text:
Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Michigan Western District McGowen #625955 v. MacLaren Filing 19
McGowen #625955 v. MacLaren
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 17 ; denying habeas petition; denying a certificate of appealability; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, acr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Clint Allan McGowan, Petitioner, -vDuncan MacLaren, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:13-cv-904 HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Clint McGowan's objections to the Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued by Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green. (ECF No. 18.) On August 19, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief from a final state court decision (ECF No. 1); with leave of the Court, he amended his petition on October 17, 2013. (ECF No. 6.) The State of Michigan, through MacLaren, filed its response on April 25, 2014. (ECF No. 10.) Initially, the Magistrate Judge recommended this Court deny McGowan's petition as time barred. (ECF No. 14.) However, this Court rejected the first R&R "[b]ecause the State deliberately waived any statute of limitations defense." (ECF No. 16 at PageID.5153.) Thus, this Court once again referred this matter to the Magistrate Judge for an R&R on the merits of the petition. (Id.) The Magistrate Judge issued an R&R on March 31, 2017, recommending that the petition be denied. (ECF No. 17.) Petitioner filed the instant objections on April 14, 2017. (ECF No. 18.) I. Statement of Facts & Factual Objections As an initial matter, the Court adopts those facts contained in the Magistrate Judge's report to which Petitioner has no objection. Petitioner does object to the following facts: (1) A group of six people were at Mr. Marrott's house when he was beaten. (2) The other three were Petitioner, his brother Heath and his friend Edward Griffes. (Trial Tr. V, ECF No. 11-8, PageID.1827-1828; Trial Tr. VII ECF No. 11-10, PageID.2468; Trial Tr. IX ECF No. 11-12, PageID2817.) (3) The four males went inside. (Trial Tr. V, ECF No. 11-8, PageID.1831; Trial Tr. VII, ECF No. 11-10, PageID.2474; Trial Tr. IX, ECF No. 11-12, PageID.2821.) (ECF No. 18 at PageID.5209–10) Petitioner asserts that the facts in question are not supported by the testimony of the witnesses contained in the record. Petitioner argues that the testimony of Michael Hansen, (ECF No. 11-8 at PageID.1827–43), Melissa Mudget, (ECF No. 11-10 at PageID.2468–86), and Tara Waldorf, (ECF No. 11-12 at PageID.2817–21), does not identify him as being present, any of his actions on the night of the robbery, or that he ever even entered the Marrott home. (ECF No. 18 at PageID.5210.) The specific portions of the testimony indicated by the Petitioner as contradicting the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact, however, do not support his assertion. While Mr. Hansen's testimony is less than clear, it does establish several things: (1) himself, Heath McGowan, Mr. Griffes, and Petitioner discussed the robbery of the Marrott home together prior to going to the home (ECF No. 11-8 at PageID.1824–25); the four men along with two girls went to the Marrott home to steal OxyContin pills (Id. at PageID.1826– 2 27); at the house, the four men got out of the car and entered the home (Id. at PageID.1831); while in the home, the four men ransacked the place looking for the OxyContin (Id. at PageID.1833–35); and (5) while in the home, an altercation occurred between Heath McGowan and Mr. Marrott. (Id. at PageID.1835). Ms. Mudget's testimony indicates that the same four men, Heath McGowan, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Griffes, and Petitioner, along with herself and Ms. Waldorf, all drove to the Marrott home together to get pills. (See ECF No. 11-10 at PageID.2468–71.) Ms. Mudget further testifies that once they were at the home the four men got out of the car and entered the house. (Id. at PageID.2474–75.) Likewise, Ms. Waldorf's testimony also indicates that the same six individuals traveled to the Marrott home and that the four men got out of the car and entered the house. (ECF No. 11-12 at PageID.2816–21.) The crux of Petitioner's argument against the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact is that none of the testimony described above specifically indicates that he went into the house or that any of his actions occurred in the house. (ECF No. 18.) Petitioner, however, relies on isolated segments of testimony to support his assertions without considering those segments in the larger context of the testimony as a whole. The testimony does not need to be a secondby-second account of Petitioner's actions in order to establish an outline of the events that occurred that night. The testimony of the three witnesses described above was consistent and adequately described the events of that night: six individuals—Heath McGowan, Eddie Griffes, Mike Hansen, Melissa Mudget, Tara Waldorf, and Petitioner—went to a house, later identified as the Marrott home, to steal pills and once at the house the four men got out of the car and went inside. 3 Here, Petitioner is asking the Court to use a hyper-technical reading of the record when coming to its conclusions because no witness specifically testified he "entered" the house. The context of the testimony as a whole, however, makes it clear that Petitioner was one of the six individuals that went to the Marrott home and that when the group arrived at the home the four men in the car, including Petitioner, got out of the car and entered the house. Accordingly, Petitioner's objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact are OVERRULED, and the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact in his report in full. II. Legal Framework With respect to a dispositive motion, a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, rather than an order. After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (holding the district court need not provide de novo review where the objections are frivolous, conclusive or too general because the burden is on the parties to "pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that the district court must specifically consider"). Failure to file an objection results in a waiver of the issue and the issue cannot be appealed. United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (upholding the Sixth Circuit's 4 practice). The district court judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). III. Analysis & Legal Objections Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to relief on several grounds: (1) prosecutorial misconduct, (2) violation of due process by denial to appoint an expert witness, (3) violation of due process by exclusion of an alibi witnesses, (4) violation of due process by denial of a motion for separate trials/juries, (5) ineffective assistance of defense counsel, and (6) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. (ECF No. 6.) After examining each issue on the merits, the Magistrate Judge found each of Petitioner's arguments lacked merit and recommended that the Court deny his petition. (ECF No. 17.) Petitioner now lodges several objections to the Magistrate Judge's legal recommendations. (ECF No. 18.) A. Prosecutorial Misconduct Petitioner first alleges the prosecutor in his case presented improper arguments in his closing statement and rebuttal. (ECF No. 6 at PageID.133.) Specifically, Petitioner alleges three instances of improper argument, which he views as "prosecutorial misconduct": (1) introduction of excluded prior bad acts evidence, (2) arguing facts not in evidence, and (3) misleading the jury to believe the burden of proof was on Petitioner at trial. (Id.) In a habeas corpus action, a petitioner must do more than just show erroneous prosecutorial conduct in order to be entitled to relief. See Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986). There is no standalone right to be free from any "prosecutorial misconduct" in the United States Constitution. Rather, the right sounds in due process. "The relevant 5 question is whether the prosecutors' comments so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process." Id. (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974)) (internal quotations omitted). "[T]he remarks must be examined within the context of the trial to determine whether the prosecutor's behavior amounted to prejudicial error." United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 12 (1985). In Macias v. Makowski, the Sixth Circuit outlined a two-part test to determine if alleged prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of violating a defendant's due process rights. 291 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2002). The Court must first consider whether the prosecutor's conduct and remarks were improper, and second apply a four-factor test to determine "whether the impropriety was flagrant and thus violated the defendant's due process rights." Id. at 452 (quoting United States v. Carter, 236 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2001)) (internal quotations omitted). The four factors are "(1) whether the conduct and remarks of the prosecutor tended to mislead the jury or prejudice the defendant; (2) whether the conduct or remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) whether the remarks were deliberately or accidentally made; and (4) whether the evidence against the defendant was strong." Carter, 236 F.3d at 783; accord United States v. Carroll, 26 F.3d 1380, 1385 (6th Cir. 1994). Petitioner here has failed to show that the contested remarks of the prosecutor in his case rise to the level of violating his due process rights. 1. Introduction of Prior Bad Acts Evidence Petitioner first alleges his due process rights were violated when the prosecutor brought up his methamphetamine use in her rebuttal statements. (ECF No. 6 at PageID.133.) Specifically, Petitioner takes issue with the statement: "Heath, Clint, and Eddie 6 are in that same category. He can't separate those three out from all the other witnesses because they're all meth addicts. They're all using." (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID.41.) After reviewing the record, the Magistrate Judge found that while this statement may have been slightly improper, the inclusion of the statement did not rise to the level of violating Petitioner's due process rights. (ECF No. 17 at PageID.5167–68.) Petitioner takes issue with the Magistrates Judge's conclusion that the statements did not amount to a violation of due process, and argues that the prosecutor used the statement to imply that "if [Petitioner] ever used methamphetamine, he had to be part of the killing." (ECF No. 18 at PageID.5212.) Petitioner's argument, however, fails to place the prosecutor's statement into the context of the rebuttal as a whole. The specific section of the rebuttal argument Petitioner is challenging reads as follows: During [Defendant Griffes' counsel's] closing he said all the witnesses are meth addicts and that's doubt. Well, if that's true, then Heath, Clint, and Eddie are in the same category. He can't separate those three out from all the other witnesses because they're all meth addicts. They're all using. So that just doesn't make any sense because he wants you to believe that Heath's memory was perfectly fine even though he was a meth addict. (ECF No. 11-15 at PageID.3829–30.) The statement was not being used, as Petitioner alleges, to draw a connection between his drug use and the murder charge, but rather it was being used to challenge assertions made by Defendant Griffes' counsel that the testimony of Mr. Hansen, Ms. Mudget, and Ms. Waldorf could not be trusted because they were meth addicts and their memories were impaired. (Id. at PageID.3778–80.) While the prosecutor certainly may have exaggerated the point, since Defendant Griffes' counsel never said that all of the witnesses were meth addicts, and indeed did present evidence of Petitioner's drug7 use, the prosecutor's statements were not so egregious to violate Petitioner's due process rights. Petitioner himself testified to his methamphetamine use (ECF No. 11-14 at PageID.3328), and the testimony of other witnesses strongly implied that he was a methamphetamine user. Further, the prosecutor did not present the prior bad acts evidence to the jury to assert that Petitioner must have committed the crime because of methamphetamine use or to prove the character of Petitioner "in order to show action in conformity therewith." MICH. R. EVID. 404(b). The prosecutor presented the evidence to the jury to call into question the validity of Petitioner's and his co-defendants' testimony. Moreover, the evidence against Petitioner was quite extensive and it is unlikely that the brief mention of Petitioner's drug use had any effect on the jury's verdict. Accordingly, Defendant's first objection is OVERRULED. 2. Arguing Facts Not in Evidence Petitioner next claims that the prosecution argued facts not in evidence by presenting the following statements to the jury during closing: (1) had to have seen him beating Henry and did nothing to stop him, just watched him beat this little man senseless (2) They all entered the home and confronted Henry and Henry Marrott ended up dead as a result of their actions. (3) They did intend to kill him by their actions during the killing or their lack of action from stopping Heath and you can infer premeditation by their actions, what they said, what they did, how they did it (4) The testimony of Mike, Melissa and Tara put Clint and Eddie right there along side Heath. They aided or encouraged Heath and they're as guilty as Heath, who struck the fatal blows… 8 (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID.46–47.) Petitioner asserts that there is no evidence in the record that places him in the room when his brother, Heath McGowan, killed Mr. Marrott, or even at the Marrott home on the night of the murder. (ECF No. 18 at PageID.5213.) The Magistrate Judge found that there was enough evidence in the record to allow the prosecutor to make the challenged inferences and present them to the jury. (ECF No. 17 at PageID.5168–70.) Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge mischaracterized the evidence and reasserts that the inferences made by the prosecutor were improper because "not one witness testified that Clint McGowan was even in the house." (ECF No. 18 at PageID.5213.) While it is true that no witnesses specifically testified that Petitioner was in the house and saw the murder, there was ample circumstantial evidence placing Petitioner at the Marrott home on the night of the murder, and in the house when the murder occurred. See supra Part I. Three different eyewitnesses testified that the six people, Heath McGowan, Eddie Griffes, Mike Hansen, Melissa Mudget, Tara Waldorf, and Petitioner, were all at the Marrott home on the night of the murder. Id. Further, the same three witnesses consistently testified that the four men got out of the car, two went in the house from the front and the other two went in the back, they stayed in the house roughly between fifteen and twenty minutes, and returned from the house rambunctious with stolen property. (ECF No. 11-8 at PageID.1831-33; ECF No. 11-10 at PageID.2474–77; ECF No. 11-12 at PageID.2821–23.) Moreover, both Ms. Mudget and Ms. Waldorf testified that Petitioner came out of the house carrying a lock box and appeared angry with Heath. (ECF No. 11-10 at PageID.2476-77; ECF No. 11-12 at PageID.2822-23.) 