text:
GET THE LED OUT
Get The Led Out will be at Palladium Times Square on February 10th, 2023. Tickets are on sale now! From the bombastic and epic, to the folky and mystical, Get The Led Out have capture
Morat will be at Palladium Times Square on February 11th, 2023.
EDDIE B
Eddie B. will be at Palladium Times Square on February 13th, 2023. Tickets are on sale now! Eddie B. soared to new heights by creating his own opportunity starting with his series of comical
POWERWOLF will be at Palladium Times Square on February 23th, 2023, for their first US show ever! Tickets are on sale now! About POWERWOLF The story of POWERWOLF, beginning in 2004, reads li
MY HOMELAND CONCERT – Ghana 66 Independence Concert
MY HOMELAND CONCERT – Ghana 66 Independence Concert with special guests Stonebwoy, Samini, Ofori Amponsah, Obrafour, Bisa Kdei will be at Palladium Times Square on March 3rd, 2023.
Killer Queen – A Tribute To Queen Featuring Patrick Myers as Freddie Mercury
Killer Queen – A Tribute To Queen Featuring Patrick Myers as Freddie Mercury will be at Palladium Times Square on March 24th, 2023. Tickets purchased for the previously postponed March
Eslabon Armado will be at Palladium Times Square on March 25th, 2023. Tickets will be on sale on Friday, February 3rd.
OV7 will be at Palladium Times Square on March 26th, 2023. Tickets are on sale now!
The Rush Tribute Project
The Rush Tribute Project will be at Palladium Times Square, on March 30th, 2023. Tickets are on sale now! The RUSH Tribute Project is an homage to one of the most enduring and influen
The English Beat
The English Beat will be at Palladium Times Square on March 31th, 2023. Presale starts at 10 am on Wednesday, January 25th through Thursday, January 26 at 11:59 pm – use code "LI
Kim Loazia and JD Pantoja – Bye Bye Tour
Kim Loaiza and JD Pantoja – Bye Bye Tour will be at Palladium Times Square on April 1st, 2023.
Masked Wolf will be at Palladium Times Square on April 6th, 2023. Presale starts at 10 am on Wednesday, February 1st through Thursday, February 2nd at 11:59 – use code "LIVE̶
Kenny Sebastian will be at Palladium Times Square on April 7th, 2023.
Chaos & Carnage 2023 w/ Dying Fetus, Suicide Silence + plus special guests
Chaos & Carnage 2023 w/ Dying Fetus, Suicide Silence plus special guests Born of Osiris, Aborted, Sanguisugabogg, Crown Magnetar, and Slay Squad will be at Palladium Times Square on Apri
August Burns Red with special guests The Devil Wears Prada and Bleed From Within
WSOU and Baker Concerts presents August Burns Red with special guests The Devil Wears Prada and Bleed From Within at Palladium Times Square on April 4th, 2023.
Hannah Berner
Hannah Berner will be at Palladium Times Square, on April 15th, 2023. Tickets are on sale now!
Hannah Berner will be at Palladium Times Square, on April 16th, 2023. Presale starts at 12 am (noon) on Thursday, January 26th through Thursday, January 26 at 11:59 pm – use code ̶
YES Epics & Classics featuring JON ANDERSON And the Band Geeks
YES Epics & Classics featuring JON ANDERSON And the Band Geeks will be at Palladium Times Square on April 21st, 2023. Tickets are on sale now!
Tape Face
Tape Face will be at Palladium Times Square on April 22nd, 2023. Presale starts at 10 am on Wednesday, February 1st through Thursday, February 2nd at 11:59 – use code "tapeface20
And Thats Why We Drink: On The Rocks Tour
And Thats Why We Drink: On The Rocks Tour will be at Palladium Times Square on April 28th, 2023. TIckets on sale now! About And That's Why We Drink: Hosted by New York Times bestselling authors,
CRUNCHYROLL presents RADWIMPS
04/29/2023, 04/30/2023
RADWIMPS powered by Crunchyroll will be at Palladium Times Square on April 29th, 2023. SECOND SHOW ADDED FOR APRIL 30th, 2023. Presale starts at 12 (noon) on Tuesday, January 31st through Thursday,
Chelcie Lynn – 2 Fingers And A 12 Pack Tour
Chelcie Lynn – 2 Fingers And A 12 Pack Tour will be at Palladium Times Square on May 5th, 2023. Tickets are on sale now!
