirm the judgment below.
The basic issues in this case were canvassed by me in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 381 -383 (1951) (dissenting opinion), and by the Court in Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967), in an opinion which I joined. Under our federal regime that delegates, by the Constitution and Acts of Congress, awesome powers to individuals, those powers may not be used to deprive people of their First Amendment or other constitutional rights. It is my view that no official, no matter how high or majestic his or her office, who is within the reach of judicial process, may invoke immunity for his actions for which wrongdoers normally suffer. There may be few occasions when, on the merits, it would be appropriate to invoke such a remedy. But no regime of law that can rightfully claim that name may make trustees of these vast powers immune from actions brought by people who have been wronged by official action. See Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 198 (1957). [421 U.S. 491, 519]


text:
using System.IO;

using Ymirheim.Patching.PatchReader.Commands;

namespace Ymirheim.Patching.PatchReader
{
	/// <summary>
	/// Patch command factory.
	/// </summary>
	public interface ICommandFactory
	{
		/// <summary>
		/// Create patch command class by given command code using given BinaryReader to read patch file.
		/// </summary>
		/// <param name="code">Command code.</param>
		/// <param name="reader">Patch file binary reader.</param>
		/// <returns>Patch command instance.</returns>
		ICommand CreateCommandByCode(int code, BinaryReader reader);
	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


The whistleblower at the center of allegations that a U.K.-based company improperly used the personal data of some 50 million Facebook users to help Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election has expressed regret for having taken part in the project.
Chris Wylie on Tuesday told a packed audience at the Frontline Club, a media organization in London, that he is sorry he had worked for Cambridge Analytica.
When asked if he would compare himself to other whistleblowers, such as Daniel Ellsberg or Edward Snowden, Wylie demurred, saying his decision to come forward was more about contrition.
New Jersey's top law enforcement officer has launched an investigation after reports that a British data analysis firm captured information from 50 million Facebook users without their consent.
Attorney General Gurbir Grewal said Tuesday that his office was investigating how personal information came into the possession of Cambridge Analytica. New York and Massachusetts officials have also said they are launching a joint investigation.
Grewal says he's troubled by reports that Facebook may have allowed the company to harvest and monetize users' private data.
Cambridge Analytica is being investigated by British officials for its handling of Facebook users' personal data.
The board of the company suspended its chief executive pending a full independent investigation of his actions.
The top prosecutors in Massachusetts and New York have sent a letter to Facebook demanding the social media giant protect its users' private information.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched a joint investigation Saturday after reports that British data analysis firm Cambridge Analytica captured information from 50 million Facebook users without their consent. The firm is tied to President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.
Healey says residents in her state "deserve answers immediately" from Facebook and Cambridge Analytica about what data was shared and how the incident allowed to happen. Her office says it has been in touch with Facebook about the investigation.
A group of consumer-advocacy organizations is pressing the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Facebook's role in the use of personal data by a political research firm tied to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Campaign for Commercial Free Childhood and 10 other groups are urging the FTC to investigate whether Facebook violated an agreement Facebook signed with the FTC in 2011 offering privacy assurances.
Facebook Deputy Chief Privacy Officer Rob Sherman says the company would be willing to speak with federal regulators about the issue.
A former employee of a political data-mining firm that obtained information from Facebook users without their consent has agreed to be interviewed by Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee.