9 The eyewitness testimony clearly put the Petitioner in the Marrott home alongside the other co-defendants. A prosecutor "must be given leeway to argue reasonable inferences from the evidence." United States v. Collins, 78 F.3d 1021, 1040 (6th Cir. 1996); accord Byrd v. Collins, 209 F.3d 486, 535 (6th Cir. 2000). That is precisely what the prosecutor did in this case and at a bare minimum, the State Court's conclusion that the argument did not violate Petitioner's due process rights was not contrary to clearly established law. The testimony of the three cooperating eyewitnesses provide enough evidence that the prosecutor could reasonably infer that Petitioner saw the murder of Mr. Marrott or, at the very least, was in the home when Mr. Marrott was murdered and saw the aftermath on his way out of the house. Accordingly, Petitioner's second objection to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is OVERRULED. 3. Shifting the Burden to Defense Finally, Petitioner claims that the prosecutor mislead the jury to believe that the burden of proof was on him when the prosecutor argued: "You look at Clint's statement and how it can't be true and you look at all these other witnesses who -- who don't support this so-called alibi. That's how you decide who did it." (ECF No. 1 at PageID.48.) After reviewing the record, the Magistrate Judge found that, taken on their own, the statements in question did seem to cross the line into shifting the burden of proof; but, in the context of the rebuttal argument as a whole, the statements merely invited the jury to look at the evidence objectively to see who's testimony was corroborated and who's was not. (ECF No. 17 at PageID.5172.) Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge ignored established case law in Nishikawa v. Dulles that "the mere disbelief of a witness' testimony cannot serve to fill an evidentiary gap 10 in the case; it will not justify a conclusion that the opposite of the witness' testimony is true in the absence of any independent evidence affirmatively supporting that conclusion." 356 U.S. 129 (1958). The entire section of the prosecutor's rebuttal that contains the alleged impermissible statements reads as follows: Clint's alibi, you know both Schoonmaker and Heather Wisniewski show that he can't be telling the truth because if Schoonmaker were there and Heather wasn't there, then Clint's not there. I mean, that's basically what came out from those three witnesses. Defense Counsel asks you, how do you decide who did it? Well, you start with the co-defendants who were there. You get others who corroborate the co-defendants. You add their testimony into the mix. You look at Clint's statement and how it can't be true and you look at all these other witnesses who–who don't support this so-called alibi. That's how you decide who did it. You've got to look at each piece as it relates to the case and I think if you do that, start with the codefendants, throw in the other witnesses and then throw in Clint's statement, you'll see it doesn't make any sense. (ECF No. 11-15 at PageID.3827.) Looking at the alleged improper statements in context, the prosecutor does not attempt to unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof onto Petitioner, but rather points to inconsistencies between Petitioner's testimony and the testimony of other witnesses that supposedly supported his alibi. Additionally, the prosecutor does not argue that disbelief of Petitioner alone should be the basis of disbelief of his defense. The prosecutor specifically points to the testimony of the cooperating eyewitnesses as the affirmative evidence that the jury should consider in evaluating the credibility of Petitioner's alibi. Particularly, if you look at one section of the argument—"[y]ou've got to look at each piece as it relates to the case and I think if you do that, start with the co-defendants, throw in 11 the other witnesses and then throw in Clint's statement, you'll see it doesn't make any sense"—it is apparent that the prosecutor simply asked the jury to question whether the alibi defense made sense when compared to the other, corroborated testimony. The prosecutor's statements, in their full context, did not violate Petitioner's due process rights. Therefore, Petitioner's third objection to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is OVERRULED. B. Denial of Motion to Appoint Expert Witness Petitioner next claims that the state trial court violated his due process rights by denying his motion to appoint an expert witness to testify for the defense. (ECF No. 6 at PageID.134.) For trial, Petitioner and his co-defendants sought to retain Dr. Ben Kuslikis, an expert in the fields of pharmacology and toxicology, to testify as to the effects of methamphetamine use on cognitive abilities and memory recall. (ECF No. 11-3 at PageID.399–402.) The state trial court denied the motion to appoint the expert witness on the ground that the witness would be called for the sole purpose of challenging the credibility of the prosecution's lay witness. (Id. at PageID.410–11.) In coming to its decision, the state court held that an expert witness could not be appointed on behalf of an indigent defendant for the sole purpose of impeaching the credibility of other witnesses, the witnesses themselves had already testified to their memory problems, and the defense could further address the credibility on cross without the need for an expert witness. (Id.) The Court also cited several Michigan cases to support its determination that the defense motion should be denied. (Id.) Petitioner now challenges the state trial court's denial of the motion on the ground that it violated the precedent set forth in Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985). After examining the facts of the case and the relevant case law, the Magistrate Judge determined 12 that no Supreme Court decision had specifically expanded the scope of Ake to include nonpsychiatric experts and thus the question of whether a trial court had to appoint a nonpsychiatric expert was still open and not clearly established federal law. (ECF No. 17 at PageID.5178.) Further, the Magistrate Judge found that even if applying Ake to nonpsychiatric experts were clearly established federal law, Petitioner had failed to show that the expert testimony was necessary to or would have aided his ultimate defense. (Id. at PageID.5179–80.) Petitioner argues the Magistrate Judge erroneously determined that Ake did not apply in this case, that the testimony of Dr. Kuslikis would have been duplicative, and that the prosecution witness, Detective Wolters, did not offer expert testimony. (ECF No. 18 at PageID.5214.) In Ake, the Supreme Court held that [W]hen a defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense. 470 U.S. at 83. Petitioner relies heavily on the holding in Ake, but fails to recognize two key distinctions between the facts of Ake and his case. First, and foremost, Petitioner was not seeking the assistance of a psychiatric expert. As of yet, the Supreme Court has not expanded the holding in Ake to apply to the appointment of non-psychiatric experts. See, e.g., Caldwell v. Miss., 472 U.S. 320, 323 n.1 (1985) (refusing to apply the holding in Ake to the appointment of a criminal investigator, fingerprint expert, and ballistics expert). As such, there is no clearly established law holding that a trial court must provide an indigent 13 defendant with the funds to procure an expert other than a "competent psychiatrist." McWilliams v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 1790, 1794 (citing Ake, 470 U.S. at 83). The expert that Petitioner requested was not a psychiatrist, but one who specialized in pharmacology and toxicology. Since it is unclear whether a court is required to provide to an indigent defendant an expert like one he requested, the decision to deny Petitioner's motion to appoint an expert witness was not and could not have been an objectively unreasonable application of Ake. See Mason v. Mitchell, 320 F.3d 604, 615 (6th Cir. 2003). Second, the purpose for which Petitioner sought to retain Dr. Kuslikis is wholly different from the purpose outlined in Ake. In Ake, the sanity of the defendant at the time of the crime was a key factor in the case as the defendant was presenting an insanity defense. 470 U.S. at 72–73. There, the Court reasoned that in cases where the sanity of a defendant at the time of the crime is a central factor in the defense, the defendant's need for a psychiatrist is apparent. Id. at 82. The Court further reasoned that "[i]t is in such cases that a defense may be devastated by the absence of a psychiatric examination and testimony . . . ." Id. As such, the psychiatric expert's testimony is likely to dramatically affect the jury's factual determination of a defendant's sanity, while the absence of such testimony could result in a gross miscarriage of justice. See id. In contrast, Petitioner sought to obtain an expert witness for the sole purpose of impeaching the credibility of a prosecution witness—and not even an expert witness. Although the effects of methamphetamine on frequent users was an important issue in the case, Petitioner's defense did not depend on the testimony of an expert witness in order to call into question the accuracy of the prosecution witness's testimony. As the trial court 14 pointed out, all of the witnesses whose testimony Petitioner wished to call into question readily admitted to having memory problems due to methamphetamine use, and Petitioner had an ample opportunity to address those memory problems on cross-examination. Indeed, throughout his testimony, Mr. Hansen, one of the key witnesses for the prosecution, repeatedly acknowledge that his memory of the events before, during, and after the trip to the Marrott Home was severely impaired. (ECF No. 11-8 at PageID.1808–65.) Likewise, on cross-examination, Ms. Mudget, another key witness for the prosecution, admitted to heavy methamphetamine use and its effects on her memory, including black outs. (ECF No. 11-10 at PageID.2509–10.) In regards to Petitioner's argument that he should have been allowed an expert witness to rebut the testimony of Detective Wolters, the brief testimony that Wolters provided on the effects of methamphetamine use on memory was beneficial to Petitioner's defense, and indicated that it dramatically reduces a person's ability to recall information. (ECF No. 11-12 at PageID.2936.) Additionally, Detective Wolters was never qualified as an expert on methamphetamine use, and only testified to her personal experiences with methamphetamine users. (Id.) Accordingly, even if the Supreme Court had extended Ake to apply in cases on non-psychiatric experts, Petitioner would not be entitled to relief because he has failed to show that the absence of his requested expert witness resulted in an unfair trial. See, e.g., Woodley v. Bradshaw, 451 F. App'x 529, 535 (6th Cir. 2011); Little v. Armontrout, 835 F.2d 1240, 1244 (8th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, Petitioner's fourth objection to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is OVERRULED. 15 C. Exclusion of Alibi Witnesses Petitioner next claims that the state trial court violated his due process rights by denying his motion to add an alibi witness, made after the trial had started, and excluding the alibi testimony of Petitioner's parents due to sequestration violations. (ECF No. 6 at PageID.136.) Petitioner asserts that the exclusion of these witnesses violated his constitutional right to call witnesses for his defense. (Id.) In California v. Trombetta, the Supreme Court held that "criminal defendants [must] be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense." 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984); accord Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986). This right, however, is not unlimited. In Taylor v. Illinois, the Supreme Court held that "[t]he accused does not have an unfettered right to offer testimony that is incompetent, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible under standard rules of evidence." 484 U.S. 400, 410 (1986). There, the Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the Sixth Amendment created an absolute bar on the exclusion of a surprise witness. Id. The Court reasoned that "[t]he adversary process could not function effectively without adherence to rules of procedure that govern the orderly presentation of facts and arguments to provide each party with a fair opportunity to assemble and submit evidence to contradict or explain the opponent's case." Id. at 410–11. The Supreme Court has further held that the exclusion of evidence is "unconstitutionally arbitrary or disproportionate only where it has infringed upon a weighty interest of the accused." United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998). 16 1. Exclusion of Witness for Untimely Notice Turning to Petitioner's first claim, he argues that the Court denied him the opportunity to present a defense by denying his motion to add Mr. Henry Alexander as an alibi witness after trial had started. (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID.61–64.) At trial, Petitioner motioned to add Mr. Alexander to the witness list as an alibi witness for his defense. (ECF No. 11-13 at PageID.3191.) The Court denied Petitioner's motion on the grounds that he and his family knew about Mr. Alexander's potential to testify prior to trial and did not disclose that fact to the prosecution, and so the motion to add Mr. Alexander was untimely. (Id. at PageID.3211–13.) The Magistrate Judge found that the trial court had followed the holding of Taylor, supra, and therefore had not violated clearly established federal law. (ECF No. 17 at PageID.5186–87.) Petitioner's response to the Magistrate Judge's finding on this claim lacks clarity and merely reiterates his assertion that Mr. Alexander should have been allowed to testify while focusing the brunt of his argument on the Magistrate judge's determination regarding his parent's testimony. (ECF No. 18 at PageID.5215–16.) Petitioner thus fails to "pinpoint [the] portions of the magistrate's report that the district court must specifically consider" for this claim. Therefore, Petitioner's fifth objection is OVERRULED. 2. Exclusion of Witnesses for Violation of Sequestration Order Petitioner next claims that the Court violated his due process rights by excluding the testimony of his parents for violating the sequestration order. (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID.61– 64.) During trial, the prosecution presented evidence to the Court that Mr. and Mrs. McGowan had been talking to both of their sons about what was happening in the case, what witnesses had testified to, and what witnesses were left to testify. (ECF No. 11-13 at 17 PageID.3213–16.) The prosecutor also presented further evidence that Mr. and Mrs. McGowan had talked to or planned to talk to several witnesses. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court found they had willfully violated the sequestration order and that their testimony was likely tainted. (Id. at PageID.3220–22.) As such, the Court ordered their testimony excluded. (Id. at PageID.3222.) The Magistrate Judge, once again, found that the trial court had not acted contrary to established federal law. (ECF No. 17 at PageID.5188.) Petitioner objects to the finding of the Magistrate Judge because no sequestration order or any order prohibiting Mr. and Mrs. McGowan from talking to their children appears in the record before this Court. (ECF No. 18 at PageID.5216.) Petitioner also argues that since the prosecution was allowed to call witnesses that had received plea deals, he should have been allowed to present his witnesses. (Id.) Looking to the record, the trial court held a separate hearing, without the jury present, to determine if Mr. and Mrs. McGowan would be allowed to testify. (ECF No. 11-13 at PageID.3191–3222.) At this hearing, the prosecution presented evidence to the Court that Mr. and Mrs. McGowan had communicated with Petitioner, his brother Heath, and other witnesses about the case in the form of taped or recorded conversations. (Id. at PageID.3204–06.) After reviewing the conversation between Petitioner or his brother and their parents, the Court found that the McGowans had willfully violated the Court's sequestration order and may have attempted to influence the testimony of other witnesses. (Id. at PageID.3220–22.) Based on that finding, the Court excluded the McGowan's testimony. (Id.) 18 While in most circumstances alternative sanctions may be an appropriate remedy to a violation of a discovery or pretrial order, the Supreme Court has held that in the most severe of circumstances "preclusion [is] justified because a less severe penalty 'would perpetuate rather than limit the prejudice to the State and the harm to the adversary process.'" Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 152 (1991) (quoting Taylor, 484 U.S. at 417.) In cases where the violation was willful and blatant, the severest sanctions are appropriate regardless of whether prejudice to the prosecution could be avoided through less severe ones. See Taylor, 484 U.S. at 417. Here, the Court finds no reason to doubt the trial court's conclusions that Mr. and Mrs. McGowan conversed with their sons about the case and witness testimony on multiple occasions during the course of trial; they talked about what witnesses had already been called, what the witnesses had said, who was going to be called, what they should say on the stand, and indicated that they intended to talk to other witnesses about what they had or were going to testify to. (ECF No. 11-13 at PageID.3191–22.) Accordingly, the state trial court's decision to exclude their testimony based on their willful violation of the sequestration order was not contrary to clearly established federal law. 1 Petitioner's second argument fails out of the gate. Petitioner argues that since the witnesses for the prosecution had received plea deals and were likely to have "an incentive to please the prosecutor," that he should have therefore been allowed to call the witnesses Petitioner's argument that the sequestration order cannot be relied upon because it is not contained in the Rule 5 materials lacks merit. The relevant record clearly lays out the sequestration order's requirements and its applicability to the McGowans and their utterly willful violations of the order. (See, e.g., ECF No. 6 at PageID.168–69.) No one can seriously doubt the following: 1) the McGowans were on the witness list; 2) the trial judge entered a sequestration order; 3) the McGowans clearly violated the order. The Michigan Court of Appeals characterized the violations of the order as "continuing and clearly intended to influence testimony of witnesses." (Id. at PageID.169.) Indeed, recordings of the McGowans plotting to exenterate the sequestration order by phone and in person in the jail during trial were relied upon by the state trial judge. 1 19 he wished to call. (Id.) The ability of the prosecution to present its case, however, has no bearing on whether Petitioner was given the opportunity to present a complete defense. Petitioner's parents were not prevented from testifying because they were likely to present evidence that favored the defense, but rather they were excluded because they blatantly and willfully violated the sequestration order by communicating about the case to Petitioner, his brother, and other witnesses. As the Court of Appeals held, "[w]hile defendant was prohibited from presenting the testimony at issue, he was not precluded from offering a defense. He personally testified to his alibi and presented other witnesses to corroborate his assertion that it was not present or involved in the crime." (ECF No. 6 at PageID.169.) Simply put, "it was defendant's . . . involvement in the violation of the sequestration order that limited any presentation of his alibi defense" (id.), not a state court's ruling contrary to clearly established law. Cf. Taylor, 484 U.S. at 417. In short, Petitioner has failed to establish that the Court acted contrary to established federal law by excluding the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. McGowan. As such, Petitioner's sixth objection is OVERRULED. D. Failure to Order Separate Trials/Juries Petitioner next claims that his due process rights were violated by the trial court's denial of his motion for a separate trial or jury. (ECF No. 6 at PageID.137.) Petitioner argues that since prior bad acts evidence was ruled admissible as to his codefendants but inadmissible as to himself, the Court should have ordered a separate trial or, at a minimum, separate juries. (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID.65–71.) The Magistrate Judge found that there is no Supreme Court precedent establishing a right to separate trials under the Due Process Clause 20 and accordingly, the trial court's refusal to sever the trial was not contrary to clearly established federal law. (ECF No. 17 at PageID.5190–93.) Petitioner argues that the case should have been decided based on the precedent set in Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993), and that under that precedent he was entitled to relief because he was subject to prejudice by having a joint trial. In Zafiro, the Supreme Court was asked to determine if Fed. R. Crim. P. 14 required a separate trial where co-defendants were presenting mutually antagonistic defenses. There the Court determined that "[m]utually antagonistic defenses are not prejudicial per se." Id. at 538. The Court further held that even when actual prejudice is shown, the decision of whether to sever the trial or seek other remedies, such as providing the jury with special instructions, is left up to the discretion of the Court. Id. at 539. Accordingly, Petitioner's reliance on Zafiro is misplaced for several reasons. First, the holding in Zafiro is not rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, but rather in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Second, Petitioner and his co-defendants did not present mutually antagonistic defenses; quite to the contrary, they all presented essentially the same defense, that they had nothing to do with the crime. Last, even if Petitioner and his co-defendants had presented mutually antagonist defenses, the decision on whether to sever the cases would still have been within the broad discretion of the Court. Petitioner can present no Supreme Court precedent that entitles him to a separate trial as a matter of law under the Due Process Clause. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that the actions of the trial court denying his motion for a separate trial was contrary to clearly established federal law and therefore, Petitioner's seventh objection is OVERRULED. 21 E. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Next, Petitioner claims that his attorneys, both defense and appellate, provided ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment's guarantee to effective assistance of counsel. U.S. CONST. amend. VI. The standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, as established in Strickland v. Washington, requires a defendant to prove (1) that defense counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for the unprofessional errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). Either prong may be addressed first, and the failure to demonstrate prejudice obviates the need for the Court to address the counsel performance prong, and vice versa. Id. at 697. The burden is on the defendant to prove that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by a preponderance of the evidence. Pough v. United States, 442 F.3d 959, 964 (6th Cir. 2006). When considering whether counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, courts must "apply a 'strong presumption' that counsel's representation was within the 'wide range' of reasonable professional assistance." Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115, 122 (2011) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688). The defendant has the burden to show that counsel's errors were "so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment." Id. To establish ineffective assistance, the defendant must show that his counsel's representation was incompetent under prevailing professional norms, not merely that it deviated from best practices or common custom, and that the conduct was not sound trial strategy. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. Courts must be highly deferential and consider the 22 circumstances of the attorney's conduct at the time of the performance, not with the benefit of hindsight. Id. at 689. It is especially difficult to challenge strategic decisions made after a thorough investigation of the relevant law and facts; such decisions are "virtually unchallengeable." Rayborn v. United States, 489 F. App'x 871 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690). Defendants cannot compel their attorneys to assert even nonfrivolous arguments if counsel decides not to press those points as a matter of professional judgment. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983). 1. Ineffective Assistance of Defense Counsel Petitioner first asserts that he suffered from ineffective assistance of defense counsel on several grounds: (1) failing to seek separate juries or separate trials; (2) failing to develop the defense that Heath acted alone in killing Mr. Marrott; (3) failing to call Diane Howell, Roger Howell and Michael Araujo as alibi witnesses; and (4) failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct or the statements of Heather Wisniewski. (ECF No. 6 at PageID.139.) The Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner had failed to show that his defense counsel deviated from the "wide range of reasonable professional assistance," Premo, 562 U.S. at 122 (internal quotations omitted), or actual prejudice as to all grounds claimed (ECF No. 17 at PageID.5193–5206). As an initial matter, Petitioner did not raise any objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations on grounds one through three. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendations as to grounds one, two, and three. 23 Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding as to ground four that Defense Counsel's failure to object to certain evidence did not amount to actual prejudice. (ECF No. 18 at PageID.5217.) Petitioner's argues his attorneys' failure to object to the prosecutor's misconduct and the testimony of Ms. Wisniewski amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 11 at PageID.81–82.) As stated above, however, Petitioner's contentions that the prosecutor's arguments during closing and rebuttal amounted to prosecutorial misconduct lack any merit. See supra Part III.A. As such, any objection Petitioner's attorneys made against the prosecution's closing statement and rebuttal would have been futile and likely overruled. The failure to raise such a futile objection cannot be the basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Harris v. United States, 204 F.3d 681, 683 (6th Cir. 2000) (Citing Strickland, 466 U.S. 668). Further, since the claims of prosecutorial misconduct lacked any merit, Petitioner is unable to show that Defense Counsel's failure to object resulted in any prejudice. Turning to Petitioner's contention that his attorneys should have objected to Ms. Wisniewski's testimony regarding domestic abuse on Petitioner's part, "in the strategic context of an entire trial, any single failure to object does not constitute error unless the information introduced is so prejudicial to a client that failure to object essentially defaults the case to the state." Hodge v. Haeberlin, 579 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2009); accord Hutton v. Mitchell, 839 F.3d 486, 505 (6th Cir. 2016). Here, it cannot be said that the failure to object to the single account of uncorroborated domestic abuse "essentially default[ed] the case to the state." Id. The statement was brief; Petitioner was on trial for felony murder as an accomplice not as the perpetrator of the violent act; and the evidence against Petitioner was 24 quite strong, as three eyewitnesses placed him at the scene of the crime. It is highly unlikely that the statement in question had any effect on the outcome of the trial. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to show that he suffered from ineffective assistance of defense counsel and accordingly, his eighth objection is OVERRULED. 2. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel Finally, Petitioner claims that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because his attorney failed to raise on direct appeal the issues Petitioner raises now. (ECF No. 6 at PageID.140.) Petitioner asserts that his attorney raised weak arguments on direct appeal while ignoring "meritorious issues apparent from the record . . . ." (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID.86.) The Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner had failed to show his attorney ignored clearly stronger arguments in favor of weaker ones. (ECF No 17 at PageID.5206– 07.) Petitioner objects to the finding of the Magistrate Judge, reasserting that the arguments made in this petition were stronger than the arguments made by appellate counsel. (ECF No. 18 at PageID.5217–18.) The Supreme Court has clearly established that an appellate attorney need not raise every non-frivolous argument on appeal. Jones, 463 U.S. at 751. Thus a petitioner who wishes to show that his appellate counsel failed to deliver effective assistance by not raising a meritorious claim has a high burden of proof. See, e.g., Smith v. Robins, 528 U.S. 259, 288 (2000); Gray v. Greer, 800 F.2d 644, 646 (7th Cir. 1986) ("Generally, only when ignored issues are clearly stronger than those presented, will the presumption of effective assistance of counsel be overcome"). Here, Petitioner argues that appellate counsel ignored the "meritorious" issues raised in this petition and instead raised weaker arguments on direct 25 appeal. As shown above, however, the claims presented in this petition lack any merit. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to show that he suffered from ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Therefore, Petitioner's final objection is OVERRULED. IV. Conclusion In short, Petitioner has presented no claim for which he is entitled to relief. Certificate of Appealability The Court must determine whether a certificate of appealability should be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A certificate should issue if petitioner has demonstrated a "substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has disapproved issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of appealability. Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the district court must "engage in a reasoned assessment of each claim" to determine whether a certificate is warranted. Id. at 467. Each issue must be considered under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). Murphy, 263 F.3d at 467. Under Slack, to warrant a grant of the certificate, "[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." 529 U.S. at 484. "A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that . . . jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). In applying this standard, the Court may not conduct a full merits review, but must limit its examination to a threshold inquiry into the underlying merit of petitioner's claims. Id. 26 Examining petitioner's claims under the standard in Slack, a reasonable jurist would not conclude the Court's assessment of each of petitioner's claims to be debatable or wrong, particularly in light of the AEDPA deference owed to the Michigan courts. Accordingly, Petitioner's certificate of appealability is DENIED. ORDER For the reasons discussed in the accompanying opinion: Petitioner's objections are OVERRULED (ECF No. 18); the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation is ADOPTED (ECF No. 17); Petitioner's petition is DENIED (ECF No. 6); a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Judgment will enter separately. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: July 26, 2017 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge 27


