text:
Tag Archives: Mark "Swinger" Fulton
Mark "Swinger" Fulton: Life and Death
February 10, 2020 Deaths in the Troubles, Major events in The Troubles10th June, 19th October deaths in the Troubles, Billy Wright, James Gray, James Gray – AKA " Doris Day", loyalis Mark "Swinger" Fulton, Loyalist, lvf, Mark "Swinger" Fulton, Mark Fulton, Robin "The Jackal" Jackson, Rosemary Nelsonbelfastchildis
Mark "Swinger" Fulton (c. 1961 – 10 June 2002) was a Northern Irish loyalist. He was the leader of the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF), having taken over its command following the assassination of Billy Wright in the Maze Prison in 1997 by members of the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA).
Fulton was alleged by journalist Susan McKay to have carried out a dozen sectarian killings in the 1990s. He also allegedly organized the murder of a Catholic lawyer, Rosemary Nelson, in 1999 while he was out of prison on compassionate leave. In 2002, he was found hanged in his cell at Maghaberry Prison, an apparent suicide. He was awaiting trial having been charged with conspiracy to murder a man from a rival loyalist paramilitary organisation. At the time of his death, Fulton was married with two children
– Disclaimer –
The views and opinions expressed in these blog post/documentary are soley intended to educate and provide background information to those interested in the Troubles of Northern Ireland. They in no way reflect my own opinions and I take no responsibility for any inaccuracies or factual errors
Mark Fulton was born in Portadown, County Armagh in 1961, one of the children of Jim Fulton, a former British soldier who worked as a window cleaner. His mother, Sylvia (née Prentice), came from a family of wealthy car dealers. Fulton grew up in the working-class Protestant Killycomain area. A childhood friend described Fulton as "a lovely, sweet wee boy".
Following the outbreak of the Troubles in the late 1960s, Fulton's father became a member of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA). According to journalist Susan McKay, senior Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) members Robin "the Jackal" Jackson and Harris Boyle were frequent visitors to the Fulton home in the early 1970s.
Jackson, one of the alleged leaders of the gang which carried out the 1974 Dublin car bombings, became the commander of the UVF's Mid-Ulster Brigade in July 1975. Four days later, Boyle was blown up after placing a bomb on the Miami Showband's minibus after the band was stopped at a bogus checkpoint by UVF gunmen, and three band members shot dead.
Fulton left school early and promptly joined the Mid-Ulster UVF, being sworn in at the age of 15.[3] According to Sean McPhilemy, Fulton's early activity included being part of the UVF gang that opened fire on a Craigavon mobile sweetshop on 28 March 1991, killing two teenaged girls and one man, all Catholics. The attack was allegedly planned by Robin Jackson.
In the early 1990s, Billy Wright, also from Portadown, took over command of the UVF Mid-Ulster Brigade from Jackson. The Mid-Ulster Brigade, founded in 1972 by its first commander, Billy Hanna, operated mainly in the Lurgan and Portadown areas. Fulton soon became Wright's closest associate and right-hand man and had an "extreme fixation and obsession over Wright; he even had an image of Wright tattooed over his heart.
Fulton was alleged to have perpetrated twelve sectarian killings in the 1990s, and reportedly was implicated in many other attacks. His victims were often questioned about their religion prior to their killings, and sometimes they were killed in front of their families.
He was very violent and had a quick temper. Wright was the only person who was able to control him. A Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) detective who knew both of them said that whenever they were stopped by the police in the 1990s, Wright was "coolness personified", while Fulton would rage, shout and make threats.
Although he was brought up in the Church of Ireland religion, Fulton was a follower of the Reverend Ian Paisley, founder and moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. In appearance Fulton was heavily tattooed and was known for his habit of always wearing a waistcoat.
The Mid-Ulster Brigade called themselves the "Brat Pack", which journalist Martin O'Hagan of the Sunday World altered to "Rat Pack". After the nickname of "King Rat" was given to Wright by local Ulster Defence Association (UDA) commander Robert John Kerr as a form of pub bantering, O'Hagan took to describing Wright by that term.
This soubriquet was thereafter used by the media, much to Wright's fury. This led him to issue threats against O'Hagan and all journalists who worked for the newspaper. The unit initially welcomed the Combined Loyalist Military Command ceasefire in October 1994; however, things were to change drastically over the next few years.
Loyalist Volunteer Force
Following the order given in August 1996 by the UVF's Brigade Staff (Belfast leadership) for Wright and the Portadown unit of the Mid-Ulster Brigade to stand down, Fulton remained loyal to Wright and defied the order. This came after the Mid-Ulster UVF's killing of a Catholic taxi driver, Michael McGoldrick, while the UVF were on ceasefire. Fulton was close to Alex Kerr, the sometime South Befast brigadier of the Ulster Defence Association who had become an ally of Wright during the Drumcree conflict and had been expelled by the UDA at the same time Wright was removed from the UVF.
After Wright defied a UVF order to leave Northern Ireland, he formed the breakaway Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF), taking the members of the officially-disbanded Portadown unit with him, including Fulton. Fulton acted as an adviser to Kerr during the emergence of the LVF as a separate group and told both Kerr and Wright that the LVF should seek a closer relationship with the UDA in order to more fully oppose the UVF.
Fulton, as Wright's deputy, assumed effective control of the LVF when Wright was sent to the Maze Prison in March 1997, and his relationship with Kerr, who had relocated to the LVF's Portadown stronghold, soon ended. Fulton, who continued to advocate a closer alliance with the UDA, reasoned that the group would be more prepared to co-operate with the LVF if their dissident former brigadier was not involved and so before long Fulton and his cousin Gary, also a leading LVF member, began to threaten Kerr, resulting in the Kerr family fleeing to England.
Not long after this, on 13 May, Fulton was said by McPhilemy to have been responsible for the abduction and murder of 61 year-old civil servant and GAA official Séan Brown, who was kidnapped in Bellaghy before being murdered in Randalstown.
When Wright was shot dead by the INLA in December 1997, in a prison van while being taken to the Maze's visitor block, Fulton assumed control of the LVF. In the immediate aftermath he attempted to minimise local violence as youths sympathetic to Wright amassed on Portadown's loyalist estates preparing to riot in protest at the killing of their leader and local hero.[12] Unlike Wright, Fulton had always been on good personal terms with UDA chief Johnny Adair as the two had socialized together on and off since the early 1990s.
The alliance was sealed soon afterwards when Mark and Gary Fulton arrived at the Maze prison,ostensibly to visit a friend, but instead sat at Adair's table in the visiting room. Fulton was deeply affected by Wright's death, and reportedly spent many nights alone by his grave.
The LVF published a magazine, Leading the Way. The special 1998 edition, commemorating Billy Wright, was edited by and written almost exclusively by Fulton. In an article, "Have Faith", he advised loyalists to refuse the notion of extending the hand of friendship to "those who are genetically violent, inherent in the Catholic Church, a church as sly as a fox and vicious as a tiger", citing historic examples of persecution of Protestants by Catholics. In May 1998, the LVF called a ceasefire. It was accepted by the Northern Ireland Office six months later.
See : Who are the Loyalist Volunteer Force
Rosemary Nelson killing
Fulton was arrested in 1998 after shooting at an off-duty soldier in Portadown. He was heavily intoxicated at the time and sentenced to four years imprisonment. While he was out on compassionate leave in early 1999, he allegedly organised the killing of Catholic human rights lawyer Rosemary Nelson. During the Drumcree standoff, Nelson had represented the Catholic Portadown residents who opposed the Orange Order's march through the predominantly nationalist Garvaghy area. She was blown up by a car bomb on 15 March 1999 outside her home in Lurgan. The bomb was allegedly made by a man from the Belfast UDA but planted by Fulton's associates acting on his orders.
Colin Port, the Deputy Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary who headed the investigation into her death, said "without question" Fulton was the person who had masterminded her killing. Although he was back in prison at the time, he was excited when he heard the news of her death on the radio. He was linked to the killing by police informers but not forensics. It was also revealed that prior to his own death, Wright had threatened to kill Nelson in the belief she had defended IRA volunteers.
See: Rosemary Nelson – September 1958 – March 1999
Fulton was released from prison in April 2001.
On 10 June 2002, Fulton, who was being held on remand in HMP Maghaberry since December 2001, was found dead in his prison cell with a leather belt around his neck. Fulton was found on his bed rather than hanging from the ceiling, leading to speculation that he has death had been accidentally caused by autoerotic asphyxiation.
Friends claimed he had expressed suicidal thoughts due to both his failure to recover from his close friend Wright's death, as well as fears he had that he was suffering from stomach cancer. Some reports suggested his unstable mental state had seen him stood down as leader several weeks before his death, with the LVF's power base transferred to Belfast. He was also afraid that rival loyalist inmates wished to kill him inside the prison.
At the time of his death, Fulton had been awaiting trial, having been charged with conspiracy to murder Rodney Jennett, a member of a rival loyalist paramilitary organisation, in connection with an ongoing feud. He left behind his wife, Louise and two children, Lee and Alana. His funeral was attended by 500 mourners, including a number of senior loyalist paramilitaries, including Johnny Adair and John White, who acted as pallbearers alongside Fulton's brother Jim and son, Lee.
After a service at St Columba's Parish Church, he was interred in Kernan Cemetery in Portadown. Among the tributes placed in the Belfast Telegraph was one which described Fulton as "Never selfish/Always kind".
See: 19th October
See: 10th June
This is simply the story of a boy trying to grow up, survive, thrive, have fun & discover himself against a backdrop of events that might best be described as 'explosive', captivating & shocking the world for thirty long years.
You can pre-order via https://t.co/eBRpwrw1mr pic.twitter.com/Ctxp1NUD7a
— Belfast Child (@bfchild66) July 23, 2020
See: The Rise & Fall of UDA Brigadier of Bling James Gray – AKA " Doris Day
Major events in the Troubles
Killing Rage – The life and death of Eamon Collins
Ann Ogilby's brutal murder: " Forgotten " victims of the Troubles
Joe McCann – Life & Death
Máire Drumm: Life & Death
Death of Robert Hamill: 27th April 1997
John Bingham UVF : Life & Death
Patrick Rooney First Child killed in the Troubles 14th August 1969 : Northern Ireland History
Dawn of the Troubles – August 1969: Northern Ireland History
Ian Gow : Assassinated by the IRA 3oth July 1990
Miriam Daly: Life & Death
See : Billy Wright
See: Robin "the Jackal" Jackson
See: Deaths in the Troubles 10th Feb