Set It Off: The Dopamine Tour
Set It Off will be at Palladium Times Square on May 6th, 2023. Presale starts at 10 am on Wednesday, February 1st through Thursday, February 2nd at 10 pm – use code "LIVE"
LECRAE – THE FINAL CHURCH CLOTHES TOUR
Lecrae, the Final Church Clothes tour with special guests Rhythm Elevation and DOE will be at Palladium Times Square on May 11th, 2023. Before the Grammys, before releasing the #1 Album in t
Air Supply will be at Palladium Times Square on June 3rd, 2023. Tickets go on sale on Friday, January 13th, you can get your presale tickets on Wednesday, January 11th, at 10 am with the cod
SEPULTURA & KREATOR – KLASH OF THE TITANS
Sepultura & Kreator's Klash Of The Titans tour with special guests Death Angel and Spiritworld will be at Palladium Times Square on June 10th, 2023. Presale starts at 12 pm (noon) on Tues
The Musical Box Presents Genesis: The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway: THE FINAL TWO SHOWS
The Musical Box Presents Genesis: The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway: THE FINAL TWO SHOWS will be at Palladium Times Square on June 16th and 17th, 2023. Tickets are on sale now!
Tyler Henry
NETFLIX Series Star Tyler Henry, The Hollywood Medium is coming to Palladium Times Square on August 23rd & 24th for his one-of-a-kind live show An Evening of Hope and Healing. Tyl
Foghat with special guest Dana Fuchs
DUE TO INJURY THE SHOW SCHEDULED for DECEMBER 3rd, 2022 HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED TO SATURDAY, AUGUST 26, 2023. HOLD ON TO YOUR TICKETS AS THEY WILL BE VALID FOR THE NEW DATE STATEMENT FRO
Electric Callboy will be at Palladium Times Square on September 2nd, 2023. Presale starts at 10 am on Thursday, January 9th through Thursday, January 9th at 10 pm – use code "LIV


How to download Mod list?
Is there any way to download my mods list into excel/google spreadsheet?
Swgohgg probably has character information in sql or some database that could be extracted to xml.
Both swgoh.gg and swgoh.life have APIs that allow you to retrieve mod information in JSON. You can write a script in Google Sheets that gets the JSON then populates a spreadsheet.
Do you have any initial / example script. I can follow and update them, but writing something from beginning can be bit difficult for me.
Thank you very much for help. I updated a bit wrapper you provided, because it fails while processing mods with colors other than white and yellow.


text:
Registr plátců DPH je informační systém veřejné správy vedený podle zákona č. 235/2004 Sb., o dani z přidané hodnoty. Seznam je dostupný na internetových stránkách daňové správy nebo na Daňovém portálu Finanční správy ČR.

Seznam nespolehlivých plátců
Součástí Registru je i Seznam nespolehlivých plátců DPH a nespolehlivých osob. Tyto pojmy se váží k aplikaci § 106a zákona č. 235/2004 Sb. a souvisejícímu institutu ručení za nezaplacenou daň podle § 109 odst. 3 zákona o DPH.

Nespolehlivý plátce je takový plátce DPH, který závažným způsobem neplní své povinnosti, přitom definice "neplnění povinností" se průběžně mění a rozšiřuje. Jsme-li sami plátci DPH, je pro nás nespolehlivý plátce rizikovým obchodním partnerem. Pokud od něj totiž odebereme zboží nebo službu, budeme ručit za DPH, kterou má odvést finančnímu úřadu.

Reference

Související články
 DIČ
 DPH
 Ministerstvo financí České republiky

Informační systémy veřejné správy

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Effective March 16, 2015, Dominion Warehousing & Distribution Services Ltd. officially opens their new 250,000 square-foot facility to serve greater Vancouver and Western Canada.
The facility boasts 20 dock level doors and utilizes both racking and stacking storage for all commodity types. The new distribution hub is configured for transload services as well as short and long term warehousing. Pick and pack, fulfillment and freight furtherance to points throughout North America enhance their integrated service package.
Dominion is celebrating its 25th year in business and features over 2 million sq. ft. of warehousing capacity across its national network. The company is HACCP compliant, ISO 9001:2008 registered and works with some of North America's leading Fortune 500 organizations. They serve a variety of industries including: food and beverage, consumer products, electronics and appliances, specialty chemicals and commercial and industrial products.


text:
The pronounced flavors and fragrances of condiments, a variety of tamarind juices and coconut cream (santan), selected bulbs, roots, seeds, leaves, stems, flowers and fruits, all lend to the synthesis of the many and interesting tastes of the Nyonya cuisine.