office wall organization ideas extraordinary office organization ideas extraordinary office space organization ideas home office wall organization ideas.
office depot dothan al logo office depot printing dothan al.
husky ladder husky ladder rack.
shower only bathroom bathroom ideas shower only master bath with shower only large size of master bathroom ideas shower bathroom shower tiles designs pictures.
old delta table saw parts delta table saw parts delta here is a photo of the table saw delta delta delta table saw parts 34 444.
extra space storage auctions self storage building exterior in extra space storage unit auctions nj.
replacing shower handle remove replacing shower handle gasket.
bamboo canopy beds bamboo canopy bamboo canopy bed canopy beds romantic outdoor bamboo bamboo canopy beds queen canopy bed bamboo canopy bamboo canopy beds for sale.
casual living room ideas contemporary casual living room with black and white decor and open floor plan next to dining casual coastal living room ideas.
yankees wall art wall decal 5 piece new baseball team wall art canvas panel print picture ash new wall new york yankees collectibles wall art.


text:
About us / Blog / Balancing Parenting and a Career: 7 Tips for Supporting Parents in the Workplace
Balancing Parenting and a Career: 7 Tips for Supporting Parents in the Workplace
30 Nov '22
Work performance
Editorial Board OpenUp
Reviewed by psychologist Jan Helder
During lockdown, how often were your online meetings interrupted when a happy toddler came running into the room? During this period, many employers went easy on their working parents, with flexible working hours, more time off, better communication ("are you still pulling through?") and much more.
However, according to the Harvard Business Review, this hasn't had a lasting effect on the way employers handle working parents. This is despite there being a need for these provisions. Psychologist Jan Helder explains the challenges faced by working parents and the best ways that you can support them.
Challenges for working parents
Step one when it comes to supporting parents in the workplace is understanding what challenges they're facing. And there's only one way to do this: by asking them.
"In consultations, I often speak with working parents about their situation at home and at work and the challenges they have in their daily lives," explains Jan. "The following four topics come up a lot."
1. Work-life balance (or more accurately: imbalance)
Balancing home and work tasks is a huge struggle for working parents. School timetables don't always take into account the hours that parents work (and vice versa). And, of course, an ill child doesn't take working hours and deadlines into consideration.
This means that working parents are often less flexible than other employees. Working an extra shift, pushing things through in an emergency or meeting a tight deadline becomes a bit harder. It's often not an option for parents of young children to work overtime.
2. Stereotyping, judgements and guilt
Working parents often have to deal with stereotypes and judgement. Whatever choices you make, there's always someone who will criticize you.
If you chose not to work less because you want to invest a lot of time and attention in your career, then you're not paying enough attention to your child.
If you go part-time at work to pay more attention to your children, then you're not contributing enough to society, you're not ambitious enough, or you're contributing to gender inequality (if you're a mother working part-time).
These are the same judgements that working mothers in particular make about themselves. They often feel guilty about their children when they're working hard. Fathers, in general, are less affected by this.
3. Fatigue
Having a job is exhausting. Having a job and raising children is even more exhausting.
During the first months or years of parenthood, many parents have to deal with disturbed nights, but even for those who have children with good sleeping habits, running a household and bringing up children requires a lot of energy.
If you've got a lot on your plate, the first things you let slip are often rest, relaxation and time for yourself. This means that working parents are more likely to develop burnout.
4. Growth opportunities
The prospect of making a career shift often becomes less attractive as you get older. Transitions like this are usually accompanied by change, new tasks, learning and adjusting. This takes time, attention and energy; things that working parents temporarily don't have enough of – no matter how ambitious you are.
But the same is true in reverse. Employers often assume that as a new parent you won't have the time and attention to give a larger range of tasks or that new management role, because you'll be busy with your family. This limits your opportunities for promotion, even if that's something you really want.
How to support your working parents
Time for action! According to the OpenUp psychologists, you can tackle the above challenges for working parents in the following ways:
If you want to avoid letting your working parents burnout, talking is important. Parents need to feel that they can discuss their challenges at work. An empathetic and open culture will help here; a culture where you can have conversations with managers and HR professionals without fear of judgement.
Let parents know where they can go if they're worried about their work or their own wellbeing. Also, make sure that there is plenty of contact:
Frequent one-to-one conversations between employers and managers or team leaders
Periodically send the employee an email/app message or call them, asking them if everything is okay
Have a periodic more formal meeting to discuss the feasibility of schedules
Be flexible with working hours and work locations
The lives of working parents are unpredictable. Be flexible in case there's a last-minute change in what your employee needs: an extra day off or working from home, leaving an hour early, or taking a sudden holiday to recharge. Trust your staff to make their own decisions in this regard.
Encourage asynchronous working
In some organizations, it doesn't matter whether you work 9am to 5pm, or 7am to 8pm with several hours break in between to spend time with your kids. All that matters is that you get your work done and are present for important moments of contact.
By encouraging asynchronous working, you can help working parents to better balance their work and home tasks. This way, working parents will gain more control over their time.
Offer professional support
Since working parents don't take a lot of time for themselves, you want to offer them support that is as approachable and accessible as possible. Using OpenUp, employees can, for example, digitally schedule a consultation with a psychologist within 48 hours, practice mindfulness (in a group or together with a psychologist) and take part in group sessions about mental health.
Create a culture that supports parents
The last thing you want is for parents in the workplace to feel guilty about being parents. Or to think that they need to try and hide their parenting because, for example, they're afraid that it will damage their career. This phenomenon is known as "secret parenting".
Celebrate pregnancies, births and other important moments in the lives of working parents. For example, you could do this with a card and little present or another appropriate gift or message. By doing this, you'll show current and prospective parents that you stand by them.
Keep growth opportunities open
New parents experience fewer growth opportunities. For example, this is because employers think they can't take on big projects or increased responsibilities as well as caring for their family.
To overcome this kind of bias, make decisions about who to promote based on objective data rather than general feelings. For example, if somebody has worked at your organization for two years, been on various training courses and received at least a seven from their team leader on certain performance indicators, they should get a promotion.
Make sure that training sessions take place within working hours so that parents won't be excluded from these.
On that subject, the same applies for social activities. Don't exclude parents from these by (only) organizing them in the evenings or at the weekends.
Create a father-friendly culture
Women get asked more often than men "how many hours do you want to work after your baby is born?". In order to keep things equal between men and women, you need to be asking both parents this question.
Be just as encouraging to fathers as you would be to mothers: not just by treating them the same and asking them the same questions regarding expectations in the workplace, but also by offering them flexible working hours and work locations, asynchronous working, the same career opportunities and professional psychological support.
With these tips, you'll make it easier for parents to combine work and home duties.
👉🏼 Want to learn more about how you can support working parents? Book a demo.
Also read these articles
The 8 Best Retention Strategies for 2023
16 Jan '23
OpenUp Leaders Recommend: The Best Business Books for 2023
The Future of Work: Corporate Mental Health Trends for 2023 (According to Psychologists)
High Performers and Burnout: Keep High Achievers in Good Mental Health
3 Jan '23
The OpenUp of Wytze Van den Berg
29 Dec '22