A person familiar with the interview says Christopher Wylie, a Cambridge Analytica employee-turned-whistleblower, will speak to the committee and provide documents. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the panel's schedule is not public. A date has not been set.
Wylie told news outlets that the company, which worked for President Donald Trump's campaign, used the data to build psychological profiles so voters could be targeted with ads and stories.
California Rep. Adam Schiff had invited Wylie to testify, even though Republicans have ended the panel's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Schiff is the top Democrat on the committee.
The top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee is calling Facebook's latest privacy scandal a "danger signal" and says it may be time for Congress to consider regulating social-media services.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California says she wants Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify and assure the committee that the company is prepared to take the lead on security measures that protect people's privacy. She says if Facebook can't do that, Congress may step in.
Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, also wants Zuckerberg to testify.
But Intelligence Committee chairman Sen. Richard Burr won't commit to asking Zuckerberg to appear.
A British parliamentary committee is also summoning Zuckerberg to answer questions.
Facebook is sidestepping questions on whether Zuckerberg would appear, saying instead that it's currently focused on conducting its own reviews.
The board cited comments Nix made to an undercover reporter for Britain's Channel 4 News and other allegations of wrongdoing for its action Tuesday.
The board says in an announcement posted on the data-mining company's website that the suspension is effective immediately.
A British TV news program is airing more footage from the secretly recorded meeting one of its reporters had with Cambridge Analytica chief Alexander Nix.
Nix also said Cambridge Analytica used emails set with a "self-destruct timer" during the Trump campaign to make its role more difficult to trace.
The program says Nix made the comments to a reporter posing as a wealthy potential client seeking to use Cambridge Analytica to influence campaigns in Sri Lanka.
A British parliamentary committee is summoning Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to answer questions on fake news as authorities step up efforts to determine whether data has been improperly used to influence elections.
The request comes amid reports that a U.K. company used Facebook data to help Donald Trump win the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The company, Cambridge Analytica, has been accused of improperly using information from more than 50 million Facebook accounts. It denies wrongdoing.
Facebook Deputy Chief Privacy Officer Rob Sherman says the company would be willing to speak with federal regulators about the use of personal data by a political research firm tied to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.
Cambridge Analytica obtained Facebook account data without users' knowledge. Published reports say the company retained the data after claiming it had been deleted. Chris Wylie, who once worked for Cambridge Analytica, was quoted as saying the company used the data to build psychological profiles so voters could be targeted.
On Tuesday, Bloomberg was the first to report that the Federal Trade Commission is probing Facebook over the use of that personal data.
Britain's Commissioner Elizabeth Denham told the BBC that she was investigating Facebook and has asked the company not to pursue its own audit of Cambridge Analytica's data use. Denham is also pursuing a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica's servers.
Facebook's stock tumbled 2 percent at the opening bell Tuesday following its worst trading day in four years.
Britain's information commissioner says she is using all her legal powers to investigate the handling of personal data by Cambridge Analytica and Facebook.
She told BBC on Tuesday she is also investigating Facebook and has asked Facebook not to pursue its own audit of Cambridge Analytica's data use. She says Facebook has agreed.
Denham said the prime allegation against Cambridge Analytica is that it acquired personal data in an unauthorized way.