Understandably, the Penang Nyonya cuisine has a stronger Indian and Thai influence than those of Malacca and Singapore. In any case, no other cuisine is more typical and more renowned in this land. It's a potpourri of flavors, ethnically identifiable but superbly blended into an identity of its own – it's Nyonya and, it's truly Malaysian!
Some of ah Tuan ee's recipes, however, are somewhat more unique due to the fact that the matriarch, a Penang Nyonya of both Chinese and Burmese parentage, had inevitably added the Burmese touch into her style of cooking. Her legacy lives on!
Through the years, ah Tuan ee's friends have grown in numbers and most have remained 'regulars' and some are 'very regulars' at ah Tuan ee's Place - including those who have come from far away. They claim that, at ah Tuan ee's, the food is "consistently great"!
That's a delightful compliment!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
710 F. 2d 439 - United States v. J Wilford
710 F2d 439 United States v. J Wilford
114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2257, 97 Lab.Cas. P 10,247,
13 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1163
Harry J. WILFORD, Appellant.
Everett G. DAGUE, Appellant.
Herman J. CASTEN, Appellant.
Herman B. BOEDING, Appellant.
Nos. 82-1185 to 82-1188.
Submitted Nov. 11, 1982.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
Denied Aug. 1, 1983.
Raymond Rosenberg, Rosenberg & Margulies, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellants Harry J. Wilford, Everett G. Dague, Herman Casten and Herman B. Boeding.
Tom Riley, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for appellant Herman Casten.
Robert F. Wilson, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for appellant Herman B. Boeding.
Evan Hultman, U.S. Atty., N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Robert J. Erickson, Atty., Randy Kehrli, Sp. Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, HENLEY, Senior Judge, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
LAY, Chief Judge.
Harry J. Wilford was convicted of conspiracy to obtain property by extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951 (1976), three misdemeanor offenses of unlawfully demanding or receiving money on behalf of a labor union in violation of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 186(b)(1) (1976), and five misdemeanor offenses of demanding or accepting a fee for the unloading of a vehicle employed in commerce in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 186(b)(2) (1976) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2 (1976). Everett G. Dague was convicted of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951, four substantive counts of extortion, one count of unlawfully demanding or receiving funds on behalf of a labor union, and three counts of demanding or accepting an unloading fee. Herman J. Casten was convicted of one count of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951, one count of extortion, one count of receiving funds on behalf of a labor union, and two counts of demanding or accepting an unloading fee. Herman B. Boeding was convicted of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951, five counts of extortion, three counts of unlawfully receiving funds on behalf of a labor union, and five counts of unlawfully demanding an unloading fee.1 These appeals followed. We affirm.
Wilford was the secretary/treasurer and chief executive officer of the Cedar Rapids, Iowa local (Local 238) of the Teamsters Union. Dague and Casten were business agents for the local. Boeding, unlike the other three defendants, was not an officer or an employee of the local; he was, however, a member of Local 238.
The defendants' indictment and convictions stem from their activities at a waste treatment construction site in Cedar Rapids. Darin and Armstrong, Inc. (D & A) was the general contractor at the site, and the defendant Boeding was employed by D & A as a truck driver on the site. Construction began in 1976. Sometime during that year, Boeding began stopping over-the-road trucks coming into the site to deliver materials, and "carding" the driver of each truck--asking him if he belonged to a union. If the driver belonged to a union, he was allowed to drive his truck onto the site and have it unloaded. If the driver indicated that he belonged to no union, Boeding informed him that his truck would not be unloaded by anyone on the construction site2 unless he joined Local 238. Most drivers, confronted with this choice, agreed to join Local 238 rather than leave the site without having their trucks unloaded. When a non-union driver agreed to join, Boeding would contact Dague or Casten, two of the union's business agents, at the union's offices. Dague or Casten would then come out to the site, fill in the driver's application for membership, request and accept a payment of $49 from the driver (for initiation fee and first month's dues), and provide the driver with a receipt. Later the union would mail the driver a computerized receipt and a membership card. As secretary and treasurer of the union, Wilford endorsed all checks received from the drivers, and signed the membership cards received by each driver.3
On some occasions when a non-union driver either refused or was unable to pay the fee to join Local 238, a representative of D & A would pay the fee for the driver, in order to complete the delivery of the driver's materials to the site and avoid delays. At least one driver refused to pay the fee, and left the site without having been unloaded.