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Frans Sijtsma/Sytsma (Aalsum, 2 juli 1899 – Ommen, 8 oktober 1994) was een Nederlands politicus van de ARP.

Hij werd geboren in de gemeente Oostdongeradeel als zoon van Syds Lieuwes Sijtsma (1868-1939; landbouwer) en Sidonia Catharina Miedema (1870-1953). Zijn vader was van 1904 tot 1934 burgemeester van Oostdongeradeel en daarnaast is hij ook nog Eerste Kamerlid geweest. F. Sijtsma begon zijn ambtelijke loopbaan als volontair bij de gemeente Oostdongeradeel en in 1922 ging hij werken bij de gemeentesecretarie van Baarderadeel. Vanaf begin 1924 was hij ambtenaar bij de gemeente Ommen. Ruim tien jaar later volgde hij zijn vader op als burgemeester van Oostdongeradeel. In november 1940 bleef een herbenoeming uit waarna Oostdongeradeel een NSB'er als burgemeester kreeg. Na de bevrijding in 1945 keerde Sijtsma terug in zijn oude functie. Hij ging in 1964 met pensioen en overleed in 1994 op 95-jarige leeftijd.

Zijn pleegzoon Louw de Jager kwam in 1961 landelijk in het nieuws toen hij tijdens een spionagemissie voor de Buitenlandse Inlichtingendienst (BID) in de Sovjet-Unie gearresteerd en later veroordeeld werd.

Burgemeester van Oostdongeradeel
ARP-politicus

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


In this article and video, we introduce the babelforce manager app. The manager app is the interface you will use to create your processes and automatization. You will learn about some basic functionality, and after reading this article you should feel comfortable with babelforce terminology and ready to start your own project.
The links referred to in this article will help you navigate the babelforce Help Center to find the article you are looking for, so that you can begin to set up your call flow.
Outbound - This section is used for the outbound dialer. It enables you to run and create campaigns as well as upload new contact lists.
Reporting - Besides the call dashboard you can run reports on inbound calls and outbound dialer campaigns in this section. Here you also find call recordings and SMS transcripts.
This article will focus on the Configurations section and guide you through the basics to get started with call flows and automations. The Outbound Dialer and Reporting sections are covered briefly at the end.
You could start your exploration by checking if you already have an inbound number assigned to your account by going to IVR Flow > Numbers. You can always purchase a number from babelforce or continue using numbers from existing providers. This section in Help Center has a number of articles on this topic.
If your account already has numbers assigned, you will find them in in the Numbers section. Next to the number, you can assign an application module.
Application modules are the building blocks for your call flow. In this article, we introduce the eight available call flow application modules. You can only take calls if your number is connected to an application.
Go to the section IVR call-flows > Applications to access the call flow modules. For an advanced call flow example go to this article which also explains the basic template you find in your first babelforce setup (see screenshot below).
In the Prompts section (IVR call-flows Prompts), you can upload your audio files and then attach them to your application modules. Find more practical and technical details here.
You can manage and in some cases also add your agents to the babelforce manager via Routing & Queuing > Agents. In this section, you can also assign numbers, add agents to groups and give them tags. This article explains this part in more detail.
To have your agents selected for incoming calls, your queue and selections settings need to make use of agent grouping and tagging. Create, edit and manage queues in Routing & Queuing > Queues. In this section you will find a number of articles explaining the different options for setting up your queues.
Triggers (Integrated Processes > Triggers) are logical constructions which test certain conditions of calls and other platform resources, and which are used to make your call flow more intelligent. Triggers can be used to selectively fire actions and control routing options. They are essential for building any advanced process logic or automation, and are hugely flexible. Find out all about triggers in our Help Center or try this basic setup to create your own trigger.
With the help of Events (Integrated Processes > Events) the platform automatically knows when to do certain things. Common call events, such as when an inbound call lands on the platform or is connected to an agent, could trigger a call-to-email action or have tickets created, updated or closed in your help desk or CRM. Events drive important actions: use them to push call recordings and voice messages, or send a great range of information regarding the call and caller to your systems.
Below you find a screenshot of basic Zendesk events that come with your first babelforce manager app.
The section Integrations (Integrated Processes > Integrations) is where you connect babelforce with your help desk or CRM. After you have successfully completed an integration, you can also synchronize agents to babelforce.
After you set up your processes you might want to adjust some of the general platform settings, as for instance adding more agent availability statuses or adjusting reachability settings. This article explains the options you have.
Under Scheduling > Business Hours you can define opening times for each of your teams and/or brands. Below you will find the Calendar section, where you have the option to define your holidays. You can then use this scheduling information to add further control to your call flow. See further details in this article.
If you are interested in running outbound dialer campaigns, this is where everything is configured. Here, you can manage campaigns and upload lists of contacts to call. Find out more about the outbound dialer in the Help Center section Outbound sales and services.


