text:
Home > performance
Category: performance
Wanna Japanese comedy? Try Rakugo!
Overview You may imagine that rakugo is just a comic storytelling which is similar to stand-up comedy in the Western world, but just that rakugo is perform while kneeling on a cushion. However, rakugo is much more sophisticated form of performing art because it needs performers to be apprenticed to a master and learn the skills and spirit of rakugo for several years. The rakugo originate from Otogisyu, people who serve their warlords to give the news around the world and also during a small talk in…
performanceLeave a comment
Overview Tokyo Game Show is Japan's biggest video game expo. It is also one of the world's three major game shows aside from United States and German's Gamescom. Event Schedule Autumn Upcoming Event: Tokyo Game Show 2016 Date: September 17 (Sat) ~ 18 (Sun), 2016 Time: 10:00 A.M.~5:00 P.M. ※The door may be open from 9:30 A.M. depending on the circumstance How to Purchase Ticket Pre-sale Ticket JPY 1000 (about USD $8.12) On the day Ticket JPY 1200 (about USD $9.15) Elementary Students and below FREE…
Anime, Festival, Music, performanceSEPTEMBERLeave a comment
Welcome to the World of Endless Fun and Excitement ! UNIVERSAL STUDIOS JAPAN !
Overview Universal Studios Japan (USJ) is one of the four Universal Studios theme parks. It receives 8 million visitors annually. USJ is the second most famous theme park in Japan. Official Homepage http://www.usj.co.jp/e/ How to Purchase the Ticket Admission Ticket grants you admission into the park and the use of all attractions. Universal Express Pass shortens your waiting time. You don't need to wait for some popular attractions! ・Admission Ticket…
Festival, Food, Matsuri, Music, performance, Restaurant, ShoppingDECEMBER, NOVEMBER, OCOTOBERLeave a comment
Tokyo Disney Sea ~ The Fantasy Dream-like Underwater World
Overview Tokyo DisneySea is a 2nd fantasy theme park in Tokyo Disney Resort that is unique to Japan. In 2013, it was estimated to attract 14 million visitors, making it the fourth-most-visited theme park in the world. In addition, Tokyo DisneySea was the fastest theme park in the world to reach the milestone of 10 million guests, having done so in 307 days after its grand opening. Schedule Opening Hours: vary according to season,…
Festival, Food, Matsuri, Music, performance, Restaurant, ShoppingLeave a comment
Chill Your Spine with Extreme, Thrill Ride in Fuji-Q Highland!
Overview Fuji-Q Highland is one of the most famous amusement theme park in Japan. At the foot of mountain Fuji, Fuji-Q is not only famous for its beautiful landscape, but most attractively, its roller coasters and two haunted attractions. Also, there are Fuji mountain museum, skating rink, bowling alley and hot springs ♨ nearby. Schedule Fuji-Q Highland Hours: 9:00am.to 5:00pm. (Till 6:00pm on weekends and holidays) Closed days: 2015 5/12・6/16・7/14・10/20・11/17・12/8 2016 1/19・2/16 Fujiyama Museum Hours: 10:00am to 5:00pm (Weekdays) 10:00am to 8:30pm…
Food, Music, performance, Restaurant, ShoppingLeave a comment


Green Colored Beautiful Georgette High-Low Kurti with Heavy Embroidery.
Catch Out Best Look For The Day With This Awesome Green Colored Georgette Embroidered Kurti today.
Look Magnificent And Stylish By Wearing This Green Coloured Heavy Embroidered Kurti For Women. Made From Faux Georgette. This Kurti Has A 3/4th Sleeve And Round Neck with Heavy Crepe Inner.This beautifully kurti made specially for attractive girls and women, it will surely catch all attraction in events like marriage ceremony, parties, outings, casual wear.
Yellow Colored Beautiful Embroidered Georgette Stylist Kurti.


text:
London's charismatic mayor moves to the front lines of election battle
Open this photo in gallery:
London Mayor Boris Johnson, left, seen as the heir-presumptive to lead the Conservative Party if Prime Minister David Cameron falls in next month's U.K. elections, jousts on British television Sunday with Labour Party Leader Ed Miliband, right.
Jeff Overs/BBC Handout/Reuters
Mark MacKinnonSenior International Correspondent
Published April 27, 2015 Updated May 12, 2018
There they were sitting side by side on the same brown couch, the two men who covet David Cameron's job most.
On the right was Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour Party that is tied neck-and-neck with Mr. Cameron's Conservatives in opinion polls, with just over a week remaining before Britain votes in an election that is at once wildly unpredictable and wholly uninspiring. Neither Mr. Miliband nor Mr. Cameron has yet won the attention, let alone affection, of this United Kingdom, making it almost certain there will be a hung parliament, and rival attempts to cobble together a functioning government, following May 7 elections to the House of Commons.
While Mr. Cameron, as the incumbent prime minister, will be given the first chance to try and form something like a working coalition, odds makers – by a slight margin – believe the likely shape of the next parliament means Mr. Miliband is more likely to inhabit No. 10 Downing Street when the deal-making is done.
Which is where Mr. Miliband's couch mate on Sunday morning television comes in: With the election hanging in the balance, Mr. Cameron made the politically risky move of calling on London Mayor Boris Johnson to play a bigger role in the Conservative campaign. Mr. Cameron said Mr. Johnson – who is seeking a seat in parliament while retaining, for now, his post as mayor – was his "star striker," and said he hoped the charismatic Mr. Johnson would help win over crucial blocs of undecided voters.
But Mr. Johnson is also widely seen as the most likely replacement for Mr. Cameron should the Conservatives fail to hang on to power after May 7. His brief appearance alongside Mr. Miliband on BBC's The Andrew Marr Show did little to dampen such talk.
Mr. Johnson, while being interviewed separately, led off by suggesting the election was already lost – referring to an incoming Labour government, before Mr. Marr reminded him that was only one possible outcome of the campaign.
Joined on the couch by Mr. Miliband, the two politicians engaged in a spirited verbal exchange, often talking over each other in an effort to score points. Mr. Johnson took obvious delight in pointing out that the Labour leader – who casts himself as a working class champion, promising to raise taxes on Britain's richest citizens in order to fund better social programs – had gone to the same primary school he had, and that both men attended Oxford University, "a fact you won't hear Ed Miliband admitting very often."
Mr. Miliband, meanwhile, needled the mayor about his transparent ambitions to lead the Conservatives. "If you become leader of the Tory party, I would get rid of Lynton, if I were you. Honestly, he doesn't do much for you," Mr. Miliband said with a grin, referring to the Conservative Party's chief election strategist, Lynton Crosby.
"I have a premonition that this is things to come," Mr. Marr said of the exchange, in another acknowledgment of Mr. Johnson's anticipated rise.
There was no clear winner in the exchange, but both men gave the kind of off-the-cuff performance that the choreographed Mr. Cameron – to the dismay of increasingly worried Conservatives – doesn't deliver. Despite the deadlock in the polls, Mr. Cameron has refused several invitations to meet Mr. Miliband in a a head-to-head debate, instead agreeing only to a single seven-party television encounter at the outset of the campaign. That format left little room for direct confrontation between the two main leaders.
Mr. Johnson's televised clash with Mr. Miliband came a day after The Daily Telegraph, a newspaper that supports the Conservative Party, reported that "cabinet ministers and senior Conservative backbenchers" had already begun discussions about swiftly anointing Mr. Johnson as the party's new leader should Mr. Cameron fail to lead it to a majority government.
"That is both nonsense and, may I say, absolutely trivial by comparison with the choice that this country has to make in 11 days' time," Mr. Johnson said of the report, rounding back into his pitch for Britain to vote Conservative. However, the mayor managed to electioneer for 12 minutes on live television without mentioning Mr. Cameron's name once.
The most recent poll of polls (taking into account work done by nine different polling agencies) shows Labour and the Conservatives both with about 33 per cent of the vote, each on track to win around 270 seats in the 650-seat House of Commons.
While support levels for both Labour and the Conservatives have been static throughout the campaign, polls show that British voters are getting increasingly used to the idea that Mr. Miliband – previously viewed as a drag on his party's fortunes – could become prime minister.
With the polls so tight, Mr. Cameron is not alone in running a cautious campaign. Five years after then-Labour leader Gordon Brown saw his run for re-election torpedoed by an open microphone that caught him referring to a woman he met on the campaign trail as "bigoted," all the main party leaders, including Mr. Miliband, are running choreographed efforts that leave little room for surprise or genuine interactions with voters.
Which made the televised exchange between Mr. Miliband and Mr. Johnson something of a breath of fresh air. "Best television of the week," an amused Mr. Marr said, leaning back at the end of the show.
But, in perhaps another harbinger of things to come, his guests wouldn't stop quarreling even as their host was trying to say farewell to viewers. "Shut up now, please," Mr. Marr eventually had to plead.
Former political allies in UKIP grudge match ahead of British election
Follow Mark MacKinnon on Twitter @markmackinnon