The National Labor Relations Board began investigating the situation at the D & A site in April 1978, after a non-union driver filed a complaint with the NLRB about the defendants' activities. Although the NLRB filed suit to enjoin the union's activities, the NLRB and the union eventually entered into a formal settlement stipulation in which the union did not concede that its members had committed any illegal acts, but agreed that its members would stop carding incoming trucks on the D & A site. The union also agreed to refund membership fees to several drivers.4
The NLRB then recommended to the Department of Justice that it investigate the conduct of the union officials for violation of criminal statutes. The Department's investigation resulted in a 16-count indictment against the defendants, charging them with conspiracy and substantive violations of the Hobbs Act5 and with violations of two provisions of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 186(b)(1) and Sec. 186(b)(2).6
I. The Hobbs Act Convictions.
A. The Substantive Charge.
The defendants argue that their conduct did not come within the definition of "extortion" in the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951, and therefore that the trial court erred in denying the defendants' motion for acquittal of all Hobbs Act charges.7
In United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396, 400-01, 93 S.Ct. 1007, 1009-10, 35 L.Ed.2d 379 (1973), the Supreme Court held that "wrongful," as that term is used in section 1951(b)(2) to define "extortion," has meaning in the Hobbs Act "only if it limits the statute's coverage to those instances where the obtaining of the property would itself be 'wrongful' because the alleged extortionist has no lawful claim to that property." 410 U.S. at 400, 93 S.Ct. at 1009.8 The Court concluded that the use of violence during the course of a lawful strike for higher wages was not prohibited by the Hobbs Act.
The defendants in this case argue that they were pursuing two legitimate labor objectives: (1) the defendants were enforcing their rights under the collective bargaining agreement in force at the D & A site, which stated that "[a]ll truck driving is the jurisdiction of the Teamsters Union"; and (2) the defendants were soliciting membership in the Teamsters Union and organizing those members. Because these were their objectives, and because these are "legitimate labor objectives," the defendants argue, they may not be prosecuted under the Hobbs Act, because their use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear was not "wrongful."9 The government counters on appeal that the defendants' actions "constituted an attempt to bolster Local 238's treasury by wrongfully taking money from transient truckers under the guise of obtaining 'union dues.' "
We need not decide whether the defendants' asserted objectives are "legitimate labor objectives." The evidence is sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the defendants had no lawful claim to the money they received from the non-union drivers. In spite of the defendants' assertions as to what the objectives of their conduct were, there is evidence to support the jury's conclusion that these were not the defendants' true objectives. The jury expressly found all four defendants guilty of demanding and accepting an unloading fee in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 186(b)(2). Even though the defendants claim that one of their legitimate labor objectives was to solicit and organize members of the Teamsters Union, evidence showed that at least one new "member" was told that he would receive no union benefits in return for his payment except the opportunity to have his truck unloaded in the Cedar Rapids area. In addition, some of the non-union drivers were self-employed, and thus were persons for whom the union could provide no real membership benefits, at least not in the areas of standardization of wages and the representation of those drivers in a collective bargaining situation.10
The defendants also claim that by their actions they were attempting to enforce the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement in force at the D & A site. Two of those provisions stated in essence that no member of a union would be required to work with a non-union person, and that all truck driving would be the jurisdiction of the Teamsters Union. But the defendants' asserted objective is belied by the fact that non-union drivers were not allowed by the defendant Boeding to trade their loads with a union driver, and by the fact that the new "members" were not allowed to drive the trucks of other non-union drivers onto the site.
Thus, the jury reasonably could have concluded that among the defendants' objectives were to force non-union drivers to pay an unloading fee, and to force all non-union drivers, even self-employed drivers, to join, not just any Teamsters Union local, but Local 238 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, regardless of whether the drivers' home or usual route of travel included Cedar Rapids. This constitutes a pattern of obtaining money through the use of fear, money to which the defendants had no lawful claim. We therefore conclude that the jury reasonably could find, and did find, that the defendants were guilty of extortion under the Hobbs Act because they obstructed, delayed, or affected commerce or the movement of an article or commodity in commerce by using fear of economic loss to obtain property to which they had no lawful claim.11
B. The Due Process Claim--duplicative prosecution of misdemeanors under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 186(b)(2).
The defendants also argue that if their acts constitute extortion under the Hobbs Act, this results in a violation of their rights to due process, because, the defendants charge, the same factual nucleus that supports several of the Hobbs Act extortion charges also supports several of the misdemeanor charges.12 The defendants urge that there must be a clear difference between conduct that supports a charge of a misdemeanor violation and conduct that supports a charge of an aggravated felony. In this case, the defendants contend, the same conduct is used in the indictment to support both the felony and misdemeanor counts.