text:
Confessions of an Ex-Prosecutor
Culture and law conspire to make prosecutors hostile to constitutional rights.
Ken White | 6.23.2016 10:00 AM
('Law and Order: SVU' / NBC)
'Law and Order: SVU' / NBC
Twenty-one years ago, the day O.J. Simpson was acquitted, I began my career as a federal prosecutor. I was 26—a young 26 at that—on the cusp of extraordinary power over the lives of my fellow citizens. After years of internships with federal and state prosecutors, I knew to expect camaraderie and sense of mission. I didn't expect it to influence how I thought about constitutional rights. But it did.
Three types of culture—the culture of the prosecutor's office, American popular culture, and the culture created by the modern legal norms of criminal justice—shaped how I saw the rights of the people I prosecuted. If you had asked me, I would have said that it was my job to protect constitutional rights and strike only what the Supreme Court once called "hard blows, not foul ones." But in my heart, and in my approach to law, I saw rights as a challenge, as something to be overcome to win a conviction. Nobody taught me that explicitly—nobody had to.
When I left the U.S. Attorney's office after more than five years, my disenchantment with the criminal justice system had begun to set in. Now, decades later, my criminal defense career has lasted three times as long as my term as a prosecutor. I'm a defense-side true believer—the very sort of true believer that used to annoy me as a young prosecutor.
Once again, nobody taught me to think that way, and nobody had to. I learned it by watching how the system ground up clients indifferently and mercilessly. I learned it by watching prosecutors make the sorts of arguments and decisions I had made, and seeing how they actually impacted human lives. I learned it by watching prosecutorial suspicion—and even paranoia—from the wrong end. I learned it by watching how the system crushed indigent clients, and by how it could destroy the lives of even wealthy clients with minimal effort or cause.
I even learned it by watching prosecutors commit misconduct—the deliberate or reckless infringement of defendants' constitutional rights. I saw prosecutors make ridiculous and bad-faith arguments defending law enforcement, and prevail on them. I saw them make preposterous assertions about the constitution because they could, and because judges would indulge them. I saw them reject my claims that my clients' rights were violated because they were the government and my client was the defendant and that was their job.
My criminal defense colleagues who were never prosecutors themselves often assume that prosecutorial misconduct is rife because prosecution attracts authoritarian personality types. Although it is surely true that some are natural bad actors, my experience showed me that prosecutors are strongly influenced to disregard and minimize rights by the culture that surrounds them. Disciplining or firing miscreants may be necessary, but it's not enough: It doesn't address the root causes of fearful culture and bad incentives.
A Fearful Office Culture That Doesn't Encourage Introspection About Wrongdoing
The camaraderie I enjoyed at the U.S. Attorney's Office was the strongest and most rewarding that I've experienced in my life. Prosecutors learn the system together, acquire trial skills together, and face notorious defense attorneys and difficult judges together. They regale each other with stories of victory and defeat, of justice and injustice. They rely on each other to navigate impossible trial schedules or bounce back from errors. They are in this thing together.
This makes for a strong team. But it doesn't encourage introspection about wrongdoing. When a defense attorney asserts that a prosecutor violated a defendant's rights, that attorney is attacking your brother or sister, your comrade in arms, the person you know and trust. It's easier to believe that the accusation is merely tactical—a gambit to evade punishment for crime—than it is to believe your friend may have done wrong.
That tendency to dismiss claims of misconduct is encouraged by the frequency of genuinely bogus complaints. I was accused of prosecutorial misconduct twice, and it was nonsense both times.
Once a lawyer accused me of adding new bank robbery charges against his client in retaliation for his motion to suppress. In fact, I added the charges because a new fingerprint match came back after I got the case, and I was still enthusiastic enough to think that it mattered whether I convicted the guy of four robberies or five.
Another time a famous Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist accused me of being part of a shadowy conspiracy with an airline to persecute his client, who was charged with interfering with a flight crew. I knew I'd done no such thing.
As a result, it became easy—natural—to view allegations of misconduct as something that defense attorneys cynically pursue for tactical advantage. In that frame of mind, prosecutors aren't inclined to scrutinize legitimate complaints too closely.
Prosecutions Driven by Shared Fear
Just as the brotherhood of prosecutors was premised on shared experience, it was also premised on shared fear. As a defense attorney, I fear that I'll fail my client and they will be unjustly imprisoned. But as a prosecutor, the culture taught me to fear that I'd make a mistake and a guilty defendant would go free to wreak havoc on society. That fear constantly colored my assessment of legal issues.
I remember being taught this fear 20 years ago, early in my time as a prosecutor. I was assigned to prosecute a rather pathetic bank robber. The man had been fired from his job and evicted from his apartment, and he went to the bank to withdraw the proceeds of a recent insurance settlement following a motorcycle crash. The teller told him that there was still a hold on his insurance check. The man lost control right then and there, told the teller he had a bomb, and demanded the contents of the cash drawer. Leaving his driver's license at the counter, he carried the few thousand dollars (far less than the balance of his account) to his car, drove to his former home, and waited in the parking lot to be arrested.
I rather timidly questioned my supervisor. Should this man face the weight of federal criminal prosecution? Aren't his circumstances unique, and unlikely to recur? Shouldn't we find another approach?
My supervisor—a decent, moral man—pointed me to the defendant's criminal record of drunk driving. If we let him go, he reasoned, do you want him out on the road with your young wife? What if he causes a crash and someone is killed because we were lenient?
So I took the case to trial, and the jury—functioning in an idealized way, as they sometimes do—hung 11 to 1 for acquittal. But I learned my lesson: As a prosecutor, I was responsible for what may happen if I failed to convict these people. The fate of their future possible victims are on me.
That camaraderie—that fear—colored my evaluation each time I assessed whether an action would violate a defendant's rights. The office culture helped make me.
American Culture Treats Prosecutors as Heroes
In October 1967, The Andy Griffith Show ran an episode in which Opie secretly recorded an accused bank robber in the town jail talking to his lawyer, and urged his father to take the tape as evidence. Sheriff Taylor erased the tape and admonished his son. "You bugged the conversation between a lawyer and his client. Now that's violating one of the most sacred rights of privacy." Andy Griffith played the scene firmly, like a wise TV dad and upstanding lawman. "Whether a man is guilty or innocent, we have to find that out by due process of law."
Griffith was the father we all wanted and the police officer we happily believed we had. In 1967, in the waning years of the Warren Court, that sentiment was still popular and plausible on a mainstream television show.
The mood changed quickly. Assassinations, race riots, a bloody Democratic convention, and law-and-order campaign rhetoric helped frame constitutional rights as impediments to justice rather than an essential element of it. Politicians like Richard Nixon helped convince America that the lawlessness they saw on TV was the consequence of the constitutional rights recognized and protected by the Warren Court.
By 1971, an equally classic scene about rights looked utterly different. In the movie Dirty Harry, an outraged district attorney harangues Clint Eastwood, playing title character, Inspector Harry Callahan, over his unlawful search of a crazed killer: "Does Escobedo ring a bell? Miranda? I mean, you must have heard of the Fourth Amendment!"
"Well I'm all broken up about that man's rights," counters Callahan, voicing the emerging sentiment. When Callahan is told that his illegal search means the gun is inadmissible at trial, he snaps, "Well then the law's crazy."
Eastwood plays the hero in this scene; the district attorney is played as a weak, appeasing bureaucrat and a judge as a doddering, detached academic. Just four years after the Andy Griffith episode, respect for rights is portrayed as ignoble.
Today, American culture remains much more Dirty Harry than Sheriff Taylor. When Americans think about criminal defendants' constitutional rights, they might consider the Bill of Rights in the abstract, but they're more powerfully moved by decades of Dick Wolf's Law & Order series and its spinoffs and imitators. Those programs occasionally show a bad cop or a rogue prosecutor or an innocent man railroaded by a dirty prosecution. But those are the exceptions. The overwhelming cultural message from American entertainment is that constitutional rights are barriers to justice—tactically erected impediments that the forces of law and order must overcome to reach resolution in 42 minutes.
Real prosecutors watch TV, too. They work in the nation that portrays their duties that way. And they enjoy the benefits. One of the first things they told us as rookie prosecutors was that we couldn't use our credentials to get special treatment: No flashing that seal to get into a restaurant or out of a parking ticket. They had to tell us that because it worked—because the culture teaches the public to admire and trust prosecutors.
That phenomenon pursues me 15 years into my career as a defense attorney—and, in a way, it even helps me.