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
AFRO GOSPEL
Afrogospel Trailblazer, Gil Joe Took it to another level with "Eternal Life & Vibrations"
numedia
Afrogospel Trailblazer, Gil Joe
Afrobeats gaining grounds all over the world and it is fast becoming a recognized and structured genre, Christians and people of faith are not missing out on this "Afro-fever" as some young, free-spirited Christian artists with urban sounds are pushing a rather new sub-genre termed 'Afrogospel'. One of the foremost of these acts is Gil Joe who also happens to be the pioneer of the sound.
Afrogospel is a direct expression of faith and religion using African percussion in fusion with neo-Western melodies. This fusion of Afrobeats and popular music, conveying the message of Jesus has fast been gaining lots of acceptance both in Africa and beyond her.
Perhaps, it's as a result of how its creators constantly push out projects and lift the bar of its reach with every single song released. The latest of which is "Eternal Life & Vibrations" EP by Gil Joe.
'Eternal Life & Vibrations (EL&V)' is a five-track EP cooked by chef Joe with the primary aim of killing religion and establishing Christianity as a lifestyle. This is most evident in track two, 'Atlanta Judger' where Joe addresses methods, traditions, and church culture being mistaken for Christianity. "Judger" is an innuendo for "Georgia", but made to represent a person who judges others.
The project was released on February 26 and has been doing remarkably with numbers ever since. It seals the notion that Gil Joe is constantly representing as the premiering creator of the genre, project after project. The first was his 'Maturity' album released in 2016 which contained 16 tracks in it. It was Gil Joe introducing the world to an entirely different kind of gospel music.
Ever since, Gil Joe has been regarded in the words of many as a "natural superstar" and this Afrogospel pioneer has continued to live up to that standard. 'EL & V' is proof that he's not backing down and that there's so much still ahead of him. All we can do is sit back, watch it happen and share Afrogospel songs with loved ones like me who are suckers for good, African music.
In this article:afrogospel
ABOUT SONG We have a big God who makes the barren fruitful, he wipes out tears, gives home to the homeless, he heals...