The double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment protects an accused against multiple punishments for the same offense. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2225, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); United States v. Anderson, 654 F.2d 1264, 1268-69 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1127, 102 S.Ct. 978, 71 L.Ed.2d 115 (1981). In Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), the Supreme Court held that "where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not." Id. at 304, 52 S.Ct. at 182. In this case we must decide whether the defendants' acts on three different occasions each constituted a felony under the Hobbs Act and a misdemeanor, or whether only one offense arose from each incident.
In applying the Blockburger test to the facts of this case, we note that a violation of the Hobbs Act requires proof of extortion or robbery and an effect upon commerce, but a violation of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 186, does not. A violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 186(b)(2) requires that the accused be a labor organization, or a person acting as an officer, agent, representative, or employee of a labor organization; the Hobbs Act, on the other hand, applies to "whoever" violates its provisions. Section 186(b)(2) of the Labor Act requires that the payment be a fee or charge for the unloading, or in connection with the unloading, of the cargo of a motor vehicle employed in the transportation of property in commerce; the Hobbs Act has no such requirement. Therefore, it is plain that a violation of the Hobbs Act can take place that is not at the same time a violation of the Labor Management Relations Act, and vice-versa.
In Brown v. Ohio, the defendant had been convicted of auto theft and joyriding, and both convictions stemmed from the same incident. In holding that the double jeopardy clause would be violated if the defendant were punished for both offenses, the Supreme Court noted: "The prosecutor who has established joyriding need only prove the requisite intent [permanently to deprive the auto's owner of possession] in order to establish auto theft; the prosecutor who has established auto theft necessarily has established joyriding as well." 432 U.S. at 167-68, 97 S.Ct. at 2226. The same cannot be said in this case. As noted above, the Hobbs Act and the Labor Act each require different elements for a violation to be established. A prosecutor who establishes a Hobbs Act violation has not necessarily established a violation of the Labor Act, and a showing sufficient to support a Labor Act violation does not necessarily prove a violation of the Hobbs Act. We therefore conclude that the felony and misdemeanor charges in this case are not inconsistent, and that the defendants have suffered no double jeopardy or violation of due process.13
II. The NLRB's Referral of the Case to the Department of Justice.
Before opening statements were given by the attorneys, the prosecutor informed the trial court that an NLRB official would testify that, upon the conclusion of the NLRB's investigation of Local 238's activities at the D & A site, the NLRB requested that the Department of Justice begin criminal investigation into the conduct of some of the union agents in the D & A matter. Defense counsel objected that evidence of the referral was immaterial, and would create an impermissible inference of guilt, since the jury would interpret the referral to mean that the NLRB felt that the defendants were guilty of criminal behavior. The trial court concluded that evidence of the referral was simply background information as to how the government began criminal proceedings in the case, and ruled that the prosecution could present evidence of the referral itself, as long as there would be no evidence as to why the NLRB referred the case to the Department of Justice. Thereafter, in opening statement, the prosecutor told the jury that "the NLRB witnesses will testify that there was a civil action against the union in this case and that the case was then referred to the Department of Justice regarding the union agents as opposed to the union." An NLRB attorney testified that at the conclusion of the NLRB's civil action against Local 238, "[t]he NLRB contacted the Department of Justice and requested that [it] begin investigating Teamster Local 238 for violation of certain criminal statutes."
The defendants argue on appeal that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the referral of the case to the Department of Justice, because the evidence created an impermissible inference that the defendants were guilty.
In Weaver v. United States, 379 F.2d 799, 802-03 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 962, 88 S.Ct. 347, 19 L.Ed.2d 374 (1967), the prosecutor told the jury that a "grand jury, ... selected from the same group of people that you were selected from, sat and heard the Government's evidence in the case and then determined that there was probable cause to make a charge." Id. at 802. The trial court immediately ruled that the statement was improper, and warned the jury that the fact that an indictment has been returned against a defendant "is absolutely no evidence of the guilt of the defendant...." Id. This court affirmed the conviction and held that any error caused by the prosecutor's remarks was rendered harmless by the trial court's instructions.14
The defendants in this case argue that the same impermissible inference of guilt the prosecutor attempted to create in Weaver was in fact created in this case, and the trial court in this case did not instruct the jurors that they were not to infer the defendant's guilt from the fact that the NLRB referred the case to the Department of Justice.