Like most defense attorneys with my background, I market myself to potential clients as a "former federal prosecutor." I don't do that to signal loyalty to my old office or as a show of admiration for it. I do it because it's good business. It doesn't only signal that I know how the office works and have lingering connections there. Thanks to the culture, it makes potential clients charged with crimes trust me more.
Even as Americans are facing the ruination of their lives at the hands of prosecutors, even when they're innocent, even when they're being mistreated by the government, they're still skeptical of defense lawyers and trusting of prosecutors. They prefer to hire a former federal prosecutor because they don't want to think of themselves as someone who has to hire a criminal defense lawyer.
That's the power of culture. American culture relentlessly tells prosecutors that they are by definition the good guys. It tells them that assertions of rights are, at best, impediments to be overcome, and at worst cynical ploys by villains. It is tremendously difficult to ignore those cultural messages and give defendants' constitutional rights the attention they deserve.
Prosecutors Are Duty-Bound to Argue That Rights Don't Matter
Should prosecutors be able to resist office culture and American culture to uphold their oaths to defend the constitution? Yes. But there's an insidious third influence on them—the very law we want them to uphold.
American criminal procedure, as developed during the four-decade retreat from the Warren Court's recognition of defendants' rights, encourages prosecutors to argue that rights are irrelevant. The argument goes by genteel names like "harmless error" and "lack of prejudice" and "immaterial," and it is omnipresent in modern criminal procedure. As a prosecutor, it was my job on dozens of occasions to invoke those doctrines to assert that even if defendants' rights were violated, those violations didn't matter.
Take search warrants, for example. Under most circumstances, the Fourth Amendment requires police to get a warrant before they make forcible entry to your home search it. May police officers lie to a magistrate to get that warrant, or deliberately omit information that contradicts the evidence they offer? No, says the Supreme Court—that would violate your rights. But the violation only has a remedy if the lie is material—that is, if the warrant application, stripped of the lie or supplemented with the deceitfully omitted information, would no longer be enough to support probable cause. If you identify a lie that's immaterial, you're not even entitled to a hearing on whether it's a lie in the first place.
So when a defendant discovers that law enforcement agents have lied to get a warrant, a prosecutor has every incentive to argue that the lie didn't matter, that the evidence was strong enough without it to get the warrant. The prosecutor will be making this argument in the context of a search that did turn up incriminating evidence (the defendant wouldn't be making the argument if it didn't), which tends to bias judges towards upholding searches. After all, the judge thinks—wasn't the cop's suspicion proved right? Moreover, probable cause—the proof necessary to support a warrant—is a very relaxed and inherently subjective standard, requiring only a "fair probability" that evidence will be found. The practical effect is that law enforcement can lie in warrant applications with relative impunity, and it's a prosecutorial duty to think of ways to explain how those lies are irrelevant.
On the other hand, prosecutors are encouraged to think differently about lies by mere civilians. If federal agents lie about you to a magistrate to get a search warrant, the question is whether the lie did actually make a difference. But if you lie to federal agents, the standard is far less forgiving. The materiality of a false statement to the federal government is measured by whether it is the sort of statement that could hypothetically have influenced the government's decision-making, not whether it actually did. Thus prosecutors are trained to treat defendants' wrongdoing harshly and government wrongdoing leniently.
Nearly every type of law enforcement misconduct presents a prosecutorial opportunity—an obligation—to argue that the misconduct doesn't matter.
For instance, everyone knows that prosecutors are obligated to turn over exculpatory evidence. But when they don't, a defendant is only entitled to relief when the failure is prejudicial—that is, when there is a "reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Prosecutors are therefore encouraged to view exculpatory evidence not as something that should be turned over categorically, but as something that should be turned over if the prosecutor thinks it will be important.
Sometimes that approach is even reduced to writing. In 2012 the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office over its "Special Directive 10-06," which encouraged Deputy District Attorneys to make their own assessment of whether exculpatory evidence was "material" and withhold it if they thought it wasn't. The Directive even categorically excused prosecutors from turning over some evidence—for instance, by maintaining that evidence of police misconduct need not be disclosed if it was still under investigation.
This dismissive attitude towards rights continues on appeal. When prosecutors engage in misconduct, courts ask whether or not it was harmless—that is, whether "it is more probable than not that the prosecutor's conduct materially affected the fairness of the trial." Once again, the prosecutor's job encourages them to argue that their misconduct and the misconduct of their colleagues didn't matter, didn't make a difference, didn't change the outcome.
The same approach colors prosecutors' approach to defense attorneys. Criminal defense attorneys are supposed to vindicate their clients' rights. But fighting for a client's constitutional rights takes time and energy and meticulous attention. Lucky defendants can pay for attorneys who can devote that time and energy. Most defendants aren't that lucky. They have to rely on a system of overburdened and underfunded indigent defense that cannot possibly exercise the level of vigilance necessary to police the police in every client's case.
So they miss things. If an appellate lawyer discovers a violation of rights that the trial lawyer missed, he or she must argue that the constitutional error was plain—that is, that the error so affected the "fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings" that a "miscarriage of justice" would result unless the conviction is overturned. Prosecutors, on the other hand, must defend their convictions by arguing that any particular violation of rights wasn't "plain," that it didn't impact the fairness or integrity of the proceedings. In other words, they're duty-bound to argue that the violation of rights, if it occurred, didn't matter.
Of course, a defendant can challenge a conviction on the grounds that his or her attorney was ineffective in failing to recognize and challenge a violation of constitutional rights. That's common in habeas corpus motions. But showing ineffective assistance of counsel doesn't just require a demonstration that a lawyer's efforts fell below professional standards. A defendant must also show that the failure caused prejudice—that is, that it was "so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable." So once again, a prosecutor responding to an ineffective assistance of counsel challenge to a conviction must assert that the unredressed violation of rights just didn't matter.
Lawyers shape arguments, and arguments inevitably shape lawyers. A persistent professional obligation to argue that violations of constitutional rights don't matter can't help but influence how prosecutors look at rights, and treat them.
So instead of serving as the rules of the game, the underlying assumptions about how a case should proceed, rights become something to be managed and minimized. They become merely rhetorical, figures of speech rather than principles.
As a young prosecutor I found myself analyzing each constitutional question not in terms of whether the defendant's rights were respected, but in terms of how I could show it was irrelevant that they weren't. I didn't make up that approach out of a black heart. I learned it from the legal culture.
Legal Culture Can Change
Culture has deep roots, but it can change.
There's been a recent surge of attention paid to prosecutorial misconduct. Alex Kozinski, a maverick judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, has sparked a judicial and academic movement to scrutinize prosecutors and impose previously rare consequences for their violations of defendants' rights. Judge Kozinksi and others like him have refused to accept the status quo of broad deference to prosecutors as the way the American criminal justice system ought to work. Some prosecutors—usually in progressive enclaves—have begun to talk openly about reforming their offices and taking methodical steps to respect defendants' rights. The America media, never before a reliable ally of defense attorneys, has begun to cover prosecutorial misconduct with the sort of tenacity it requires.
I'm glad that more prosecutors are facing serious consequences for violating the rights of defendants. I'm happy when jurists like Judge Kozinski names and shames them in the public record, just as I would have been resentful and defensive twenty years ago. I'm happy to see the media view prosecutors as an institution requiring scrutiny rather than as a source for tips and quotes. These are positive developments.
But prosecutorial misconduct is a problem that won't get better because a few judges or a few reporters talk about it. It will require effort. It will require principled prosecutorial supervisors to set an example and frame constitutional rights as the rules, not the obstacles. It will require American citizens to take civil rights seriously—to frame our views of them based on the constitution and not based on a popular culture that scorns them. It may even require us to reevaluate how our legal system treats violations of rights, and develop a doctrine more sophisticated than "no harm no foul." Culture permitted America to develop the notions of personal liberty and the rule of law in the first place. Culture redeemed can protect those notions again.
NEXT: A.M. Links: Britain Votes on Exiting E.U., Gary Johnson Makes His Pitch, House Democrats Stage Pro-Gun Control 'Sit In'
Ken White is a former federal prosecutor, he is a criminal defense attorney and First Amendment litigator.
Criminal Justice Courts Prosecutors Civil Rights Department of Justice