A controversial Texas abortion-related bill was finally declared dead at 4:01 a.m. ET, the work of hours of a standing, talking filibuster by 50-year-old Texas State Sen. Wendy Davis (D).
"Thanks to the powerful voices of thousands of Texans, #SB5 is dead," she tweeted of the bill at 5:28 a.m. ET. "An incredible victory for Texas women and those who love them."
Senate Democrats chose Davis, of Fort Worth, to head up the filibuster effort because of her background. She had her first child as a teenager, and went on to graduate from Harvard Law School. By late Tuesday evening, Democrats were chanting her name and promoting a "#StandWithWendy" hashtag on Twitter, and even President Barack Obama's campaign account tweeted a mention.
The Texas bill would have served as some of the most restrictive measures on abortion in the nation. It would have banned most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy while creating new regulations for abortion clinics and their doctors. The bill's critics said it would have shut most of the abortion clinics in Texas. Supporters said it would have improved women's health.
Davis began speaking late Tuesday morning, donning a pair of pink running shoes for her lengthy effort. Under Texas rules, she could not so much as lean on her desk or take a break for meals or to go to the bathroom.
In the afternoon, when it became clear that the effort had a chance of succeeding, Davis' name went national. According to The Associated Press, she jumped from about 1,200 Twitter followers when the filibuster began to more than 65,000 as of Wednesday morning.
When the clock approached midnight — after Davis had stopped talking and lawmakers began bickering over procedural rules— almost 200,000 people were watching a livestream of the State Senate.
It's unclear what's next for Davis, but she became something of a national Democratic star on Tuesday. Her filibuster earned late-night mentions from prominent Washington politicians — including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) — as well as celebrities from Julianne Moore to Ricky Gervais.
"I have to say in my short experience here I've never experienced a day at the Capitol like this one and I think people who have been here a lot longer than me will say the same thing," Davis told reporters afterward.
"What I think it accomplished is what I hoped it would and that was to inspire people to understand that there are voices here on the senate floor that represent them. And I felt empowered by their presence by their support by the letters. ... They made a difference and they are what makes Texans so amazing. And I am proud to be a Texan tonight."


There are some scenarios that are so horrible to consider that considering them should not be an option to a reasonable mind. But, therein lies the rub, dear readers. Our minds are not reasonable. Instead they are vaults of terror that no one was meant to endure.
Below are a list of my nightmare scenarios. Read them at your peril!
1. Being trapped on the tour bus for Stomp. When they aren't banging on stuff, they will explain to you the theories behind their art. Which they do insist on calling art.
2. Attending a Nothing But Trouble film festival.
3. Stuck on a deserted island with nothing to read but the Ayn Rand Omnibus.
4. Forced to attend any kind of sing along event.
5. Receiving a position as a ghost writer for the comic strip, Mallard Filmore.
6. Hosting a celebrity dinner that is attended only by the cast of Punky Brewster. Except for Soleil Moon Frye.
7. Leading a discussion group for seventh grade boys the day after they see Monty Python and the Holy Grail for the first time.
8. Being tried by a jury of ducks. This one is admittedly unlikely and not currently permissible under U.S. law.
9. Going to the theater to see Les Miserables, only to find that the orchestra has been replaced by four guys playing recorders. WHICH I THOUGHT WAS ONLY LEGALLY PLAYABLE BY CHILDREN.
10. Speed dating with a bunch of squirrels.
11. Flying cross-country in the middle seat between Bill Maher and Alex Jones.
12. Having a ham sandwich with no mustard or pickles. THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO ME TODAY.


Vontae Daley-Campbell, Bukayo Saka, Tyreece John-Jules and Folarin Balogun all featured as England Under-17s were beaten on penalties by the Netherlands in the Uefa Under-17 Championship semi-finals.
After a goalless 80 minutes, the match went to spot kicks, with Saka and John-Jules both scoring. Balogun stepped up with the score at 6-5 in sudden death, but his effort was well saved by Joey Koorevaar.


5 Bedroom House To Rent in Southsea for £1,650 per Calendar Month.
Zero Deposit Available Morris Dibben Lettings are delighted to offer this brilliantly proportioned five bedroom student home on Bath Road, close to all transport links such as University bus and Fratton train station, yet retaining an easy walking distance to Albert Road.
The property comprises of two very well proportioned double bedrooms on the ground floor. There is also a very nicely presented open plan kitchen and dining area. There is an enclosed rear garden at the back of the property. Upstairs, there are three further good size double bedrooms a bathroom and a shower room with WC.
This house has been well looked after by the landlord and it offers quality accomodation. The property is furnished to a high standard and will be available from August/ September 2019.
We highly recommend acting quickly on this brilliant opportunity and securing an early viewing today!
Call Morris Dibben now to book your viewing!


Then we drove over to Rice Village and prowled around Half-Price Books for a long time. Rob bought a couple of books, I couldn't tell you what, and I bought Foucault's Pendulum and The English Patient, which I have been meaning to read ever since I finished Anil's Ghost a year or more ago. We spent a good while combing the History section but didn't end up buying anything. (I still have to buy my dad a birthday present, though, so I might be back there. But I'm not going to see him for a week or two so I decided to wait on that.) I also looked for Connie Willis books but didn't find anything, darnit.
By that time it was getting to be rush hour and we decided we'd better head home. We took sort of a long way round to go around the traffic, and we ended up going through Alvin, my home town, which I hardly ever go to now that none of my family lives there. So I spent a lot of time going, "Oh look! they're building a high school in Manvel!" and so forth. (Manvel is where my dad grew up. It's about 10 miles outside of Alvin, and all these years everybody in Manvel has had to go into Alvin to go to high school. It's a measure of how much Manvel has grown that they've finally caved in on that point.) They also have apparently either torn my grandmother's house down, or built something in front of it so that you can't see it any more. I suspect the former, but I'm not sure because the landmarks have all changed, and I wasn't about to try to do a left turn on that busy highway to find out for sure.


Irshad-ul-Islam | Urdu Islamic Community Forum Website > -= General Islamic Forum =- > English Islamic Forum > Aqeedah of Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jamaat > Allah Exists Without a Place, The Creed of True Salaf!
View Full Version : Allah Exists Without a Place, The Creed of True Salaf!
The saying that Allah, ta^ala, exists without a place is the belief and the creed of the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, the Companions and the True Salaf and Khalaf, those who graciously followed them, and it shall be until the Day of Judgment. The proof of this precious statement is what Allah said in the Qur'an, in Surat ash-Shura, ayah 11 which means: "There is nothing like Him and He has the attribute of Hearing and Seeing." This ayah absolutely and totally clears Allah of resembling the creation. It comprises that Allah, ta^ala, is different from the creations in the Self, Attributes, and Doings. Hence, it shows that Allah, ta^ala, exists without a place, because the one who exists in a place would, by nature, be composed of atoms, i.e., he would be a body, occupying a space, and Allah, ta^ala, is clear of occupying spaces.
Al-Bukhariyy, al-Bayhaqiyy and Ibn al Jarud related that the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, said which means: "Allah existed eternally and there was nothing else." This hadith proves that Allah was alone in al-'azal, (the status of existence without a beginning,) i.e., before creating any of the creation. There was nothing with Him: no place, no space, no sky, no light, and no darkness. It is determined in the rules of the Religion and the judgments of the sound mind that Allah, the Exalted, does not change. Hence, it is impossible that after having been existing without a place, He would become in a place, because this is a development, and the development is a sign of needing others, and the one who needs others is not God.
Imam Abu Mansur al-Baghdadiyy related in his book, Al-Farqu Bayn al Firaq, that Imam ^Aliyy, the fourth of the caliphs, may Allah reward his deeds, said which means: Allah existed eternally and there was no place, and He now is as He was, i.e., without a place.
Imam Abu Hanifah, who is one of the authorities of as-Salaf, said in his book Al-Fiqh alAbsat: "Allah existed eternally and there was no place. He existed before creating the creation. He existed, and there was no place, creation, or thing; and He is the Creator of everything."
Imam al-Hafidh al-Bayhaqiyy said in his book, Al-Asma'u was-Sifat, on page 400: ".... What was mentioned towards the end of the hadith is an indication of denying Allah has a place and denying the slave is alike to Allah, wherever he was in proximity or remoteness. Allah, the Exalted, is adhDhahir--hence, it is valid to know about Him by proofs. Allah is al-Batin--hence, it is invalid that He would be in a place."
He also said: "Some of our companions used as a proof to refute the place to Allah the saying of the Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam : 'You are adh-Dhahir and there is nothing above You, and You are al-Batin and there is nothing underneath You.' Therefore, if there is nothing above Him and nothing underneath Him, He is not in a place."
Imam Ahmad Ibn Salamah, Abu Ja^far at-Tahawiyy, who was born in the year 237 after Hijrah, and was one of the Heads of Great Salaf wrote a book called Al-^Aqidah atTahawiyyah. He mentioned that the content of his book is an elucidation of the creed of Ahl asSunnah wal Jama^ah, which is the creed of Imam Abu Hanifah, who died in the year 150 after alHijrah, and his two companions, Imam Abu Yusuf al-Qadi and Imam Muhammad Ibn alHasan ash-Shaybaniyy and others. He said in his book: "Allah is supremely clear of all boundaries, extremes, sides, organs and instruments. The six directions do not contain Him--these are attributed to all created things." Such is the saying of Imam Abu Ja^far who is among the heads of as-Salaf. He explicitly stated that Allah is clear of being contained by the six directions. The six directions are above, below, in front of, behind, right, and left.
The linguist and scholar of hadith, Imam Muhammad Murtada az-Zabidiyy, narrated by a continuous chain from himself back to Imam Zayn al-^Abidin ^Aliyy Ibn al-Husayn Ibn ^Aliyy Ibn Abi Talib, (who was among the first of as-Salaf, who earned the title of as-Sajjad, i.e., the one who prays a lot), that Zayn al-^Abidin said in his treatise asSahifah as-Sajjadiyyah about Allah: which means: "O Allah, You are clear of all imperfection. You are Allah, the One Who no place contains You." He also said which means: "O Allah, You are clear of all imperfection. You are Allah, the One Who is not in boundaries."
In the explanation of al-Bukhariyy in the chapter on Al-Jihad, Hafidh Ibn Hajar said: "The fact that the two directions above and below are impossible to be attributes of Allah, does not necessitate that Allah would not be attributed with aboveness, because attributing aboveness to Allah is a matter of status and the impossibility lies in it being physical."
The scholar Imam Zayn ad-Din Ibn Nujaym, the Hanafiyy, in his book Al-Bahr arRa'iq, on page 129 said: "Whoever says it is possible that Allah would do a doing in which there is no wisdom commits blasphemy, and also he commits blasphemy by affirming a place to Allah, the Exalted."
which means: "Allah existed eternally and there was no place, and the judgment about His existence now is that He is as He was, i.e., without a place."
The great true Salafi, Imam Ja^far as-Sadiq said: "He who claims that Allah is in something or on something or from something, commits ash-shirk. Because if He was in something, He would be contained, and if He was on something, He would be carried, and if He was from something, He would be a creature."
Shaykh ^Abdul-Ghaniyy an-Nabulsiyy said: "He who believes that Allah fills the heavens and earth or that He is a body sitting above al-^arsh (ceiling of Paradise; throne) is a kafir."
Imam Abul-Qasim ^Aliyy Ibnul-Hasan Ibn Hibatillah Ibn ^Asakir said in his ^Aqidah: "Allah existed before the creation. He does not have a before or an after, an above or a below, a right or a left, an in front of or a behind, a whole or a part. It must not be said when was He, where was He, or how was He. He exists without a place."
Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabiyy said: "What is obligatory upon us and upon every Muslim to know is that our Lord has no shape or form, because the shape has a 'how' and 'how' does not apply to Allah or His Attributes."