Even if we were to agree that the statement in this case created as strong an impermissible inference of guilt as the statements in the cases discussed above, when we consider the overall evidence of the defendants' guilt we do not find that the trial court committed a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion in admitting the statements. See Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Jensen, 667 F.2d 714, 722 (8th Cir.1981); United States v. Williams, 545 F.2d 47, 50 (8th Cir.1976). The referral was mentioned only once by the prosecutor, and was mentioned once briefly by the NLRB attorney who testified. When we compare this to the evidence supporting the defendants' convictions, we find that any "error did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect," Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1247, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). We therefore decline to reverse the district court on this ground.III. Evidence of Wilford's Character.
The defendants claim that the trial court erred in admitting character evidence of the defendant Wilford.15
The defendants placed the character of Wilford in issue by presenting evidence of his good character; the fundamental question is whether the prosecution exceeded the proper scope of rebuttal. We have examined this issue and find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge.
IV. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support Wilford's and Dague's Convictions.
Wilford argues that the evidence adduced at trial was not sufficient to support his conviction for conspiracy to obtain property by extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act or his eight convictions for violation of the Labor Management Relations Act.16 Dague challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction on count 16, which charged him with aiding and abetting a violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 186(b)(2) and (d). Wilford and Dague argue that the trial court erred in denying their motions for acquittal of the above-mentioned counts. We disagree, and find no error by the trial court.
To be guilty of conspiracy, one need knowingly contribute his efforts to the furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Fanello, 662 F.2d 505, 509 (8th Cir.1981); United States v. Kenny, 462 F.2d 1205, 1223, 1226 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 914, 93 S.Ct. 233, 34 L.Ed.2d 176 (1972). Conviction on a charge of aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2 requires that the government show that the defendant willfully associated himself in some way with the criminal venture and willfully participated in it as he would in something he wished to bring about. United States v. Indelicato, 611 F.2d 376, 385 (1st Cir.1979); United States v. Crow Dog, 532 F.2d 1182, 1195 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 929, 97 S.Ct. 1547, 51 L.Ed.2d 772 (1977); United States v. Wiebold, 507 F.2d 932, 934 (8th Cir.1974). The evidence adduced at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, showed that Wilford knew of the activities of the other three defendants at the D & A site, that the other three were operating with Wilford's approval, and that Wilford endorsed the checks and signed the membership cards of the new "members." Similarly, evidence showed that Dague, as business agent for Local 238, threatened to strike the D & A construction site if non-union trucks were unloaded there, rejected D & A officials' complaints about the activities of Local 238 on the site, and directed the activities of the defendant Boeding on the site. We find this evidence sufficient to sustain Wilford's and Dague's convictions. The fact that the defendants controverted this evidence does not negate its sufficiency; it only created a conflict in the evidence for the jury to resolve.
V. Evidence of Prior Similar Acts.
The defendants argue that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of (1) a charge, filed with the NLRB and subsequently withdrawn, relating to an incident that took place in February 1976 at the Corn Sweeteners plant in southwest Cedar Rapids, and (2) a labor dispute and subsequent NLRB adjudication relating to an incident in September 1975 at the Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company construction site in Cedar Rapids. The prosecution offered the evidence to show the defendants' intent in the D & A incident.17 The district court instructed the jurors, when the evidence was admitted and at the close of the case, that they were to consider evidence of the other incidents only on the question of the defendants' intent.18
By arguing that they were pursuing legitimate labor objectives (i.e., enforcement of the collective bargaining agreement and the solicitation and organization of new members), the defendants have raised as a material issue their intent in committing these acts. The government sought to introduce evidence of the prior similar acts to show that the defendants were aware that their acts were unlawful, and that their intent was to commit such unlawful acts. Given the similarity of the prior acts to the acts at issue in this case,19 we find that the evidence of the other acts was relevant to the issue of the defendants' intent.
The defendants argue that the acts relating to the Corn Sweeteners incident were not proven by clear and convincing evidence, since the exhibit to which defendants object regarding this incident was only a charge filed with the NLRB, and was withdrawn before any resolution was reached or any adjudication was made. However, in addition to offering the charge as an exhibit, the government introduced testimony of a vice-president of the general contractor at the Corn Sweeteners plant. The vice-president testified that he was familiar with the circumstances surrounding the charge, that an in-coming truck driven by a non-union driver was stopped and the driver was carded by the defendant Dague, and that the driver was not permitted to unload until two or three days later, when the NLRB began an investigation of the incident. Admission of the charge as an exhibit must be viewed together with the corroborating testimony of the witness to the event; when these two items of evidence are viewed together, it becomes apparent that the incident at the Corn Sweeteners plant was established by clear and convincing evidence. See United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1239 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 858, 101 S.Ct. 157, 66 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980) (testimony of participant in both prior incident and incident at issue established existence of prior incident by clear and convincing evidence).20
In light of our discussion regarding the similarity of the prior acts to the acts in issue here, we find the other acts to be sufficiently "similar in kind and reasonably close in time to the charge at trial" to be admissible. See United States v. Two Eagle, 633 F.2d 93, 96 (8th Cir.1980). We find no error in the trial court's admission of evidence of prior acts.