text:
591 F. 2d 513 - United States v. Eubanks D
591 F2d 513 United States v. Eubanks D
Fred EUBANKS, Eugene Martinez, Leroy Jones, Henry D. Yanez,
Appellants.
Nos. 77-3919, 77-3955, 77-4003 and 78-1032.
Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 2, 1979.
As Amended March 12, 1979.
Robert J. Hirsh (argued), of Hirsh & Shiner, John E. Lindberg (argued), George Haskel Curtis (argued), of Curtis & Cunningham, Tucson, Ariz., Michael D. Kimerer (argued), Henry, Wallach, Kimerer & LaVelle, Phoenix, Ariz., for appellants.
Stephen M. Dichter, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before ELY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and KRAFT,* District judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants and three others were indicted on charges of conspiracy to distribute heroin and to possess heroin with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Appellants were jointly tried and convicted by a jury. On appeal, they raise numerous claims of error, the most serious of which is founded on the alleged bias of one of the trial jurors. It is unnecessary for us to discuss all the issues raised by appellants, because we hold that the district court erred in denying appellant's motion for a new trial based on juror bias. We do consider appellants' claims of error based on the refusal of certain jury instructions and the admission of hearsay testimony, because they are likely to arise again on retrial.
* Appellants argue that the district court erred by denying their motion for a new trial because of the alleged bias of juror Collins. After the conclusion of the trial, appellants' counsel learned that juror Collins had two sons who were serving long prison terms for murder and robbery. Both of the juror's sons were heroin users and their crimes had been committed in an effort to acquire additional heroin.
Defense counsel had been unaware of Collins' background at the time of jury selection. Collins had indicated on one of his juror qualification forms that he was married and had no children. The trial judge, who conducted the voir dire, had asked prospective jurors: "have any of you or members of your immediate families ever been personally interested in the defense of a criminal case or a witness for the defense in a criminal case?" Collins did not respond to the question.1 The trial judge refused defense requests to conduct additional voir dire, and Collins was selected as a juror.2
After discovering the background of Collins' sons, defense counsel moved for a new trial on the grounds of juror bias. Appellants' attorneys argued that Collins could not have served as an unbiased juror in a prosecution for heroin trafficking because his sons' lives had been ruined by heroin use. The trial judge denied the motion for a new trial.
The Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury "guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, 'indifferent' jurors." Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961); Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 85 S.Ct. 546, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965). In investigating charges of juror bias or misconduct, the trial court "will necessarily be directed by the content of the allegations, including the seriousness of the alleged misconduct or bias, and the credibility of the source." United States v. Hendrix, 549 F.2d 1225, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1977).3 If the allegations are found to be true, the court must decide whether the defendant was denied his constitutional right to an impartial jury. "The test is whether or not the misconduct has prejudiced the defendant to the extent that he has not received a fair trial." United States v. Klee, 494 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir. 1974). Even if "only one juror is unduly biased or prejudiced," the defendant is denied his constitutional right to an impartial jury. United States v. Hendrix, 549 F.2d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 1977).
The allegations of juror bias here were extremely serious and the facts upon which they were founded were not open to dispute. If Collins, during voir dire, had revealed that he had two sons serving prison terms for heroin-related crimes, the trial court undoubtedly would have excused him from serving on the jury. Regardless of the reason for Collins' nondisclosure, we conclude that his sons' tragic involvement with heroin bars the inference that Collins served as an impartial juror. United States v. Allsup, 566 F.2d 68, 71-72 (9th Cir. 1977) (bias may be presumed from the "potential for substantial emotional involvement" inherent in certain relationships).
Appellants' motion for a new trial was Not denied because the trial judge found Collins to have been unbiased, but rather because he presumed that Collins could not have influenced the jury's verdict. The trial judge refused to grant appellants a new trial because he doubted that Collins' presence on the jury could have affected the verdict. ("As I say, this Oklahoma Indian who is a laborer in his days when he is employed, who has a seventh-grade education, obvious difficulty with even filling out his questionnaires, I just can't believe that he was a factor in precipitating a guilty verdict in this case, after four days of trial with four defendants, and he was able to persuade the other eleven jurors to agree with him in less than two hours on a verdict of guilty as to all four defendants.") This reasoning is at odds with United States v. Hendrix, 549 F.2d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 1977), where we noted that: "If only one juror is unduly biased or prejudiced or improperly influenced, the criminal defendant is denied his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial panel." Regardless of what role Collins played during jury deliberations, appellants were denied their constitutional right to an impartial jury by his presence on the panel. Thus we hold that the district court erred by denying appellants' motion for a new trial.
Appellants also contend that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the possibility of finding multiple conspiracies. Appellants were jointly tried under an indictment charging them, and at least three other individuals, with participation in a single conspiracy to possess and to distribute heroin. The Government contended that the evidence established a "chain conspiracy" in which Yanez and Jones acted as suppliers of heroin, Martinez served as a courier and Eubanks was a buyer.
Appellants proposed two jury instructions regarding the possibility of finding multiple conspiracies. Requested Instruction No. 20 stated: "The Indictment charges a single conspiracy. If you find that the proof showed two or more other conspiracies and the defendant was not a party to these conspiracies, a material variance between the Indictment and the proof exists and you must acquit the defendant." Requested Instruction No. 21 stated: "Further, if you find that the evidence showed, not the single alleged conspiracy in the Indictment, but a series of separate and unconnected conspiracies involving different people, a material variance exists and there cannot be a conviction of the conspiracy charged in the Indictment based upon that evidence." The trial court refused to deliver the requested charges.
The requested instructions, as phrased, were not accurate statements of law. Instruction No. 20 was defective because the existence of other conspiracies would not preclude the jury from finding that defendants were involved in the overall conspiracy charged in the indictment. United States v. Perry, 550 F.2d 524, 533 (9th Cir. 1977) ("the jury could find that there were several different agreements involving the defendants, all of which would then connect the defendants to the general overall conspiracy as charged in the indictment"). Instruction No. 21 was incomplete. It is axiomatic that if the evidence did not show "the single alleged conspiracy in the Indictment," then appellants could not be convicted of that particular conspiracy. But this does not imply that appellants could not be convicted of any conspiracy under the indictment because of a variance between the indictment's allegations and the evidence. In United States v. Griffin, 464 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1972), we held that defendants charged with participation in a single conspiracy could be convicted of separate conspiracies, if the jury was cautioned not to consider evidence admitted against members of other conspiracies in considering the guilt of individual defendants.
The trial judge properly refused appellants' instructions, but he should not have ignored the possibility that the jury could have found multiple conspiracies. If it is possible under the evidence for the jury to find that multiple conspiracies existed, then the court should instruct the jury on the issue. United States v. Perry, 550 F.2d 524, 533 (9th Cir. 1977). When the possibility of a variance between the indictment and the trial proof appears, the jury should also be given a limiting instruction about the procedure for considering evidence of multiple conspiracies. United States v. Griffin, 464 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Varelli, 407 F.2d 735, 746 (7th Cir. 1969). The evidence here was sufficient to support the jury's finding that a single conspiracy had occurred; but it was also sufficient to warrant a jury instruction on the possibility of finding multiple conspiracies.4 Based on the evidence produced at trial, the jury could have found that multiple conspiracies had taken place, rather than the single conspiracy charged in the indictment. Thus the trial judge should have instructed the jury on the multiple conspiracy issue.
Appellants also argue that the trial judge admitted prejudicial hearsay testimony against them, despite their objections. At trial the defense raised numerous hearsay objections to the testimony of the prosecution's star witness, Gloria Baca. Baca's deceased common-law husband, Luis Gonzales, Jr., had played a key role in the alleged conspiracy to distribute heroin. The alleged conspirators had often met with Gonzales in Baca's presence and Gonzales often contacted them over the phone in the home where Baca and Gonzales lived. Baca testified about the actions of the alleged conspirators, about statements she had heard them make to one another, and about what Gonzales told her about the alleged conspiracy. While Baca was not involved in the conspiracy at its outset, she eventually accompanied Gonzales on his trips to obtain heroin and she assumed at least a passive role in the conspiracy.
The Government correctly notes that those portions of Baca's testimony that related what she saw or did were not hearsay. Thus Baca's testimony that she observed appellants in possession of heroin is not inadmissible hearsay. Eubanks' claim that Baca was incompetent to identify heroin is not a reason to exclude her testimony because it goes to the weight and not to the admissibility of the evidence.
Baca's testimony about statements made by the alleged conspirators is more susceptible to hearsay objections. The Government argues that the statements related by Baca were either party admissions or declarations of co-conspirators which are excluded from the definition of hearsay by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides in pertinent part: "A statement is not hearsay if . . . (2) Admissions by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (A) his own statement, in either his individual or a representative capacity or . . . (E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy." Under the provisions of Rule 801(d), inculpatory statements by appellants, which Baca related, are admissible as party admissions only against the individual declarants. Admissions by individual defendants could not be considered as evidence against the other defendants. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). Thus Baca's testimony about statements made by appellants and others was admissible against all defendants only if it falls within the co-conspirator exception embodied in Rule 801(d)(2)(E).
To qualify for the hearsay exception of Rule 801(d)(2)(E), "a foundation (must be) laid to show that: (1) the declaration was in furtherance of the conspiracy, (2) it was made during the pendency of the conspiracy, and (3) there is independent proof of the existence of the conspiracy and of the connection of the declarant and the defendant to it. United States v. Snow, 521 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1090, 96 S.Ct. 883, 47 L.Ed.2d 101 (1976)." United States v. Weiner, 578 F.2d 757, 768 (9th Cir. 1978). It is the responsibility of the judge, rather than the jury, to determine whether a sufficient foundation has been established for declarations to be admissible under the co-conspirator exception. United States v. King, 552 F.2d 833 (9th Cir. 1976); Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718 (9th Cir. 1963).
At the outset of Gloria Baca's testimony, the trial judge explained to the jury the law of conspiracy and the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.5 This instruction was entirely proper, but it did not relieve the trial judge of responsibility for making the initial determination about the admissibility of Baca's testimony. United States v. King, 552 F.2d 833 (9th Cir. 1976). In admitting, over appellants' objections, Baca's testimony about the statements of alleged conspirators, it was incumbent upon the trial judge to determine that a sufficient foundation existed to invoke the hearsay exception of Rule 801(d)(2)(E).6 Sufficient evidence had to exist to support an inference that the statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy, while the conspiracy was in existence, and independent proof had to establish the existence of a conspiracy in which the declarant and defendants participated. A review of the trial transcript convinces us that, while some of the conversations related by Baca fell within the ambit of the co-conspirator exception, other statements were inadmissible hearsay because they were not made in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
Hearsay declarations of co-conspirators cannot be received into evidence under the co-conspirator exception of Rule 801(d)(2)(E) unless the declarations were made in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Weiner, 578 F.2d 757, 768 (9th Cir. 1978). Not all statements made by co-conspirators can be considered to have been made in furtherance of the conspiracy. Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211, 217, 67 S.Ct. 224, 227, 91 L.Ed. 196 (1946) ("confession or admission by one co-conspirator after he has been apprehended is not in any sense a furtherance of the criminal enterprise"). "Mere conversation between conspirators" or "merely narrative declarations" are not admissible as declarations in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. James, 510 F.2d 546, 549 (5th Cir. 1975); United States v. Birnbaum, 337 F.2d 490, 495 (2d Cir. 1964); United States v. Goodman, 129 F.2d 1009, 1013 (2d Cir. 1942). For declarations to be admissible under the co-conspirator exception, they must further the common objectives of the conspiracy.
Baca's testimony about some of the conversations between alleged conspirators that occurred wholly within her presence did relate declarations in furtherance of the conspiracy. Baca testified that she was present when Yanez told Gonzales to stop using heroin so that he could distribute the drug for Yanez. Later, Baca overheard Yanez and Gonzales discuss whether Gonzales had "cleaned up" enough to begin distribution of the drug. Baca also testified that Eubanks and Gonzales met at the house she shared with Gonzales. Eubanks told Gonzales that he wanted to purchase a large amount of heroin. After making a phone call, Gonzales told Eubanks that Yanez was interested in making the transaction, but that he wanted to see the money first. These declarations all furthered the objectives of the alleged conspiracy because they set in motion transactions that were an integral part of the heroin distribution scheme.
In contrast, most of the statements made by Gonzales to Baca that incriminated appellants cannot reasonably be considered to have been in furtherance of the conspiracy. Gonzales and Baca had been living together in a common-law marriage relationship. Gonzales often discussed his activities with Baca, who did not participate in the alleged conspiracy until long after its inception. Baca testified that Gonzales told her that he was going to Tucson to obtain narcotics from Yanez. There is no evidence that Gonzales' statement was a declaration in furtherance of the conspiracy. Gonzales was not seeking to induce Baca to join the conspiracy and his statement did not assist the conspirators in achieving their objectives. Gonzales' "statement was, at best, nothing more than (a) casual admission of culpability to someone he had individually decided to trust." United States v. Moore, 522 F.2d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 1975).
Similarly, when Gonzales informed Baca about the persons to whom he had spoken over the telephone, he was not making a declaration in furtherance of the conspiracy. Instead, he was merely informing his common-law wife about his activities. When Baca phoned Yanez' home in Tucson to speak with Gonzales, she was told by Yanez' wife, Eloise, that Gonzales was with Yanez. This statement also was not made in furtherance of the conspiracy, and thus it should not have been admitted under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rules.
After Baca began travelling to Tucson with Gonzales and assisted him with the arrangements for obtaining heroin, she assumed a role in the alleged conspiracy. Yet Baca's participation in the conspiracy did not convert Gonzales' statements to her into declarations in furtherance of the conspiracy. Most of Gonzales' statements to Baca that were included in her testimony did nothing to advance the aims of the alleged conspiracy. At one point, Gonzales told Baca that Yanez had arranged their trip to Tucson. On another occasion, Gonzales told Baca that they were going to Phoenix together to pick up some heroin from Leroy. At another time, Baca was informed by Gonzales that Fred and Mel had been unable to pick up any heroin. While eating at a Denny's in Arizona, Baca heard Yanez say that he was going to meet with Leroy. There is no indication in the record that these statements were any more than conversations between conspirators that did nothing to advance the aims of the alleged conspiracy. The incriminating references to absent persons were not designed to induce Baca's continued participation in the conspiracy or to allay her fears, unlike the statements at issue in United States v. Eaglin, 571 F.2d 1069 (9th Cir. 1977) and Salazar v. United States, 405 F.2d 74 (9th Cir. 1968). Cf. United States v. Crockett, 514 F.2d 64 (5th Cir. 1975); United States v. Knippenberg, 502 F.2d 1056 (7th Cir. 1974).7