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Once you've chosen your subject matter, it's critical to create an outline or "map" of your composition. This serves several functions, the most important of which is to establish your basic design. It also ensures that everything you want to include will fit.
Here is an example using three potted plants.
I begin my establishing the "outer limits" of the objects. Where is the highest point? The lowest? Find the extreme left and right sides. I purposely leave a border so the objects have breathing room and aren't uncomfortably close to the edge of the paper.
Now I work inward from all directions. I use light lines to establish the basic shapes.
Notice the use of ellipses to establish the size, shape, and location of the pots. When I establish everything fits, I'm free to move on to the fun stuff.
Using darker lines, I override, emphasize, correct, and otherwise start to "build" the drawing.
Here's another example using more complex subject matter.
I use a light line to map out the entire image.
The initial lines show the general shape of the buildings as they recede into the background on the left. I decided to put the big oval sign in the "sweet spot." At this point I'm not sure whether I want to include the figure or the car.
Don't forget to use varying pencil holds!
Mapping out your composition is a critical first step, especially for beginners. Get into the habit of seeing and establishing the entire composition before committing.
The Mapping it Out Lesson is technically over but I want to show you how much fun it is to play with the subject once you don't have to worry about fitting everything in and you've got the big shapes placed.
Using darker lines, I start to build up the drawing while simultaneously making corrections. I notice the big signs are actually at a slight angle relative to the edges of my paper, so I make that correction easily by overriding with darker lines.
At this point I don't care about a "literal" description at all. I move throughout the image picking up bits and pieces of information as I go. If something interesting occurs at an intersection, I let my pencil linger and describe it playfully. Since I have the basic proportions established, the smaller subdivisions don't have to be correct and quite frankly I couldn't be bothered! Realism is overrated.
At this point you may decide to erase some of the exploratory lines. There may be a few here and there you just can't live with. Feel free to clean up but don't kill it! Those extra lines add excitement and movement to the drawing. They are direct evidence of the artist's hand.
Important Disclaimer: Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am forced to use photographic references for demonstration purposes. Working from photos is fraught with peril for many artists, especially beginners, and I do not recommend it unless absolutely necessary.