VI. Local 238's Settlement Agreement with the NLRB.
Before criminal charges were filed by the Department of Justice, the NLRB began an investigation into the activities of Local 238 at the D & A construction site. The investigation ended when the NLRB and Local 238 entered into a formal settlement stipulation, whereby Local 238 agreed to cease its disputed activities at the D & A site, and refund the fees paid by certain non-union drivers. Local 238 expressly noted in the stipulation that it was not admitting that it had violated the National Labor Relations Act.
At trial the government offered into evidence two exhibits containing the settlement agreement, and the testimony of an NLRB attorney concerning the circumstances surrounding the agreement. The trial court admitted the evidence over the defendants' objections.
The defendants argue on appeal that evidence of the settlement stipulation was irrelevant and immaterial, since the defendants were not parties to the agreement, and therefore should not have been admitted. Defendants also contend that evidence of the settlement stipulation was inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 408.21 The government counters that the defendants, on cross-examination of drivers who had received the refunds, placed in issue the circumstances surrounding the refunds, and therefore the government was entitled to introduce evidence of the settlement stipulation to explain fully the circumstances in which Local 238 made the refunds.22
To determine whether the trial court properly admitted evidence of the settlement stipulation, we must decide first, whether the evidence was relevant to an issue in the lawsuit, and second, whether rule 408 prohibited admission of the evidence.
During the trial, on direct examination, the government asked driver J.W. Coon whether the money he used to pay Local 238's fee came from his own pocket or whether he was reimbursed for it. Coon responded that he was not "reimbursed" until some time later, when Local 238 mailed him a check refunding the fee he had paid at the D & A site.
The prosecutor asked another driver, Charles Boyd, whether he had received anything from Local 238 after he had paid the fee and had left the D & A site. Boyd responded that he was uncertain whether he had received a newsletter or anything similar, but Local 238 had sent him a refund of the fees he had paid. The prosecutor followed this response with a question as to whether Boyd had ever received anything else from Local 238, and whether he wanted to be a member of Local 238. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Boyd whether he had sent the refund to the trucking company that had paid the fee. Boyd responded that when he received the refund he was no longer associated with the trucking company that paid the fee, so he kept the refund.
On the direct examination of Charles Higgs, another driver, the prosecutor asked him if he knew why he received a refund from the union, and if he knew from whom he had received the refund. Higgs answered "no" to both questions. On cross-examination, defense counsel showed Higgs a copy of the refund check, whereupon Higgs stated that he received the refund from the defendant Wilford, and from Local 238.
Subsequent to this testimony, the prosecutor sought to introduce evidence of the settlement stipulation "to explain the situation involving those [refunds], why the [refunds] were made, who they went to, the amount, and generally [to] explain to the jury under what circumstances [these refunds were] made to these truck drivers...."
Because the defense counsel placed the refunds in issue, the government was entitled to explain to the jury the circumstances surrounding the refunds. The prosecutor's questions on direct examination to drivers Coon and Boyd were not intended to examine whether and why the drivers had received refunds; the prosecutor inquired of Coon whether he had been reimbursed for the fee he had paid, and inquired of Boyd whether he had received any materials or benefits from Local 238, and whether he wanted to be a member of Local 238. When defense counsel on cross-examination inquired of the drivers whether they had kept the refunds themselves, and elicited a response from Higgs that the refund had come from Local 238 and the defendant Wilford, he placed in issue the matter of under what circumstances the refunds were made. As a result, the government was entitled to show that the refunds in fact stemmed from an agreement by Local 238 with the NLRB. Thus, we conclude the evidence of the settlement stipulation was relevant to an issue in the lawsuit.
We also find that rule 408 does not bar admission of the evidence. That rule provides that evidence of compromise or offers to compromise "is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount." The rule expressly states that it "does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose...." Fed.R.Evid. 408. In this case evidence of the settlement stipulation was offered to explain the circumstances surrounding the refunds, not to show that Local 238 violated the National Labor Relations Act. The defendants were further protected from any inference of guilt by the provision in the stipulation which stated that Local 238 did not admit to any violation by entering into the stipulation.
We therefore conclude that the trial court properly admitted evidence of the settlement stipulation.