Because there was nothing in the record to support the inference that the various statements made by Gonzales to Baca were made in furtherance of the conspiracy, the trial court should not have admitted them over objection under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rules. On retrial, the prosecution is not precluded from introducing additional evidence that would permit the inference that Gonzales' statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy.8
Because we reverse appellants' convictions, it is unnecessary for us to reach appellants' other claims of errors that are unlikely to recur upon retrial.
ELY, Circuit Judge (concurring):
I concur in the superb majority opinion for which my Sister Hufstedler is principally responsible.
As, however, I near the fifteenth anniversary of my service with our court, I must voice concerns that have troubled me for many years, even for a much longer time than I have performed the judicial function. My concerns have to do with the unrestrained, and sometimes indiscriminate, application by prosecuting authorities of the conspiracy charge. As I see them, the circumstances of this case present a unique opportunity and, perhaps, the last opportunity, that I shall have to record my pertinent sentiments. There is nothing new about my views, for they have been repeatedly expressed, better than I can express them, by some of the greatest, most perceptive jurists that have ever served our country's judicial system. I shall reiterate, particularly, utterances of Mr. Justice Jackson and Judge Learned Hand, both of whom have long since gone to their eternal peace.
Here involved is a prosecution of seven individuals charged by the prosecution with having participated in a vastly far-reaching, wide-ranging illegal scheme involving the distribution of heroin. As I see it, the prosecuting authorities unwisely adopted what may have appeared to be a simple expedient, i. e., the charge of a conspiracy that was too broad, sweeping together into a single prosecution all of the loose ends that involved law enforcement investigators encountered during their investigation of the illicit activity. The ablest trial judge that ever lived would have had difficulty in separating incriminating testimony that was admissible as to some of the accuseds and prejudicially inadmissible as to others. If that is true, it is inconceivable to me that any jury composed of lay persons, however conscientious and intellectual in fields outside the law, and regardless of whatever cautionary instructions may have been given, could have completely disregarded inflammatory evidence, especially hearsay evidence, that, as the case developed, was legally inadmissible as against some of the accuseds.
There is no need for me to review the prosecution's testimony in precise detail. Suffice it to say that the evidence would have allowed the jury to find that the defendants had committed any of at least five different offenses. Those alternative offenses could have been: (1) a separate conspiracy between Yanez and Annie Osuna; (2) a separate conspiracy among Yanez, Eubanks and Gonzales, the latter a known, but unindicted conspirator; (3) an isolated sale by Yanez to Eubanks; (4) a separate conspiracy between Yanez and Jones; (5) a single, isolated transfer of three ounces of heroin from Jones to Yanez.
Thus, the numerous possibilities for variance between the indictment, charging the appellants with having engaged in a single, all-encompassing conspiracy, and the proof, which would, as here, support jury findings of multiple, smaller conspiracies, or even isolated transactions between certain codefendants, reinforces my concern that the prosecution may have abused its joinder powers under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8 by bringing to trial at one time every individual who may have had even the slightest connection with a participant in the distribution scheme that was alleged.
I am well aware that the joinder of numerous defendants in a single joint trial may result in judicial economy (See United States v. Kennedy, 564 F.2d 1329, 1334 (9th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 435 U.S. 944, 98 S.Ct. 1526, 55 L.Ed.2d 541 (1978)), but we, as judges, should not shirk our duty to protect our courts from becoming mere prosecutorial mills through which criminal convictions are processed all in the name of judicial efficiency. This danger of sacrificing individual justice arises most often in a case such as this, wherein questions are raised as to whether there was one single conspiracy or several minor conspiracies. See United States v. Sperling, 506 F.2d 1323, 1340-1341 (2nd Cir. 1974), Cert. denied, 420 U.S. 962, 95 S.Ct. 1351, 43 L.Ed.2d 439 (1975).1 Our district judges have the first and most critical responsibility, for they are positioned to sever trials when they can readily see, quicker than we, injustices that may occur if such is not done.
Courts have protested unavailingly the habit of the government to indict multiple defendants for conspiracy in addition to, and even in lieu of, the substantive offense itself (See Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 445-446, 69 S.Ct. 716, 93 L.Ed. 790 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring)) and have suggested that this "loose practice . . . constitutes a serious threat to fairness in our administration of justice." Id. at 446, 69 S.Ct. at 719-20. The greatest threat, of course, is that which I see here: the probability of prejudice which arises from the inevitable insinuation of guilt by association when evidence is admissible against some of the defendants but not against all of them. Regretfully, it appears that our prosecutors have begun to bank on this prejudice. It is therefore understandable that Judge Learned Hand long ago described the conspiracy charge as "the darling of the modern prosecutor's nursery." Harrison v. United States, 7 F.2d 259, 263 (2nd Cir. 1925).
With increasing frequency our court is confronted by multiple defendant prosecutions raising the Kotteakos multiple conspiracies-single prosecution issue. See United States v. Bracy, 566 F.2d 649, 657-658 (9th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 435 U.S. 965, 98 S.Ct. 1603, 56 L.Ed.2d 57 (1978); United States v. Kearney, 560 F.2d 1358, 1362-1363, Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 971, 98 S.Ct. 522, 54 L.Ed.2d 460 (1977); United States v. Perry, 550 F.2d 524, 532-533 (9th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 827, 98 S.Ct. 104, 54 L.Ed.2d 85 (1977). In each case, as was required here, an immense amount of our judicial time has been spent sifting through testimony in an effort fairly to determine if there was in fact sufficient evidence to tie each of the conspiracy defendants to a common unlawful agreement.
Furthermore, considering the great potential for prejudice to the various individual defendants arising from one mass trial, I again remind all, including myself, that a conviction must rest upon individual guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not mass guilt. Kotteakos v. United States, supra, 328 U.S. 750, at 774, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946).2 The prejudice to the individual defendant forced to defend himself at a joint trial with numerous other alleged co-conspirators is compounded in instances where, as here, the proof as readily indicates the existence of a number of isolated transactions or several small conspiracies as it does the single conspiracy charged by the prosecution. Just as the danger of inferring guilt from one codefendant to another increases in proportion to the number of persons compelled to stand trial together, (Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 559, 68 S.Ct. 248, 92 L.Ed. 154 (1947)), the danger of guilt by association at a multiple defendant trial intensifies as the number of possible conspiracies grows. Undoubtedly there is a tendency for the jury to believe that a defendant must have been involved in the alleged all-encompassing conspiracy, once it finds that individual to have committed one of the minor acts which the prosecution contends is but an extension of the greater conspiracy. This, of course, is the very heart of the single charge-multiple conspiracies issue: whether the minor act itself was in fact an act in furtherance of, and with knowledge of, the single conspiracy. I have already mentioned my doubts about the ability of even the most conscientious jury to keep separate the evidence that may be properly considered against each defendant. In a case such as this, I conclude that the danger of prejudice arising from a joint trial far outweighs any inconvenience that would be imposed upon the government and the courts were the prosecution compelled to conduct several separate trials.
It is the trial court's duty under our Fed.R.Crim.P. 14 to balance the expense and inconvenience to the government of separate trials against the prejudice to the individual codefendants (United States v. Campanale, 518 F.2d 352, 359 (9th Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1050, 96 S.Ct. 777, 46 L.Ed.2d 638 (1976)), and although the decision whether to grant a severance or to order separate trials is left to the sound discretion of the trial court (United States v. Kennedy, 564 F.2d 1329, 1334 (9th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 435 U.S. 944, 98 S.Ct. 1526, 55 L.Ed.2d 541 (1978)), that discretion is not without limits. United States v. Hernandez-Berceda, 572 F.2d 680, 682 (9th Cir. 1978), Cert. denied, 436 U.S. 949, 98 S.Ct. 2856, 56 L.Ed.2d 792 (1978). I respectfully submit that this case approaches, if it does not exceed, those limits.
I conclude by quoting Mr. Justice Jackson, a great lawyer and a great Justice:
When the trial starts, the accused feels the full impact of the conspiracy strategy. Strictly, the prosecution should first establish Prima facie the conspiracy and identify the conspirators, after which evidence of acts and declarations of each in the course of its execution are admissible against all. But the order of proof of so sprawling a charge is difficult for a judge to control. As a practical matter, the accused often is confronted with a hodgepodge of acts and statements by others which he may never have authorized or intended or even known about, but which help to persuade the jury of existence of the conspiracy itself. In other words, a conspiracy often is proved by evidence that is admissible only upon assumption that conspiracy existed. The naive assumption that prejudicial effects can be overcome by instructions to the jury, Cf. Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 559, 68 S.Ct. 248, 92 L.Ed. 154, all practicing lawyers know to be unmitigated fiction. See Skidmore v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 167 F.2d 54 (2d Cir.).
Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 453, 69 S.Ct. 716, 723, 93 L.Ed. 790 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring).
Honorable C. William Kraft, Jr., Senior United States District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation
It is ironic that the only question juror Collins responded to during voir dire was the following: "Have any members of the panel during their current jury service or during any prior service had occasion to serve in any case involving drug or narcotic offenses?" Collins responded, "I was on a case here a couple of months ago for narcotics, but it wouldn't affect me." The judge replied, "Thank you, sir," and did not pursue the inquiry
The problems with juror Collins might have been avoided had the trial judge permitted a more extensive voir dire. Among the additional voir dire questions proposed by the defense was Question 22: "Does any member of the panel have any friends or relatives who have been involved with heroin? If so, would this fact prevent anyone from rendering a fair and impartial verdict?" The trial judge refused to ask prospective jurors this question
The hazards of the trial court's reluctance to permit additional voir dire became apparent at trial. On the second day of the trial, the Government moved to strike juror Edward Sharrar, Jr. from the jury panel, after it was learned that he had a son awaiting trial on a federal criminal charge. Sharrar, who had not revealed this information during voir dire, was replaced by one of the alternate jurors.
It is within the trial court's discretion to determine whether to hold an evidentiary hearing on allegations of juror bias or misconduct. United States v. Hendrix, 549 F.2d 1225 (9th Cir. 1977). This discretion is not unbounded, and other Circuits have imposed stringent requirements for its exercise. See United States v. Doe, 513 F.2d 709 (1st Cir. 1975)
The jury could have found that separate conspiracies had occurred involving different appellants. For example, the jury could have found that Jones was "an independent peddler of narcotics . . . selected as the most immediately available source of supply," rather than a member of the overall conspiracy. United States v. Reina, 242 F.2d 302, 306 (2d Cir. 1957)
The trial judge told the jury: "If and when it appears from the evidence in a case that such a common plan or arrangement did exist and that a defendant was one of the parties to or a member of the plan or arrangement, then the acts thereafter knowingly done and the statements thereafter knowingly made by any person likewise found to be a member may be considered by the jury as evidence in the case as to the defendant found to be a member, even though the acts or statements may have occurred in the absence of and without the knowledge of the defendant, provided those acts and statements were knowingly done and made during the continuance of a common plan or arrangement and in furtherance of some intended object or purpose of the plan or arrangement."
Of course, the trial judge could have conditionally admitted the challenged statements, subject to a motion to strike if the prosecution failed to establish the existence of the foundational facts
For example, in United States v. Crockett, 514 F.2d 64, 71 (5th Cir. 1975) "the testimony of Penny Fennell that Crockett, during the course of the conspiracy, referred to Sheriff Futch as 'his man' and told her, 'that he (Futch) would take care of him,' was admissible because Crockett was then acting in the interest of the conspiracy by allaying Ms. Fennell's fears of being caught participating in gambling activities." In United States v. Knippenberg, 502 F.2d 1056, 1061 (7th Cir. 1974) the co-conspirator exception was held applicable because "(t)he record very reasonably bears the interpretation that Walsh told Mrs. Post the checks were from Knippenberg so as to reassure her and help induce her to deposit them." Here, there is no indication that Gonzales' statements about appellants were made to induce any action or to allay any fears of Baca
In holding Gonzales' statements inadmissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), we are mindful of the fact that a contrary holding would raise serious questions about whether appellants were denied their Sixth Amendment confrontation rights by the introduction of the Gonzales' statements. This court has recognized that "(a)dmissibility under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule does not . . . automatically demonstrate compliance with the confrontation clause." United States v. Eaglin, 571 F.2d 1069, 1083 (9th Cir. 1977); Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 91 S.Ct. 210, 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970)
In Sperling, the court warned:
In view of the frequency with which the single conspiracy vs. multiple conspiracies claim is being raised on appeals before this court . . ., we take this occasion to caution the government with respect to future prosecutions that it may be unnecessarily exposing itself to reversal by continuing the indictment format reflected in this case. While it is obviously impractical and inefficient for the government to try conspiracy cases one defendant at a time, it has become all too common for the government to bring indictments against a dozen or more defendants and endeavor to force as many of them as possible to trial in the same proceeding on the claim of a single conspiracy when the criminal acts could be more reasonably regarded as two or more conspiracies, perhaps with a link at the top. Little time was saved by the government's having prosecuted the offenses here involved in one rather than two conspiracy trials. On the contrary, many serious problems were created at the trial level, including the inevitable debate about the single conspiracy charge, which can prove seriously detrimental to the government itself. We have already alluded to our problems at the appellate level, where we have had to comb through a voluminous record to give adequate consideration to the claims of eleven separate appellants.
United States v. Sperling, 506 F.2d at 1340-1341.
Kotteakos held:
Guilt with us remains individual and personal, even as respects conspiracies. It is not a matter of mass application. There are times when of necessity, because of the nature and scope of the particular federation, large numbers of persons taking part must be tried together or perhaps not at all, at any rate as respects some. When many conspire, they invite mass trial by their conduct. Even so, the proceedings are exceptional to our tradition and call for use of every safeguard to individualize each defendant in his relation to the mass. Wholly different is it with those who join together with only a few, though many others may be doing the same and though some of them may line up with more than one group.
Criminal they may be, but it is not the criminality of mass conspiracy. Nor does our system tolerate it. That way lies the drift toward totalitarian institutions. True, this may be inconvenient for prosecution. But our Government is not one of mere convenience or efficiency. It too has a stake, with every citizen, in his being afforded our historic individual protections, including those surrounding criminal trials. About them we dare not become careless or complacent when that fashion has become rampant over the earth.
Here toleration went too far.
United States v. Kotteakos, supra, 328 U.S. at 772-773, 66 S.Ct. at 1252.