A series of major breakthroughs have been achieved in the case of Macau real estate businessman Ng Lap Seng's bribery of John W. Ashe, the former president of the United Nations General Assembly. This and other corruption cases in Macau have been linked to the Jiang faction of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Macau, which is separated from Hong Kong by only a strip of water, has always been considered a main channel of corruption and money laundering for CCP officials. Earlier this year, the Chinese Central Discipline Inspection (CCDI) stationed a team leader of discipline inspection in the State Council of Hong Kong and Macau for the first time.
The team leader, Li Qiufang, recently told the media that the corruption within the system in Hong Kong and Macau is under investigation. Meanwhile, a few major cases were cracked in Macau.
These include the breakthroughs in Ng's complex bribery scheme, the imprisonment of the nephew of Macau casino tycoon Stanley Ho for manipulating prostitution, and the arrest of former Macau Attorney General Ho Chio Meng for corruption.
All of these cases are related to the Macau business and political forces of former CCP leader Jiang Zemin and his supporter, former Chinese Vice President Zeng Qinghong.
On March 16, 2016, Francis Lorenzo, a deputy permanent representative of the Dominican Republic to the United Nations, pleaded guilty to assisting Ng in bribing Ashe.
A Chinese female suspect was arrested on March 17. The latest development reveals that Hong Kong has also been involved in the case.
On March 18, a China-born woman, Julia Vivi Wang (alias Vivian Wang), the vice president of two U.N. non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—South-South News and the International Organization for South-South Cooperation (IOSSC)—was charged with paying half a million U.S. dollars in bribes to buy Antiguan diplomatic positions in Hong Kong for her husband and another man.
The indictment alleged that in 2012, Wang began to use the New York bank accounts of the two NGOs to receive funds from China and bribe two U.N. officials, Ashe and Francis Lorenzo. Lorenzo was the president of the two NGOs.
The New York Times reported that Ashe emailed Wang in March 2013, attaching a letter to her husband that said Antigua was going to open an "investment office" in Hong Kong and that he would be appointed economic envoy or honorary consul. The other Chinese businessman would be appointed deputy.
According to Lorenzo, this position can help people acquire citizenship through investment and business arrangements. The report also mentioned that more Antiguan government officials, including the former Prime Minister of Antigua, were involved in the bribery.
The case also disclosed that Ng's foundation donated US$1.5 million to the IOSSC. After Ng was arrested, the United Nations rejected the remainder of a US$15 million offer by the foundation.
Last October, U.S. authorities filed a charge against six persons, including Ashe, Lorenzo, Ng Lap Seng (alias David Ng), Ng's personal assistant Jeff C. Yin (alias Yin Chuan), CEO of Global Sustainability Foundation Shiwei Yan (alias Sheri Yan), and Yan's finance director Heidi Hong Piao (alias Heidi Park).
Yan, Lorenzo, and Park have already pleaded guilty. Ng was allowed to post bail of US$50 million and enter home detention in the United States.
Along with the startling disclosures of the inside stories of this international corruption case, a network among Ng and his political and business partners as well as the CCP's top level officers was also extensively uncovered.
Born in Guangdong Province, Ng Lap Seng moved to Macau in 1979. He established his business by selling cloth in street stalls.
According to a source from the real estate sector in Macau, Ng remained very low-key in Macau and was good at spending large amounts of money to weave an extensive business and political network, which even links Ng with top-level officers in Beijing.
Ng has maintained a close relationship with former Macau Chief Executive Edmund Ho and casino tycoon Stanley Ho. In the early 1990s, they together established a consortium, Nam Van Development Co. SARL The consortium featured some of Macau's biggest names, including Board President Stanley Ho, Vice President Edmund Ho, and Ng as an executive director.
Ng is a member of the Macau Special Administrative Region Preparatory Committee and was received by Jiang Zemin.
Ng Lap Seng won a contract to build the Lotus Bridge, which connects Zhuhai City and Macau, one of the most important strategic projects before the communist regime took over Macau in 1999.
In the opinion of Macau's Merchant Circle, as a business assistant of former Macau Chief Executive Edmund Ho, Ng was able to win the Lotus Bridge contract and assume key duties, such as being a member of the SAR Preparatory Committee. Ng had to throw himself into the lap of Jiang.
Stanley Ho and Edmund Ho are considered to be Jiang's two major forces in Macau.
Edmund Ho was designated by Jiang as the first Chief Executive of Macau and forced through the controversial anti-subversion legislation Article 23 in Macau.
Stanley Ho has often been received by Jiang as an honored guest, his fourth "wife" once sang songs with Jiang, which became a popular joke.
What made Ng surface in Western society was his involvement in the political contributions funnelled into the committee for re-electing President Bill Clinton, which occurred before the U.S. presidential election in 1996.
Last September, Ng was arrested for bringing a huge amount of cash into the United States and was charged with a number of offenses, including bribery and tax evasion.
In 2006, the Japanese media SAPIO disclosed a report detailing that the Clintons accepted large donations from Chinese spies, which also involved several top-level officials of the Democratic Party in the United States. The report bluntly pointed out that the commander of all these communist spies was Jiang.
In the bribery case of John Ashe, the United Nations ordered an investigation on Chinese Australian businessman Chau Chak Wing, the boss of Guangzhou Kingold Group, as Chau was alleged to have bribed Ashe to attend a meeting in Guangzhou City.
According to China issues expert Shi Cangshang's analysis, Chau has been engaging in overseas political tasks for Zeng Qinghong and the Jiang faction.
Similar to Ng, Chau is Australia's largest overseas political donor, having donated millions of Australian dollars to the Australian Liberal Party and the Labour Party.
In the 1970s, Chau immigrated to Hong Kong from China and then to Australia. He shuttled between Australia and Guangzhou since 1989, Chau maintains a close personal relationship with Wang Xiaoling, a niece of Zeng Qinghong's wife.
Wang Xiaoling's luxurious 300-square-meter dwelling in Guangzhou was constructed by Chau's company. Chau not only paid 3 million Chinese yuan (US$460,000) for the renovation, but also allowed Wang to pay only 20 percent of the house price.
The aforementioned accused woman Sheri Yan, who is Chinese American, is the wife of a former Australian Embassy diplomat. She also worked for Chau for five years.
Yan is an Australian social celebrity. The foundation she worked for keeps close contact with many businessmen and politicians in mainland China.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Yan's husband, Roger Uren is a media executive and former Australian intelligence analyst who was once tipped to become Australian ambassador to Beijing. He is now working for the Hong Kong-based CCP mouthpiece Phoenix Television.
Translated by Thomas Leung. Edited by Sally Appert.