@Juão Maya Obrigada, Juão. Abraço.
@Makala (D) Thank you soooo much!
4. Dante Gabriel Rossetti, by George Frederic Watts • In 1860, he married his long-time (since 1850) model Elizabeth Eleanor Siddal. This feminine ideal of the Preraffaelites was Rossetti's muse and source of inspiration until her suicide in 1862. He idealised her image as Dante's Beatrice in a number of paintings, such as "Beata Beatrix".
5. Dante Gabriel Rossetti probably met Lizzie Siddal in 1852 or 1853, and began to use her as a model to the exclusion of all others. With her classical beauty and copper-red hair she was one of the early Pre- Raphaelite period's stunningly beautiful models, or "stunners" as they were called.
7. Considered one of the most unconventional painters of the 19th century, Rossetti painted in his maturity " powerful and mysterious dreamlike images of women that convey, through poetic suggestiveness and allusive detail, ideas of sensuality, beauty, love, death and destiny".
18. Rossetti also typically wrote sonnets for his pictures, such as "Astarte Syraica".
24. La Donna della Finestra.
30. In the 1850s, Rossetti evokes a richly colorful, chivalric and nostalgic representation of the Middle Ages in a set of watercolor paintings inspired by the Morte d'Arthur and the works of Dante.
43. Sir Galahad at the Ruined Chapel.


This simple, elegant wrapper design is the perfect choice for your special celebration - communion, baptism or christening.
Design: Elegant oval cross medallion on a solid background.
Personalization: Front event, date and name with back message.


Based in Sierra Leone, the Project Manager will manage the day-to-day strategic and operational implementation of the Rainforest Friendly Cocoa Project, part of the Gola Rainforest REDD+ Programme in Sierra Leone. The successful candidate will have a strong background in development, agriculture, and natural resource management and be practically minded and passionate about conservation. The contract is a two-year fixed term.


See also Nintendo Entertainment System by B. J. C..
Info: Created on 17th November 2010 . Last edited on 19th November 2010.
I have the old NES font planned next, too.
Very nice! I have another NES font too that I just created.


Six Fun Things to Do This Weekend in the Twin Cities (August 9-11, 2013) | ParkGrades.com | Park Reviews, Amenities, Locations, and More!
Head to Harriet Island Park in St. Paul for the first day of the Irish Fair!
Catch a Concert in the Park (featuring The Alpha Bits) and a Movie in the Park (Mary Poppins) at Eden Prairie's Staring Lake Park - starting at 7:30PM.
Bloomington's Mount Normandale Lake Park will host a Free Movie in the Park - Skyfall - beginning at 8:30PM.
Visit Maple Grove Town Green at sunset for Movies by Moonlight – Viva Las Vegas.
The State Capitol Grounds host India Festival, a family-friendly event.
The Irish Fair at Harriet Island Park features dance, music, and more!
Learn about the night sky at the Pre-Perseid Star Watch Astronomy event at Staring Lake Park in Eden Prairie!
Today's your last chance to catch the Irish Fair at St. Paul's Harriet Island Park.
Head to Anoka's Green Park at 7:00PM for a Free Concert in the Park.
Or, find the perfect park for your day - like a dog park, tire swing playground, or a racquetball court - with our Twin Cities Parks Guides!
For more of the best outdoor/family-fun happenings in the Twin Cities, visit our curated events calendar.


text:
Noticias de Mercados
May 2, 2019 / 5:40 PM / 3 months ago
CORRECTED-UPDATE 1-Brazil's top fuel distributor receives 5 partnership bids for stores -source
Tatiana Bautzer, Gabriela Mello
(Corrects International Meal Company RIC to MEAL3.SA, not IMC.WA)
By Tatiana Bautzer and Gabriela Mello
SAO PAULO, May 2 (Reuters) - Petrobras Distribuidora SA , Brazil's largest fuel distributor, has received five bids from retailers to partner for the operation of its convenience stores in gas stations, one source with knowledge of the matter said on Thursday.
Among the groups that delivered proposals, are retailer Lojas Americanas SA and restaurant operators International Meal Company and privately-held Sapore, said the source, who requested anonymity because the talks are private.
Mexico's convenience store chain Oxxo, controlled by Femsa SAB de CV, also delivered a bid, as well as Sforza Holding, the family offices that manages the fortune of Brazilian billionaire Carlos Wizard Martins, which owns retailers, restaurants and education companies in Brazil.
Shares in BR Distribuidora were up roughly 3 percent after Reuters reported on the bids, trading at 24.4 reais on the Sao Paulo stock exchange.
BR Distribuidora, as the company is known, has around 8,000 gas stations with its brand throughout the country and only 1,400 stores. One of the partnership goals is to increase the number of gas stations with stores.
BR Distribuidora, Lojas Americanas, IMC, Sapore and Oxxo did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Sforza declined to comment.
The exact terms of the partnership contract are still under discussion, the source added.
Currently controlled by state-controlled oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA, BR Distribuidora is expected to be privatized later this year through a share offering, the company said recently. (Reporting by Tatiana Bautzer and Gabriela Mello Editing by Marguerita Choy and Diane Craft)


Brainigo uses Neurofeedback in combination with red light therapy to bring about change to the brain through brainwave balance so that it can work more effectively. Neurofeedback provides lasting results by re-wiring your brain.
Every client starts with a QEEG brain map assessment to take pictures of the flow of electricity throughout your brain and shows us the areas where there are strengths and possible imbalances.
These pictures help define exactly what kind of problem you are dealing with, guide treatment planning, and specifically answer how Neurofeedback can help. Brain maps can even show where medication might help, such as stimulants that your doctor might prescribe to help offset sleepy brainwaves.
The brain map images help you clearly understand your individual electrical patterns, the highs and lows in your brainwaves, and your unique opportunities for healthier brain balance.
Neurofeedback training helps the brain re-organize and self-regulate more efficiently. This produces faster more effective information processing, increased memory, decreased stress, and better self-control.
There is no conscious work with a person's mind. The ideal scenario is to get your conscious mind out of the way of your unconscious learning. Research shows that neurofeedback clients who are in a passive and relaxed state progress the fastest. When clients get treated, their processing, cognitive abilities and self-esteem can improve significantly.
Prior to your neurofeedback session, you will spend 20 minutes in our red light room. Your brain, body and skin love red light because it penetrates 2 inches into the brain and body: increasing cell metabolism and growth, detoxing waste products, and fighting off depression from Seasonal Affective Disorder.
Research has shown red light to be excellent for attention and depression because it helps your brain grow. We also use infrared heat to help you relax.
While in the light therapy room you have the choice to do a guided meditation. Meditation optimizes brain connectivity by changing neural networks and by using the muscles in your brain that help you focus. It's good to receive both unconscious (neurofeedback) and conscious (meditation) treatments simultaneously, which gives you more complete brain exercise and rebalancing.