The Krypton crew are celebrating their first anniversary right in the middle of Easter week. And they're doing it with in one packed-full party at Plataforma. Prepare yourself for a long night that's full of surprises.


The mid term election in November will be one of the most important midterms in our lifetime. It will signal either the stopping of the socialist agenda of the Obama administration along with its willing accomplices in the current Congress and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media, or it will allow it to continue and jeopardize the magnificent freedoms that the USA has worked so hard to preserve through the great sacrifices that have been made by the founding fathers and the subsequent generations through its history.
The American economy has been steeped in a recession and probably more accurate to describe it as a depression, though we do not admit as such. I would argue, if we look at the real rate of unemployment it is 17% and has been held in check at this rate only because of the band-aid of huge borrowing in order to keep public employees working on money we do not have. Without this spending the real unemployment would be well over 20%.
The reason the economy is in this mess is because of the abandonment of our constitutional principles of limited government and free markets. The real estate bubble and the default of mortgages came as a result of abusive and the stupid lending practices of Fannie Mai, Freddie Mac and many banks that bought into the ruling class policies in Washington which was predominantly Democrat but also Republican progressives who put corruption and greed above common sense and sound economic principles. Thomas Jefferson said "I sincerely believe…that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." We have ignored this principle on a massive scale for the last thirty years.
The last two years instead of returning to our constitutional principles, and common sense free market capitalism we have doubled up the previous policies that caused the problem in the first place. The government has borrowed massive amounts of money, which it cannot repay without destroying the dollar and all we have done is set us up for an even harder landing within the next few years or sooner.
The leaders of this current generation have not only squandered the economic welfare of the present but that of at least two generations forward. While economic strength is desirable for all, we as a country need to swallow some hard medicine, return to our constitutional principles, go through some economic pain so we can come out stronger the other side.
One of the biggest threats to our freedom is that of Islamic fundamentalism, which our government fails to deal with for the same reason i.e. corruption and greed; the same intrigues that caused the banking crisis. Too many of our leaders on both side of the isle are in bed with Arab countries because of bad energy policy, that has tainted the common sense principle of energy independence, and thereby has compromised the security of the nation.
The economy is at the top of the list of issues on the minds of the public, which says much about the real problems we have as a nation. Freedom should be the main issue based on what has been legislated in Congress over the last two years. Limited government and constitutional principles is what our economy needs; so it can redevelop. Free market principles and more power returned to the states as well as to the freedoms of the individual. We need lower taxes, lower government spending, energy exploration incentives and leaders willing to serve the people instead of padding their own bank accounts for political favors. Samuel Adams said "Mankind are governed by feelings than by reason." If reason i.e. individual freedom is returned to the American people, jobs and prosperity will return, and the history of the past is proof to show us the way forward.
James Madison the main architect of the Constitution said, "I go on the principle that a public debt is a public curse, and in a republican government, a greater curse than any other." If our founding fathers were alive today they would have cursed the Bush administration and they would have cursed the current Obama regime even more.
And finally, as for Nancy Pelosi with her two thousand page bills and her statement, "that we need to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it," the great James Madison had the perfect response, "It will be of little avail to the people that the laws by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood." If only some of our leaders would even bother to learn and follow the principles of our great founders we would not be in such a mess.
In November you need to vote freedom, as it is this ideal that is the real key to the economic success of the United States.


The Vintage V100 Reissued Left Handed, Cherry Sunburst is constructed with a solid combination of beautiful tonewoods to create a comfortable and sonically pleasing guitar that is reminiscent of the 1950s. The V100 has single cutaway body, which allows easy access to the higher frets and is made from rich mahogany for full, resonant tones. The mahogany neck complements the body, by enhancing the sound with sonic warmth, while the rosewood fingerboard provides beautiful articulation and sweet tones. To deliver that authentic, vintage-voice that Trev Wilkinson is renowned for, the V100 is equipped with a pair of Wilkinson MWVC pickups at the bridge and neck. There is also Wilkinson WJ44 tuners on-board which provide superb intonation, while the Tune-O-Matic bridge offers precise and sturdy playability. To complete the whole vintage package, the Vintage V100 is finished in Cherry Sunburst, and is paired with a contrasting white pickguard.
The Vintage V100 is loaded with a pair of Wilkinson Double Coil MWVC pickups at the neck and at the bridge. The Wilkinson pickups produce an authentic, vintage voice, as the bridge pickup delivers a full bottom end and a clear, ringing top end with plenty of chime, and the neck pickup produces excellent dynamics and a expressive, vintage tone. The V100 is also equipped with a stable Tune-O-Matic bridge, and Wilkinson WJ44 Tuners which work together to provide reliable and accurate tuning.
The mahogany body gives the V100 Electric guitar a warm and resonant tone with great sustain, as well as plenty of depth. Mahogany delivers good levels of grind and bite, which works exceptionally well with punchy rock music. The mahogany body also provides durability, and a tone that will mature over the years for a long lasting investment.
The Vintage V100 is beautifully crafted with a solid combination of tonewoods, and excellent build quality for a sonically pleasing as well as comfortable performance. The guitar is constructed with a set neck, and a single cutaway that allows easy access the higher frets; whilst the arched body top adds to the look as well as the comfort. The V100 is finished in Cherry Sunburst for a vintage appearance, and it is paired with a contrasting white pickguard to complete the retro look.