Photo of Buick Centieme 35419. Image size: 1024 x 768. Upload date: 2006-06-01.	Number of votes: 77.
(Download Buick Centieme photo #35419) You can use this pic as wallpaper (poster) for desktop.
Vote for this Buick photo #35419. Current picture rating: 77 Upload date 2006-06-01.


text:
Bodies Human: Anatomy in Motion
April 10 - September 4, 2011
This unique exhibit is a display of over 100 authentic human specimens, including whole bodies, individual organs and transparent body slices preserved through a special process called plastination. It provides viewers with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to look inside the human body, and to see and understand our own anatomy and physiology, and provide a new appreciation and respect for the human body and what it means to be human.
The bodies are prepared through a process called plastination - a technique that prevents decomposition and preserves the anatomical specimens. During preparation, the process extracts bodily fluids and replaces them with reactive plastics. The bodies are positioned in motion allowing you to see the body as it would be in real life situations. We obtained our human specimens from a U.S. supplier to the medical community who works with a plastination laboratory in Taiwan, where the bodies are prepared for educational and scientific purposes.
The main goal of Bodies Human is to educate the public about the inner workings of the human body, as well as to show the effects of poor health, good health and how various lifestyle choices can affect our health. Until recently, there has never been anything like this exhibit to show how our bodies look and work. Nearly 20 million people, including young children, have seen similar exhibits around the world. It's an opportunity for everyone to see up close how our bodies work and how we're able to do the remarkable things that our bodies are capable of doing.
Educators interested in bringing students to this exhibition should call (231) 995-1029 for details.
The rates for this special exhibition will be:
$15 for adults
$12 for children (12 and under)
$10 for members (adults or children)


text:
Il Curtiss SBC Helldiver era un bombardiere in picchiata monomotore biplano prodotto dall'azienda statunitense Curtiss-Wright nella seconda parte degli anni trenta ed utilizzato principalmente dalla United States Navy durante la seconda guerra mondiale.