Live where you love with Local by Laramar in modern apartments in Tampa's bustling Hyde Park neighborhood! Make the apartments at The Vendome your new home. Currently going through renovations, The Vendome will be offering beautifully upgraded apartment homes in the heart of your favorite neighborhood! Located central to everything that the Hyde Park neighborhood has to offer, you will always have something to do. This property is within walking distance to Bayshore Blvd and is convenient to the expressway. Mere minutes from Hyde Park Village, you are always within a short distance of the best dining and shopping, like LMB Boutique, Bern's Steakhouse, and many more can't-miss destinations. You won't be disappointed by the awesome service that Local by Laramar provides, including our online resident portal that allows you to pay rent and communicate with our friendly management team from your phone or laptop. Our high quality finishes are thoughtfully Selected with you in mind, and we provide it all at a great value for your money. Enjoy modern neighborhood living in South Tampa, and live where you love with Local by Laramar.
Vela on Pearl Apartments are conveniently located near the popular Wash Park Neighborhood of Denver. Easy walking distance to Taki Sushi, Carmine's and some of the city's hottest bars and restaurants (try the Historian's Ale House), best shopping destinations (you cannot miss out on checking out the Buffalo Exchange), and excellent public transportation. Not only will you be living in an area that you love, Local will also help to keep you connected and involved in the community. You won't be disappointed by the awesome service that Local by Laramar provides, including our online resident portal that allows you to pay rent and communicate with our friendly management team from your phone or laptop. Our high quality finishes are thoughtfully selected with you in mind, and we provide it all at a great value for your money. Enjoy modern neighborhood living in Denver, and live where you love with Local by Laramar.
Vesty Park is a gated community located near downtown Denver without the downtown prices. We offer both mid-rise apartment and town home living. Our apartments offer picturesque views of the City and Mountains from floor to ceiling windows allowing natural lighting. All our homes offer balconies/patios. Our town homes are amazing with no one living above or below you. They offer huge basements with full size washer and dryer connections. Vesty Park is next to local city parks, public bus lines and light rail. Our premium location puts downtown nightlife, dining, and great shopping just minutes from your doorstep. Come in and choose your new apartment home at Vesty Park today! Enjoy a large variety of community and home amenities offered to give you the peace and comfort you desire in an apartment home.
Welcome Home to Villa Biscayne THE FINE ART OF AFFORDABLE LIVING describes the lifestyle and unique features at Villa Biscayne Apartments. Our spacious floorplans are styled with convenience in mind. Our place is your home at Villa Biscayne. Come home to the affordable way of life.
Vue at Cherry Creek is conveniently located in the popular Cherry Creek neighborhood of Denver. Our community is within walking distance of some of Cherry Creek's hottest bars and restaurants, best shopping destinations and public transportation. Vue is minutes from downtown Denver and is a newly renovated apartment community offering cutting edge finishes with an amenity package that's sure to please. Conveniently located on the corner of S. Dexter St. and E. Kentucky Ave. Not only will you be living in an area that you love, Local will also help to keep you connected and involved in the community. You won't be disappointed by the awesome service that Local by Laramar provides, including our online resident portal that allows you to pay rent and communicate with our friendly management team from your phone or laptop. Our high quality finishes are thoughtfully selected with you in mind, and we provide it all at a great value for your money. Enjoy modern neighborhood living in Denver, and live where you love with Local by Laramar. Call us today for your personal tour!
Welcome to Walden Pond Apartments We Have Everything But You! Walden Pond Apartments is an intimate community with a captivating atmosphere located in High Ridge, Missouri. Our ideal location puts you within close proximity to major shopping centers, great restaurants, excellent schools and entertainment. Choose from our two and three bedroom floor plans we offer here at Walden Pond Apartments. Tailored with amenities for any lifestyle, our community strives to make your life a little easier. Spacious living areas, walk-in closets, all electric well-equipped island kitchen with a pantry, private balconies or patios, tile and carpeted floors, washer and dryer connections and air conditioning are just a few of the standard features included in each apartment home. You'll find that Walden Pond Apartments offers both the privacy you seek and the convenience you want at an affordable price! Walden Pond Apartments is known for its affordable luxury. Our community encourages you to take advantage of your free time by offering great amenities outside your door including our sparkling pool, state-of-the-art fitness center, a resident clubhouse, children's play area, picnic area with a barbecue, a laundry facility and more. Visit our photo gallery to experience how pleasant life is residing at Walden Pond Apartments.
Wash Park Station is exceptionally located within minutes of Denver's finest attractions. Duffy Roll, Hanson's, Old South Pearl Street, DU, and steps from the Louisiana & Pearl Light Rail Station with easy access to Downtown, Tech Center, and DIA. This is an ideal location and vibrant living space makes Wash Park Station one of Denver's premier apartment communities! You won't be disappointed by the amazing service that Local by Laramar provides. Our on-line resident portal allows you to pay rent and communicate with our friendly management team from your phone or laptop. Our high-quality finishes are thoughtfully selected with you in mind, and we provide it all at a great value for your money. Enjoy modern neighborhood living in Denver, and live at 675 E Louisiana Ave.
Welcome Home to Willow Ridge We don't just rent apartments. From the moment you walk through the front door you'll feel the comfort and security that makes our residents happy to call us home. Cutting edge amenities, meticulously-groomed grounds, and a dedicated staff contributes to a higher standard of living. Convenient shopping, award-winning schools, local museums and parks are all close at hand, with sponsored activities to develop new hobbies while getting to know your neighbors.
Welcome to Windrush Apartments Welcome to Windrush, Statevilles elite apartment community. Located just minutes from I 40 and I 77. We Offer the most spacious two, three, and four bedroom floor plans in the Statesville area. Residents have access to the beautiful clubhouse featuring an executive business center a sparkling swimming pool for those hot summer months. Come visit our professional customer service team and see what makes living at Windrush such a special experience.