This course provides you with everything you need to create compelling e-Learning content with EAD Builder eLearning Authoring Tool. At the end of the course, you will have developed your own EAD Builder Tool based e-Learning course. You will be directed through a rapid e-Learning course development process while creating your own e-Learning course.
The tutorials will help you learn about getting started with the EAD Builder right from scratch, you will learn in detail about understanding their highly interactive interface, screen familiarization, understanding sequence and a lot more interesting stuff in this software.


text:
Q: Help with US Date Format I have searched the isodate package and the datetime2 package to answer my question. I would like my date to be mm/dd/yyyy. The closest I have gotten is to have the date as dd/mm/yyyy. Could someone help me out.
I tried:
\usepackage[american,useregional=numeric]{datetime2}
\dateinputformat{american}

A: You should pass the American english (USenglish) and numeric format options to isodate. This yields the output format mm/dd/yyyy:

01/21/2016

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[USenglish,num]{isodate}
\begin{document}
\today
\end{document}

The same output under datetime2 (without defining your own date style):
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[datesep={/}]{datetime2}
\DTMsetdatestyle{mmddyyyy}
\begin{document}
\today
\end{document}

Without any packages, you can just manage the printing yourself using \day, \month (in two-digit format) and \year explicitly:
\documentclass{article}

\makeatletter
\renewcommand{\today}{\two@digits{\number\month}/\two@digits{\number\day}/\number\year}
\makeatother

\begin{document}
\today

\end{document}

For calculations (like a two-digit year) on the date you can use the following:

01/21/16

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{xparse}
\ExplSyntaxOn
  \cs_new_eq:NN \calc \fp_eval:n
\ExplSyntaxOff
\makeatletter
\renewcommand{\today}{%
  \two@digits{\number\month}/% MM
  \two@digits{\number\day}/% DD
  \calc{\number\year-100*trunc(\number\year/100,0)}}% YY
\makeatother

\begin{document}
\today

\end{document}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Le Foyer is proud to be known amongst the most spectacular and premier banquet in the Gurgaon/NCR area. Our aim is to provide you seamless service with best facilities that take care of all your minute details, so that you can focus on only enjoying your special occasion.
From impressive business meetings to elegant weddings, social events and catering services, you will find every aspect of your event planning experience at Le Foyer to surpass expectation.
Banqueting with us means hosting an event in a 6000sq.ft. fully air-conditioned hall, or walking your guests through the lush green twin lawns, spread over a 21000 sq.ft. area each. It also means treating your esteemed guests with world cuisines prepared by our chefs or winning their hearts with live entertainment.
So, what are you waiting for? Book now or call us for more details!


Whether it's initial fabrication, repairs, or the routine maintenance of ships, nothing in a shipyard is small or lightweight. Major ship components typically call for large equipment. And Lifting Gear Hire fits the bill. Some of our ship builder and shipyard rental equipment includes plate clamps, grip-hoists, and lifting beams. But virtually anything below the hook can be delivered from one of our rental centers promptly and we customize your order for each job, so nothing is just sitting around, and taking up needed space. Every piece we send out is fully inspected, tested and certified upon request, so, you can just hook it and use it.


text:
Case of the Day – Thursday, November 18, 2021
Posted on November 18, 2021 by TLRoot tagged.
SIR, YOU ARE NO GEORGE WASHINGTON
Today, we conclude our consideration of the trespass problems faced by our New Hampshire landowners Larry and Laura Littoral. If you have followed along to this point, and can remember what transpired even after the exciting news that Britney Spears is back on Instagram, you know that the Littorals' pastoral cottage getaway, situated on a classic New England pond, has been disrupted by neighbor Wally Angler.
Compared to Wally, Myles Garrett is a fine neighbor to Mason Rudolph. Wally – a NINO (neighbor-in-name-only) – is an angler, and asked the Littorals to chop down some dead trees on their property to create a trout habitat in the pond for the primary (and sole) purpose of adding to Wally's piscatorial pleasure. You can hear him now: "Thanks for all the fish!"
The Littorals preferred that their dead timber remain standing. When Wally asked them to cut down the trees, they said, "so long," refusing to dump their tree into the pond. Apparently reasoning that it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission – especially where permission has already been denied – Wally then took advantage of the Littorals' weekend absence by bringing in a tree service to cut the trees down for him. According to the Littorals, Wally affirmatively misled the tree cutters that the dead trees were on his property, and the tree service cut down the timber with alacrity.
For the record, Wally denies having anything to do with the felling of the dead trees. He seemingly maintains that he turned around one day, and mirabile dictu, the trees were on the ground. If George Washington had tried a similar woof story on his father about a downed cherry tree, we'd probably all be speaking English and enduring a lousy healthcare system right now with a national leader who is a doddering old man. As every schoolchild knows, however, Little George 'fessed up, telling his father, "I cannot tell a lie." Channeling Lloyd Bentsen, our observation is this: Wally, we served with George Washington, George Washington was a friend of ours. Wally, you're no George Washington.
Our analysis this week has assumed that unless Wally can produce the elves responsible for the tree cutting (and their saws), the Littorals will easily meet their burden of proof.
So far this week, we have concluded that the Littorals may bring a double-barreled complaint, alleging a statutory violation of New Hampshire's trespass-to-tree statute, R.S.A. § 227-J:8, and a common-law trespass count. The § 227-J:8 count carries some pretty serious penalties, from three to 10 times the market value of the trees. The catch is that the penalties must be based on a multiple of market value. Market value may be the stumpage value of the wood – what it is worth on location to a lumber buyer – or on the cost to replace the tree, minus transportation and planting costs.
We're assuming for the sake of this column that a few dead trees probably are not going to have much stumpage value. The Littorals could find an expert to establish how much replacement of the trees would cost, but replacement value has traditionally been used because everyone assumes that the destroyed trees would have continued to flourish but for the actions of the defendant. Here, the defendant's expert would have a good argument that those trees were going to fall in the next strong wind anyway, and awarding the Littorals new live trees to replace their old dead ones would give the plaintiffs a "windfall" for what was only windfall to begin with.
Wally suspects elves.
Given Wally's underhanded approach to getting what he wanted (and what the Littorals did not want), we don't have much trouble with the Littorals receiving a windfall. The law in New Hampshire and elsewhere does, however, holding instead that damages should be limited to compensating for the actual injuries suffered. For that reason, the Littorals can take the confluent approach that under the common law of trespass, their real property has suffered a decrease in value because of Wally's conduct, both because of where the dead trees are no longer standing and because of where they are currently laying.
Even then, the Littorals might have a problem because the usual assumption underlying damages for loss of trees is that standing timber will continue to stand for the indeterminate future. That assumption may be challenged where the standing timber is already dead. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that dead trees standing have value. As we noted the other day, dead trees provide shelter or sustenance to over 40 percent of all birds, to amphibians, and to lichens and moss. Dead trees create "snow fences" that slows wind-driven snow. The snow that is trapped melts in place and saturates the ground, providing additional moisture to live trees. Dead trees create hiding cover and thermal cover for big game as well.
Even more counter-intuitive, dead trees – after dropping their needles and bark – may reduce fire hazard. Their flammability is greatly reduced compared to green trees containing flammable resins.
In the Connecticut decision we're examining today, the plaintiff relied on standing dead timber to help maintain privacy from his neighbor. The court appeared to recognize that the elimination of the standing dead trees contributed to a substantial diminution of her property value, even while acknowledging that the trees themselves had no value. It's not a New Hampshire case, but then there is a dearth of cases nationwide where the wrongfully cut trees were ornamental in nature and yet very dead even before tasting the ax. We were glad enough to find this one. The decision suggests that an action alleging loss of privacy may be the strongest case of all.
Caciopoli v. Lebowitz, 131 Conn.App. 306 (Court of Appeals, Connecticut, 2011). Dominic Caciopoli was a man who liked his privacy. He bought his place because it was isolated and private, surrounded by forest on all sides except for one area of the lot though which his driveway passed. A short while later, Jeffrey Lebowitz bought the place next door. His house was about 100 yards from Dom's, and the area between the residences was wooded, affording each privacy from the other.
A few months after moving in, Jeff hired a tree service to clear standing dead trees from the wooded area between the two homes. Jeff believed the dead trees were on his land, but he didn't check that carefully. The tree service removed all the dead timber, both standing and on the ground, some small saplings, and a few larger trees to provide more sunlight and enlarge the areas surrounding his house. Of course, it turns out that virtually all of what was cut really belonged to Dom.
When Dom came home to find that his natural privacy barrier had been clear-cut, he was not happy. He went to Jeff's front door and expressed his displeasure, pointing out the actual property line in the process. Nevertheless, the next day, the tree service returned and finished the job. The removal of the trees and brush left Jeff with an unobstructed view of Dom's house.
Jeff tried to make amends. He sent Dom a letter admitting his error and planted some trees on Dom's property to replace what had been taken. Dom was not happy with the results, and undertook his own extensive landscaping project in a failed attempt to restore his lost privacy.
Give a man a fish, and feed him for a day. Give a man a chainsaw, and watch trouble ensue.
Dom sued Jeff for common-law trespass and for treble damages pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-560 (the Connecticut adjunct to R.S.A. § 227-J:8). The trial court found that Dom had proven the elements of an intentional trespass action, and awarded him $150,000. for the diminution in the value of his property caused by the trespass. Notably, the trial court declined to award any damages for the value of timber removed.
Jeffrey Lebowitz appealed, alleging a lot of infirmities with the trial judgment. Of interest to the Littorals is Jeff's appeal of the damage award.
Held: The trial court's award of $150,000 was proper. The trial court found that after the cutting Dom's place was worth $675,000, according to an appraisal performed by a certified general real estate appraiser. The appraiser opined that prior to the cutting, Dom's market value was $825,000. The Court of Appeals noted that Jeff could have presented his own expert testimony on the diminution of value, but he did not. Applying the ancient legal doctrine, et dormiat, ne perdatis ("you snooze, you lose"), the court said Dom's expert was found to be credible and competent, and absent Jeff making an expert showing at all, that was good enough.
But, Jeff complained, Dom's expert was not qualified to give an opinion as to the effect of the removal of certain trees from Dom's property on its market value. He argued the expert had no relevant experience, and was considered an expert only because she had a real estate appraiser's license. However, the Court of Appeals said, the trial court relied on the fact she had conducted 1,500 appraisals before, and when the trial judge asked her whether she was able to testify as to the value of the property before and after the removal of the trees, she said she could. (This is rather like finding that she was an expert because she asserted she was, a rather bizarre ipse dixit, but the Court of Appeals was loathe to disturb a verdict, and thus to give Jeff a second bite of the apple on remand).
Jeff also argued that the court made no finding whether there was an adequate factual foundation for a "retrospective appraisal" – an appraisal after the fact of the value of the property before the cutting – and that Dom did not ask the court to find there was an adequate foundation for allowing the opinion evidence. The Court of Appeals pointed out that it was Jeff's burden to object to the testimony on those grounds at the time of trial. Again, et dormiat, ne perdatis. The expert testified she visited the property in January and February 2009, and had determined the lot enjoyed a high degree of privacy prior to the incident. She also studied photographs of the lot prior to the trespass and after the trespass, and noted that the pictures depicted more clearing of trees than she had imagined and thus, strengthened her opinion as to diminution in value.
No one contests that trees in the water are a good habitat for fish… but Wally should have used his own trees.
The Court observed that Jeff pointed to no authority to suggest that the expert's personal observation of the property, her reliance on the plaintiff's descriptions of the prior conditions of the property, and her review of photographs of the property in its prior conditions, was insufficient to form an inadequate factual foundation. The Court said the expert's personal observation of the property "complemented by the plaintiff's descriptions of the property in its prior conditions, is not impermissibly speculative…" After all, the Court said, Dom – as the owner – was undoubtedly familiar with his property (if perhaps lacking disinterest in the outcome), and no one was more competent than he to describe to the expert what it had looked like before the cutting.
The Court held the fact that the expert "could not give a logical explanation for how she arrived at her opinion and did not articulate or apply methodology suitable to determining any diminution in value caused by the clearing of trees" was not fatal to her testimony. She testified that she examined real estate in the area, found comparable properties, estimated degrees of privacy and made adjustments, positive or negative, for the differences in the properties in order to "equal everything out." She also noted that an appraisal is not based on science, but it is just an opinion as to value, and the Court accepted that.
Jeff had to pay the $150,000. That's a lot of money for some dead trees that had no stumpage value.
← Case of the Day – Wednesday, November 17, 2021
Case of the Day – Friday, November 19, 2021 →