Operativo dal 1938, oltre che come bombardiere anche in missioni di ricognizione, fu l'ultimo biplano ad entrare in servizio con la United States Navy.

Sviluppo

Nel 1932, la United States Navy assegnò alla Curtiss un contratto per la progettazione di un monoplano biposto con ala alta a parasole e carrello retrattile, motorizzato da un Wright R-1510 Whirlwind, destinato ad essere utilizzato come caccia imbarcato. Il velivolo risultante, designato XF12C-1, ha fatto cominciato a volare nel 1933. Il suo impiego fu cambiato prima in ricognitore, e poi in ricognitore-bombardiere (venendo quindi ridesignato XS4C-1 e XSBC-1 rispettivamente), ma l'XSBC-1 con ala a parasole era inadatto per il bombardamento in picchiata. Il suo progetto venne quindi rielaborato come biplano, con il primo volo del prototipo, designato XSBC-2, il 9 dicembre 1935.

Il modello di produzione iniziale SBC-3 era motorizzato da un Pratt & Whitney R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior. L'SBC-3 cominciò il servizio operativo nel 1938 e ne furono costruiti un totale di 83 esemplari.

L'SBC-4, motorizzato da un Wright R-1820 Cyclone, entrò in servizio nel 1939.

Impiego Operativo

In patria
La United States Navy ha iniziato a ricevere i nuovi aerei a metà del 1937 con il primo lotto assegnato alla Yorktown, ma la formula del biplano avanzato era già stata superata dai velocissimi sviluppi della tecnologia aeronautica caratteristici di quel periodo. Fu quindi presto relegato a compiti secondari ed utilizzato come addestratore avanzato per le unità di addestramento in Florida. L'ultimo aereo fu radiato dai registri della Marina nel mese di ottobre 1944.

Il forte interesse del periodo per il concetto di bombardamento in picchiata ha portato ad ordini dall'estero. Dei 174 SBC-4 costruiti, 50 sono stati consegnati alla Marina francese. Cinque velivoli dell'ordine francese sono stati consegnati alla Royal Air Force britannica, che li ha battezzati Curtiss Cleveland Mk.I. Il progetto stesso dello Junkers Ju 87 "Stuka", l'aereo che è rimasto nella storia come simbolo della specialità, è stato probabilmente influenzato da aerei come l' SBC Helldiver.

L'SBC Helldiver non era destinato ad avere una lunga vita di servizio in patria, ma fu sicuramente utile per lo sviluppo di tattiche di bombardamento in picchiata e per affinare le capacità degli equipaggi, fattore che si rivelò decisivo per la vittoria nella guerra nel Pacifico.

Gli SBC-4 francesi
I 50 SBC-4 consegnati alla Francia erano in realtà aerei già in servizio con la Marina degli Stati Uniti.
Il 6 giugno 1940, i riservisti della Marina ricevettero l'ordine di portare in volo immediatamente 50 SBC-4 allo stabilimento della Curtiss di Buffalo, New York.  A Buffalo, un ispettore del Bureau of Aeronautics informò i piloti che dovevano portare in volo i loro velivoli a Halifax, Nuova Scozia, per essere imbarcati a bordo della portaerei francese Béarn. Da Buffalo a Halifax, i piloti della Riserva erano ufficialmente dipendenti della Curtiss. La Curtiss avrebbe pagato ogni pilota 250 dollari più il biglietto ferroviario di ritorno da Halifax a Buffalo. Tutte le insegne della marina furono rimosse dalle loro uniformi o mascherate. Al ritorno a Buffalo, i piloti sarebbero tornati agli ordini della Marina per il ritorno alle loro basi.

I lavoratori della Curtiss fecero gli straordinari per rimuovere e sostituire tutti gli attrezzi e gli strumenti marcati BUAERO, BUSHIPS o BUORD. Le mitragliatrici da 0,30 in (7,62 mm) della US Navy furono sostituite da quelle da 0,50 in (12,7 mm) richieste e gli aerei vennero ridipinti in colori mimetici con il tricolore francese sul timone. La conversione frettolosa non permise un adeguato collaudo degli strumenti sostituiti, inoltre la situazione meteo deteriorò con pioggia e nebbia su gran parte del percorso da Buffalo a Halifax.

L'ispettore del Bureau of Aeronautics interruppe temporaneamente i voli dopo che uno dei primi piloti rimase ucciso in un incidente tra Albany e Buffalo. Quando il tempo migliorò, sezioni di tre velivoli furono inviate da Buffalo a Burlington, nel Vermont, poi sopra le White Mountains(New Hampshire) ad Augusta, nel Maine, e poi a Houlton, Maine. Dopo l'atterraggio a Houlton, ogni aereo venne rimorchiato lungo una strada oltre il confine canadese per poi decollare nuovamente dal pascolo di una fattoria presso New Brunswick per evitare le implicazioni legali del volo attraverso il confine.
I 49 aerei superstiti sorvolarono la Baia di Fundy e 44 di loro vennero caricati a bordo della Béarn a Dartmouth, Nova Scotia con 21 caccia P-36 Hawk e 25 Stinson 105 per l'Armée de l'Air  francese oltre a cinque Brewster Buffalo per il Belgio.

La Francia si arrese mentre la Béarn stava attraversando l'Atlantico; la nave fece quindi rotta verso la Martinica, dove gli SBC-4 si corrosero nel clima umido dei Caraibi in attesa su una collina vicino a Fort-de-France.
I cinque SBC-4 rimasti in Canada, quando la Francia si arrese furono rilevati dal Regno Unito e sono stati utilizzati come cellule per l'addestramento a terra.

Varianti

XF12C-1
Prototipo di caccia con ala a parasole equipaggiato con un motore radiale 14 cilindri doppia stella Wright R-1510-92 Whirlwind da 625 hp; un esemplare costruito, in seguito convertito in biplano come XS4C-1.
XS4C-1
Prototipo XF12C-1 ridesignato come appartenente alla categoria "Scout" (Ricognitore) prima di essere nuovamente ridesignato come XSBC-1.
XSBC-1
Prototipo XS4C-1 ridesignato come appartenente alla categoria "Scout/Bomber" (Ricognitore/Bombardiere), biplano con motore Wright R-1820-80 Cyclone.
XSBC-2
Biplano, basato sullo XSBC-1, motorizzato con un XR-1510-12 da 700 hp; un esemplare costruito.
XSBC-3
XSBC-2 rimotorizzato con un Pratt & Whitney R-1535-82 Twin Wasp Junior da 750 hp.
SBC-3
prima variante di produzione, con un P&W R-1535-94 da 825 hp; 83 costruiti.
XSBC-4
SBC-3 rimotorizzato con un R-1820-22 da 950 hp; un esemplare convertito.
SBC-4
seconda variante di produzione, motore R-1820-34 da 950 hp; 174 costruiti, compresi 50 trasferiti alla Marine nationale, la marina militare francese.
Cleveland I
designazione inglese per 5 esemplari di SBC-4, destinati precedentemente alla Marine nationale.