There's never been a better time to be an athlete—as far as clothes are concerned, anyway. With fitness still trending like crazy in America, spanning from Crossfit boxes to spinning studios to yoga retreats, the fashion industry has taken notice. And while there's plenty to say about how athletic gear has influenced the modern clothing world, the focus here is on the opposite: how modern style has impacted true, functional athletic wear—specifically, running brands.
One One, New Balance, Saucony, Asics and others. Nike does offer exceptionally stylish running apparel via its Gyakusou line in particular (more on that below), but—on the whole—most of the other large brands don't win any awards in the style department.
That said, there is a new breed of running apparel—small, more under-the-radar brands that are bucking the industry's ugly neon and mesh designs, opting instead to blend technical fabrics and thoughtful athletic detailing with thoroughly modern styling across all points of the fashion spectrum. Their gear may not make you run any faster, but it will make you look and feel better as you're pounding the pavement.
Follow Andrew on Instagram here.
Its aesthetic is one of the more refined examples of running apparel, with a color palette and simplicity of design that would feel just as home on a tennis court as it would on a running path. The clothes might not turn the heads of fashion types, as they hew a little closer to design styles of the larger running brands, but they will give you a fairly respectable look for when you're hitting the track.
Another British label—but one which leans into its English roots heavily. Iffley Road is named after the track in Oxford where English athlete Roger Bannister ran the first sub-four minute mile in 1954. They further the idea by naming their products and colorways after British landmarks (like their Cambrian T-shirt, named after the gate in a local park that marks the beginning of the founders' regular 5k route).
Iffley Road's aesthetic borrows from vintage, prep school-esque athletic apparel with simple but strong stripes and piping. Muted two or three-toned designs in colors like pale navy and rusty burgundy hammer this vibe home; this is contrasted with garments offered in the whites, grays and blacks found in the pieces of any modern-day athletic brand. These are some of the least athletic-looking athletic clothes out there, in a good way; everything has a refined enough air that it would be fine to wear around town before or after your run. With slim-but-not-skin-tight fits and a reliance on more classic styling, this near-timeless feel is exactly what the brand intended. Scratchy, sweaty and shiny were out; the brand says about concepting their designs, and soft, subtle and stylish were in.
No mention of style-minded running brands would be complete without paying respect to Nike's Gyakusou project. Yes, while Nike is, of course, the exact opposite of an under-the-radar brand, its collaboration with Undercover's Jun Takahashi is considerably less well-known than their mainline running wares. The pairing brings the best of each brand together–combining Undercover's dystopian, boundary-pushing, futuristic designs with Nike's performance fabrics and athletic functionality. The label's name, drawn from the Gyakusou International Running Association, a Tokyo-based run club that Takahashi co-founded, translates to running in reverse in Japanese and is based around Jun Takahashi's own enthusiasm for running. I run because running refreshes my mind and keeps me fit, he says. But the meditative nature of running may be the biggest reason. When I am busy or mentally stuck, running helps switch my mindset. It helps me stop overthinking and instead take action and think positively.
"We have a really good rhythm," Jarrett Reynolds of NikeLab told Complex in late 2016. She walks Takahashi through the latest Nike Running technologies, and then he'll select what to work with and what functional concept will drive the collection. Last holiday's offerings were designed around the idea of flow motion, Reynolds said, hearkening to Takahashi's idea of running as meditation. That resulted in pieces like an Aeroloft jacket with quick-zip sleeves that could be easily detached and utility tights with back pockets, designed so that a runner can make easy and quick adjustments without distracting themselves from a zen-like state on a long run. Color schemes change season to season but often have a deep, earth-toned focus, a far cry from Nike's penchant for bold neons. Gyakusou's designs are also much more fantastical than a standard Nike product and the Undercover influence is unabashed with peculiarly color-blocked designs, unconventional fits and details like unique pouch pockets and irregular zips.
Tied with Gyakusou as the most fashion-forward option here, Satisfy is almost as much of a streetwear brand as it is a running one. It calls itself (perhaps a bit loftily) a collective of multidisciplinary artists/runners from Paris, New York, Los Angeles, Stockholm and Kyoto, but are based in Paris, where the collective designs and prototypes all its garments.
Its clothes have a harsh, gothic kind of vibe—mostly black, with some white and camouflage thrown in—all photographed on tatted-up models. The brand's clothes are all performance-driven, with tech fabrics from Japan, Switzerland, Italy and France, boasting all the functionality you'd want; hidden key pockets, built-in liners, ultra lightweight construction accent trim (but not overly tight) fits. One of its signature styles, the Moth Eaten tee, embodies their unique approach to running wares. The T-shirts have seemingly random perforations throughout, which Satisfy says are mapped to create vented cooling zones while also giving the garment a beat-up, vintage kind of vibe—a significant difference from the neatly designed perforations and mesh panels found in something that Nike might make. Whether or not Satisfy's moth holes really do have any kind of performance basis, or are just a design detail in a heavily design-conscious brand, is debatable (albeit certainly compelling).
Whichever side you fall on, there's no doubt that Satisfy's clothes are very damn cool, and if you want running clothes that have a strong fashionable, streetwear-kind of vibe, it's your brand. The downside? Its prices. Those "Moth Eaten" tees, made from combed cotton, cost €120. Shorts are €140 to €190. Tech fabric tanks and T-shirts are around €130 and up. Want a pair of running tights? Those clock in at €250. Yikes.
Tracksmith has a very similar vibe to Iffley Road—simple, grown-up designs that can take you from the running track to your local suburban coffee shop without missing a beat. Tracksmith channels it through a New England inspiration point, however creating a slightly more American prep feeling (versus the "British boarding school" vibes of Iffley Road). There's lots of color here, but it's all in subdued shades of reds, blues and grays, with handsome diagonal stripe tees, color blocked track jackets and printed running shorts. If you can imagine Harvard running club member wearing it during the early-to-mid-20th century, then you're on the right track. That said, the brand's not oblivious to modern-day style; a collaboration with Noah isn't just a nod to the New York City Marathon—it's crop of gear that's perfect before, during and after your run.
The brand was founded in Wellesley, MA—the halfway point of the Boston Marathon—and later moved 13.1 miles down the course to set up a storefront downtown on Newbury street. Its New England heritage, which comes through in their prep-inspired designs, is significant to the brand: We live here, we work here and we race here. We relish everything New England means to running and to us, the team says. This place, and its historical significance to our sport, are at the core of our identity.
The exercise brand that doesn't really want to be an exercise brand, Outdoor Voices says that it makes technical apparel for recreation, appealing to all versions of casual athletics—from running to yoga to walking the dog. Its approach seems to be making athletic apparel appealing to the everyman, rather than the intense athlete. No matter the marketing, its wares work well for running, whether you're a marathoner or a couple-miles-per-week kind of guy.
All of its offerings are meant to be mixed and matched, and it offers kits, a top paired with shorts or pants, at a bit of a discount. The aesthetic is a minimally-minded challenge of the bright neons and multi-paneled mesh creations of the big workout brands, with simple neutrals and modern but unassuming fits—slim enough and streamlined enough to feel modern, while made from fabrics that are nice enough to feel somewhat luxe. The brand takes special pride in its fabrics—a heathered poly/spandex blend they call Mossed Jersey, a comfortable all-weather Stretch Crepe, and an especially lightweight Rec Poly (short for recycled, since the polyester that makes up the majority of the fabric blend is made from 100 percent recycled bottles). They're all nice enough (if unexciting) and are spread out across can't-miss basics—short and longsleeved tees, tanks, shorts with built-in liners, slim sweatpants and unassuming sweatshirts. When it comes to Outdoor Voices, the appeal is in minimal, stylish basics that you can sweat in. Working in collaboration with brands like A.P.C. in the past, it should come as no surprise that in the world of modern athletic gear you can wear beyond the gym, Outdoor Voices has been setting the standard.
Falling somewhere between Satisfy and Outdoor Voices, Ten Thousand has a dark and simple vibe that's perfect for the kind of style-minded runner who wants to look sharp, tough and minimal. They divide their offerings between the activities they envisioned them for—cross training (Crossfit and similar), endurance (running) and strength training (any kind of weightlifting). The lines between the first and the third are kind of blurry, but their running gear is fully dialed in to the necessities of pounding the pavement.
The running shorts are short, super lightweight, laser-cut for ventilation and built with a single zip pocket behind the right hip for small wares that won't weigh you down. Plus a loop in the back to hang your T-shirt from (if you want to shed it mid-run) is a clear reminder that the athlete—and the way they use garments in their respective workouts—is at the core of design. Its range of other shorts, tees and compression gear are similarly thought-through. Like most other modern running brands, all the designs are featured in black, but a small handful of other very muted colors are available for a small section of items. As seen in the modern and minimal color selection, Ten Thousand's items are finished with a simple "X" logo that—for all the graphic design found in other brands on this list—actually looks pretty refreshing.


text:
IMPORTANT: This site uses cookies
As part of our website, we use cookies to provide you with services at the highest level, tailored to individual needs. Using the site without changing the settings for cookies means that they will be placed on your end device. You can change your cookie settings at any time. More details in our "Cookies Policy".
Silesian Stadium
Conference and Business Centre
POLAND VS SPAIN
1959-06-28 Sunday 09:45
Wydarzenia / Brak kategorii
In the European Cup qualifiers, Poland lost to Spain 2:4 (1:2). The fans had a chance to admire one of the bet football players at that time – Alfredo Di Stéfano who scored twice. Ernest Pol and Lucjan Brychczy scored goals for Poland. Spectators: 100,000.
European cup qualification match:
Poland – Spain 2:4 (1:2) – 28.06.1959
Archives of Telewizja Polska (Polish Television)
--:-- POLAND VS SPAIN 1959 – MP4
https://stadionslaski.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/POLSKA_HISZPANIA_1959_P4341_1_2_x264.mp4
Newsletter to your e-mail address
© 2017 Silesian Stadium. All rights reserved. Privacy policy Legal disclaimer Availability