A new report finds that the majority of palm oil producers and traders assessed on SPOTT have committed to the HCV approach, but only a third clearly extend their HCV commitments to scheme smallholders and independent suppliers.
SPOTT assessments score 50 of the largest palm oil producers and traders on the public disclosure of policies, operations and commitments related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. The High Conservation Value (HCV) and High Carbon Stock (HCS) approaches to land-use planning are used to identify and protect important environmental and social values that need to be conserved. These approaches are of great importance to companies' approaches to conservation in general. They also contribute to risk reduction, the implementation of commitments to no deforestation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and safeguarding the rights of local communities.
A new report from ZSL finds that over 70% of palm oil producers and traders assessed on SPOTT in November 2017 had made clear commitments to the HCV approach, increasing from 54% in October 2015. But despite this progress, only a third of companies clearly extend their HCV commitments to scheme smallholders and independent suppliers, indicating potential ESG risks.
Commitments to the HCS Approach are lagging behind those to the HCV approach, with only 22 out of 50 (44%) companies assessed on SPOTT making clear commitments to the HCS Approach in November 2017.
The majority (85%) of companies assessed on SPOTT disclose the extent of their areas set aside for conservation or HCV areas; however, companies do not currently make digitised maps of HCV areas publicly available. For companies on SPOTT – both members and non-members of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) – that have reported new plantings undertaken since January 2015, 56% have not made any HCV assessment documentation publicly available, while only 22% of companies have made the associated HCV management and monitoring documentation publicly available.
Over half (54%) of companies assessed on SPOTT report details of the HCV and other conservation area management, monitoring and/or restoration activities that they undertake. No companies assessed on SPOTT report on the ongoing participation of communities in HCV management and monitoring processes. Only a third of companies assessed on SPOTT have made clear commitments to only use licensed HCV assessors accredited by the HCV Resource Network (HCVRN) Assessor Licensing Scheme (ALS).
The findings demonstrate that companies assessed on SPOTT are progressing towards making clearer commitments and improving disclosure; however, companies need to fully realise the business case for conserving HCV areas and HCS forests, and the risks associated with a lack of effective management of these areas. Companies can demonstrate responsibility and leadership through improved and proactive disclosure. Careful inclusion of the HCS Approach in the RSPO's Principles and Criteria (P&C) could support improved alignment between HCV and HCS, drive its adoption by many more companies, and support more sustainable land planning processes.


PLANET TRASH have been around since 1994. Sometimes we play a lot. Sometimes we don´t. Over the years there´s been some line up changes. But this one have been together for almost ten years now. During the nineties the band only played around Sweden, but since then we´ve played/been touring in Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, Poland and so on…During the years we´ve shared stage with such bands as M.D.C. Disorder, Oneway System, The Varukers, Disfear, Uncurbed, Wolfpack, G.B.H. and loads of other bands.
We have absolutely no plans to slow down.