Utilizzatori

 Aéronautique navale

 Royal Air Force

 United States Marine Corps
 United States Navy

Modellismo
Nonostante sia stato relativamente marginale, questo aereo non è stato dimenticato dai fabbricanti.

Nella tradizionale scala 1/72, fu riprodotto come vacuform dalla britannica RarePlanes. Sia la Heller che la Matchbox hanno creato due kits di buon livello di correttezza dell'SBC-4. Più dettagliato il primo, decisamente facile e piacevole da montare il secondo, come da rispettive tradizioni, entrambi forniscono decalcomanie per un esemplare della RAF (Cleveland Mk.I); mentre la Heller, per ovvi motivi, fornisce come alternativa la possibilità di realizzare un tutto sommato intrigante esemplare francese, la Matchbox offre decals per un esemplare US Navy nella sgargiante livrea del periodo.

Note

Bibliografia
  Andrade, John. U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909. Hinckley, UK: Midland Counties Publications, 1979. ISBN 0-904597-22-9.
  Bowers, Peter M.  Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947. London, UK: Putnam & Company, 1979. ISBN 0-370-10029-8.
  Doll, Thomas E. SBC Helldiver in Action, Aircraft Number 151. Carrollton, TX: Squadron/Signal Publications, Inc., 1995. ISBN 0-89747-331-0.
  Green, William and Gordon Swanborough. "Uncle Sam's Last Combat Biplane". AirEnthusiast Five, November 1977-February 1978. Bromley, Kent, UK: Pilot Press Ltd., 1978.
  Larned, W.E., RADM USNR. "Comment and Discussion." United States Naval Institute Proceedings, October 1976.
  Swanborough, Gordon and Peter M. Bowers.  United States Navy Aircraft since 1911. London: Putnam, 1976. ISBN 0-370-10054-9.

Altri progetti

Collegamenti esterni

Aerei militari della seconda guerra mondiale
Aerei militari dal 1931 al 1945
Aerei militari statunitensi

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Dr. Khehra graduated from College of Veterinary Sciences, Punjab Agricultual University located in Punjab, India. His areas of interest are internal medicine and surgery. He has worked in the Central Valley and Bay Area, California. He joined Madera Animal Hospital. in 2007; took over from its founder. He loves animals and is very dedicated to his patients.


text:
'The Flash' TV Show Casts Reverse-Flash & Killer Frost
by Basil Rafiq · January 31, 2014
Even though the DC fans hopes of seeing two of the greatest DC superheroes on the big screen have been delayed (Maybe not?). Fans can still rejoice in the fact that the DC TV universe is going stronger then ever. With the The CW's hit series Arrow is going strong, with its return from mid-season hiatus carrying the subplot that will spin off into The Flash standalone pilot.
With Grant Gustin in the lead as Central City CSI Barry Allen, The Flash's pilot has added Law & Order alum Jesse L. Martin as Barry's surrogate father Detective West, and as expected, we now have news of even more cast additions.
According to Deadline, Rick Cosnett (The Vampire Diaries) and Danielle Panabaker have joined the pilot's cast. Cosnett will play Detective Eddie Thawne, described as "a recent transfer to the Central City Police Department, whose past is a mystery and who harbors a dark secret."
Panabaker's character is Caitlin Snow, "a highly intelligent bioengineering expert who lost her fiancé during an explosion at S.T.A.R. Labs."
Rick Cosnett , Grant Gustin and Danielle Panabaker.
If we try and dig deeper, Eddie Thawne is almost certainly a variation on Eobard Thawne, who in the comics goes by the codenames Professor Zoom and Reverse-Flash. The Reverse-Flash is arguably' The Flash's greatest enemy, a man from the future with all the powers of The Flash and similar fashion sense (he wears the same costume, albeit primarily yellow with hints of red; hence, "Reverse"-Flash) who is determined to ruin Barry Allen's life. He's also responsible for murdering Allen's mother via time travel, which will likely be a large part of the plot of the new series.
Likewise, in the comics, Caitlin Snow was a scientist whose body was accidentally fused with ice, which transformed her into Killer Frost. She's basically a "heat vampire" who can, for some reason, turn heat into cold. Her entire body is covered in ice and she can also create deadly ice projectiles and instantly freeze anyone she comes into contact with.
Some of the early assumptions were that Flash would not be quite as dark and broody as Arrow, but the addition of characters with painful backstories and with this version of Barry Allen already obsessed with solving the murder of his parents, it might be the show may negate some of the source material's more colorful, fantastical and somewhat lighthearted elements. That is, unless the creative team behind the pilot are aiming for a blend of Arrow's Christopher Nolan-influenced dark tone with some of the lighter elements of the Flash's universe. Arrow co-creators Andrew Kreisberg and Greg Berlanti have said that they intend both shows to be as distinctive as possible, so expect the Flash's adventures in Central City to deal with themes and issues similar to Arrow while keeping a somewhat more buoyant tone.
The casting announcements for The Flash are sure to keep coming, so stay tuned for more. The Flash will premiere on The CW, most likely Fall 2014.
Tags: arrowbatmancomicscrossoversCWDCentertainmentflashMan of steelsupermantvuniverse
Basil Rafiq
Just cause someone likes it, doesn't mean you have to.
Meet Melissa, The Most Photogenic And Adorable Cat You'll Ever See
by Passionirsta · Published June 15, 2015
Animated Short : "Descendants" | Story about the unattainable.
by Basil Rafiq · Published September 29, 2013
Michael Douglas is playing Hank Pym in Ant-Man!
by Basil Rafiq · Published January 14, 2014
Next story Vin Diesel Says Thank you to fans, while hinting at Fourth Riddick
Previous story 2014 Detroit Auto Show – 2015 Chrysler 200