text:
금요일, 1월 21, 2022
Special Casino and bacarrat
Frequent questions about online casino
League of legend Toto
league of legends 롤 토토 "champion": what is that?
1월 9, 2022 7 min read admin
You've probably heard a lot about it from your pals 롤 첫용 토토, and if you're on the internet, you've seen a lot of people discussing "LoL." However, what is this "League of Legends" that so many people are raving so much about? For the past eight years, you've most certainly been living under a rock.
One of the most popular multiplayer online battle arenas (or MOBAs, to use a more formal term) is League of Legends. A character, or "champion," is what the game refers to when you're playing it. As a team, you then take on the opposing team, known as the enemy. Taking out their Nexus, the center of the opposing team's base is the goal of this mission.
To achieve success in the game, one must be a participant. The term "champion" in League of Legends is simply a synonym for "person." Champion is a member of the squad with a unique set of abilities and responsibilities. The entire team must be able to communicate effectively to stay organized and defeat the other squad. In most games, characters start weak and get stronger as players gather stuff and gain experience 롤 언오버 토토.
Since this process is restarted at the beginning of each game, it is the most equitable method of combat. In addition, the roast of characters is always expanding, bringing in new characters and revitalizing the game as a whole. Now you may try new things, come up with fresh ideas, improve your team, and generally have more fun!
If you're playing online, you can participate in rated matches. In these types of games, players compete with one another to see who can achieve the highest level of success. Your record and experience are taken into consideration, and you are placed in an online game with players that have a skill level close to your own. Your games will be more enjoyable because of this. Building the excitement and making plans to help you reach the top are essential if you want to fight your way to the top. As a player of League of Legends, you are also a member of the world's largest gaming community. As a result, you'll have the opportunity to interact with individuals from all over the world, make new friends, and learn new things.
eSports are an option if you're looking to take your gaming to the next level. This is due to the large number of people who participate in League of Legends and the influence they have on the world of eSports. It's essential for everyone who wants to play professionally to join a team and compete against the top players in the world in international competitions. This type of competition has the potential to award large sums of money to those who excel. When you play the game you love, you can make money. What could have been done better?
Even though the game is primarily about competing against other players online, there is much to enjoy about it. The characters have rich backstories, and their interactions with one another add to the intrigue of the game.
People play League of Legends, a video game.
Popularity has soared recently for a video game called League of Legends. Players compete against one another in an online combat arena (MOBA) To begin, the game was made available on Mac and PC in 2009. Mac clients have shut down afterward.
The game's game mode pits two teams against one another on a map named "Summoner's Rift," like in other MOBA games. An enemy team's base must be destroyed to win (Nexus).
A 3v3 option was added to MOBAs and Dominion was added as a game mode in League of Legends. To reduce the Nexus' health in Dominion, players must capture and retain five objective points. This option is designed to increase the tempo of the game.
To sway someone, make a point.
When you play games in League of Legends, you earn Influence Points. These points serve as the game's primary medium of exchange. If the game went well, how high the summoner is, and how many bots were in the game, how much money you will get.
Buying in-game products like champions and runes with Influence Points (IP) is possible. Moreover, they can be swapped for cash.
There are sites where people fight in Riot Points.
Riot Points can be purchased using a variety of methods, including PayPal, credit or debit card, or pre-loaded Riot Point Game Cards.
Riot Points can be used to unlock various items, including champions and rune pages (experience and influence points). True or false, Riot Points can be used to purchase runes. To get free Riot Points, you can do a lot of different things 롤 토토 배팅 하는곳 (such as referring friends to League of Legends).
Runes in League of Legends allow you to personalize the experience. Players' health, damage, mana regeneration, speed, and a slew of other attributes can all be enhanced. Using the rune and mastery options, players can play the same champion in a variety of ways.
What are the best ways to gain Influence Points in 롤 스페셜 토토 League of Legends?
It is estimated that at least twelve million individuals around the world play League of Legends every day. Additionally, this game offers a wide variety of shocks and difficulties that keep even the most ardent gamers engaged. I've been playing this game every day for more than three years now. Even now, I can't seem to get enough!
This League of Legends guide is essential if you wish to gain influence points (commonly known as IP).
Intense Power (IP) is a metric of summoner strength. This is how this measure is carried out, based on your experience in the legal system. The more time you spend playing and the better your team performs in the Fields of Justice, the more influence points you gain.
Two teams of champions are required to 롤 토토 – (loltotobet.com) play League of Legends. The "Nexus" of the opposing team must be eliminated. To go to the opposing nexus, you'll encounter a lot of obstacles and minions that you'll need to eliminate. Using a series of maps called the Fields of Justice, you can play the game.
There are many ways to use influence points in the game. You can permanently unlock champions if you have enough IP points. This offers you a huge advantage over the enemy side because you can pick a new hero to fight back against. When you have more champions, you can improve in many areas. Pick a champion who is strong enough to defeat the opponent you expect to face.
Influence points can be used to acquire runes for your favorite character in the game. Runes enhance the abilities of your champion, making him or her even more powerful. Guides for League of Legends show how to earn more runes and how to best use your influence points for your team.
As long as you're in the game, you'll be able to gain IP points. The in-game currency is awarded for each victory and is reset every 24 hours. To get IP, play a game each day.
League of Legends is a complex game, and this tutorial will just scratch the surface of what you need to know. If you want to succeed in the game, you'll need to know a lot of small details. A decent guide can be written by someone who has played the game for a long period.
an 토토 사이트 제작 in-depth look at the Toto site affiliate programs
what are the best ways to gain influence points in league of legends?
Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Refined Mag by Candid Themes.


text:
Kids' Activities in Chicago, Illinois
Jonita Davis, Leaf Group
Museums and other attractions offer a variety of ways to keep kids happy in the Windy City. (Photo: Looking up at the Hancock Center in Chicago image by painless from Fotolia.com )
Family Friendly Things to Do in Chicago
Five Star Hotels in Chicago, Illinois
Casino Hotels Near Michigan City, Indiana
Points of Interest in Chicago
An estimated 45 million people traveled to Chicago in 2008, according to D.K. Shiffet and Associates Tourism and Travel Resources Co. Many of them were families, looking for fun things to do together. The nation's third-largest city offers an array of activities for kids, from toddlers to teens.
Adler Planetarium
In addition to the traditions of the Museum of Science and Industry and the Art Institute of Chicago, there is the Adler Planetarium & Astronomy Museum. The Adler offers a look at the stars, planets and other heavenly bodies in words and activities that children can understand and enjoy. The exhibits are interactive; for example, Our Solar System lets kids drive a rover and create craters. There are also 3-D movies and other theater presentations to keep children occupied and give parents a chance to relax.
1300 S. Lake Shore Drive
www.adlerplanetarium.org
Navy Pier on the Lake Michigan waterfront often is mistaken for an amusement park. In fact, Navy Pier houses a 50,000-square-foot children's museum, an IMAX theater that seats 440, an indoor botanical garden/park, restaurants and shops. The entire family easily could spend a day at Navy Pier and still not experience all that is has to offer. From atop the 150-foot-tall Ferris wheel kids and parents can view Lake Michigan and Chicago's towering skyscrapers.
600 E. Grand Ave.
www.navypier.com/
John Hancock Observatory
Kids can experience Chicago's famous skyscrapers up close with a tour of the John Hancock Observatory. On the the tower's topmost, 94th floor, families can see a panoramic view of the Windy City and experience the gusts that earned Chicago that nickname. Soundscopes give an audio and visual tour of the city. And you can take a group picture at several spots.
875 N. Michigan Ave.
http://hancockobservatory.com/en/
Chicago Beaches
The city is bordered by 118-mile-wide Lake Michigan, and Chicago has 26 miles of shore divided into beaches and marinas. Fifteen of those beaches are for swimming, with one designated for dogs (Montrose Beach at Wilson Avenue). In season, the swimming beaches offer fun in the cool Lake Michigan waters and relaxation on the sand. Hop on over to the marinas to charter a boat for deep-lake fishing or take a simple sightseeing trip. Several of Chicago's noted zoos, museums and other attractions, including Adler Planetarium and Navy Pier, are located along the lakefront.
Navy Pier Chicago: About Navy Pier
Adler Planetarium: Shows & Exhibits
Great Lakes Information Network: Lake Michigan
Chicago Park District: Welcome to Chicago's Lakefront
John Hancock Observatory: This Is the full Sensory Experience
Jonita Davis is freelance writer and marketing consultant. Her work has appeared in various print and online publications, including "The LaPorte County Herald Argus" and Work.com. Davis also authored the book, "Michigan City Marinas," which covers the history of the Michigan City Port Authority. Davis holds a bachelor's degree in English from Purdue University.
Looking up at the Hancock Center in Chicago image by painless from Fotolia.com
Attribution: Jleon and Mcshadypl; License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license
Attribution: Allen McGregor; License: Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license
Attribution: Lacrossewi; License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license
Attribution: Banpei at English Wikipedia; License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license
Attribution: Victorgrigas; License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license
Davis, Jonita. "Kids' Activities in Chicago, Illinois." Travel Tips - USA Today, https://traveltips.usatoday.com/kids-activities-chicago-illinois-4187.html. Accessed 19 July 2019.
Davis, Jonita. (n.d.). Kids' Activities in Chicago, Illinois. Travel Tips - USA Today. Retrieved from https://traveltips.usatoday.com/kids-activities-chicago-illinois-4187.html
Davis, Jonita. "Kids' Activities in Chicago, Illinois" accessed July 19, 2019. https://traveltips.usatoday.com/kids-activities-chicago-illinois-4187.html
Children's Vacations in Michigan
Attractions Close to Chicago
Resorts in Chicago, Illinois
Things to See & Do in Chicago
Vacations for Families in Seattle
Family Vacations in Illinois
Great Things to Do in Chicago
Houston, Texas Vacations
Good Things About Chicago
Chicago Beachfront Hotels
Cheapest Motels in Chicago
Camping in Southwestern Michigan
Family Vacation to Chicago
Top Ten Sights to See in Chicago
Images related to Chicago
From top left: Downtown Chicago, the Willis Tower, the bucetar, the Chicago "L", Navy Pier, the Field Museum, and Millenium Park
Chicago skyscrapers July 10, 2012, from John Hancock Center looking south.
Greetings from Chicago Mural - Logan Square, Chicago
Picture of Navy Pier taken from Lake Point Tower, 23rd floor.
Pottawatomi Fashion at the Field Museum in Chicago
Hotels Near Washington Park in Michigan City, Indiana
Chicago Hotels on Lake Michigan
Midwest US Travel»
Kids' Activities in Illinois»


In this free online game you get sent on a one man mission to Raid the heavily guarded enemy bases. However there is a weakness in their defense, use the rivers as your point of entry. Have Fun!
Use WASD or the arrow keys to move. Use the mouse to aim and shoot. Q key to get in and out of the vehicle. P key to pause the game.