VII. Denial of the Defendants' Request for Surrebuttal.
The defendants argue that a witness presented by the government during its rebuttal brought forward new facts not raised earlier, and that the defendants were entitled to present evidence on surrebuttal to counter the witness' testimony and to impeach his credibility. The trial court sustained the government's objection to surrebuttal by the defendants.
The witness, an investigator for the NLRB, testified as to his observation of events taking place at the Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. site (discussed in section V supra ). The government's stated purpose in offering the investigator's testimony was to show the similarity of the Pittsburgh-Des Moines incident to the incident for which the defendants were being tried. The defendants argue that they were entitled to present evidence in surrebuttal because the witness intimated that a violent act took place in connection with the stopping of a truck driven by a non-union driver,23 and because the defendants were entitled to show the investigator's bias against the Teamsters Union.
The decision whether to allow a party to present evidence in surrebuttal is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Burgess, 691 F.2d 1146, 1153 (4th Cir.1982); Kines v. Butterworth, 669 F.2d 6, 13 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 980, 102 S.Ct. 2250, 72 L.Ed.2d 856 (1982); United States v. Greene, 497 F.2d 1068, 1083 (7th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 909, 95 S.Ct. 829, 42 L.Ed.2d 839 (1975). In this case we find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in his refusal to allow the defendants' surrebuttal. The defendants' argument that the investigator's testimony "raised the most serious suggestion of force or violence in connection with any labor dispute during the trial" exaggerates the impact of the investigator's testimony. In addition, even though a party is normally entitled to impeach the credibility of an opponent's key witness, see Kines v. Butterworth, 669 F.2d at 13, in this case the investigator was not a key government witness, and in light of other evidence adduced at trial, his testimony regarding the similarity of the Pittsburgh-Des Moines incident to the incident for which the defendants were being tried was merely cumulative. Thus, it was not unfairly prejudicial for the trial court to refuse to allow the defendants to present evidence in surrebuttal. As the Seventh Circuit noted in United States v. Greene:
When the point of completion of a trial has been reached, which was the situation here, the trial judge should be vested with substantial discretionary powers to bring the evidentiary phase to a close, or to put it another way, to curb the natural tendency of vigorous counsel to get in the final word.
497 F.2d at 1083. We find no prejudicial error in the trial court's ruling.
Because we find no prejudicial error in the contested rulings of the trial judge, the defendants' convictions are affirmed.
Each defendant was sentenced to three years' probation and fined in an amount between $7,000 and $34,000
A collective bargaining agreement was in force at the D & A site, providing among other things that the construction would be done only by union members. Two of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement triggered much of the dispute at the construction site, according to the defendants. The first provision, article 11, stated:
RIGHTS OF UNION MEMBERS
No member of the Union shall be required to work with a non-union man or men employed on work coming within the scope of structural building work or operations or on any non-union work coming within the jurisdiction of this Union.
The second provision, article 19, stated:
JURISDICTION OF WORK
All truck driving is the jurisdiction of the Teamsters Union. The parties agree that there shall be a truck driver or drivers on the job at all times that a truck or trucks are on the job.
There also was adduced at trial evidence that Wilford was a "strong" union leader, and was aware of the other three defendants' activities at the D & A site
The facts of this case evidence a practice similar to the one declared unlawful in Shepard v. NLRB, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 665, 74 L.Ed.2d 523 (1983). In Shepard a Teamsters local in San Diego entered into a master collective bargaining agreement with area contractors and contractors' associations. The agreement provided that only union truck drivers would be allowed to perform hauling services for building contractors in the San Diego area. The NLRB found that the agreement violated 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(e) (1976), and the court of appeals enforced the board's order. Building Material and Dump Truck Drivers, Teamsters Local Union No. 36 v. NLRB, 669 F.2d 759, 765 (D.C.Cir.1981). The Supreme Court affirmed, and held that the NLRB had discretion to decide whether to order reimbursement to drivers who had unwillingly joined the Teamsters in order to work with the contractors who had signed the agreement. 103 S.Ct. at 669
The Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951, provides in pertinent part:
(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) As used in this section--
(2) The term "extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951.
Section 186 provides in pertinent part:
(a) It shall be unlawful for any employer or association of employers or any person who acts as a labor relations expert, adviser, or consultant to an employer or who acts in the interest of an employer to pay, lend, or deliver, or agree to pay, lend, or deliver, any money or other thing of value--
(1) to any representative of any of his employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce; or
(2) to any labor organization, or any officer or employee thereof, which represents, seeks to represent, or would admit to membership, any of the employees of such employer who are employed in an industry affecting commerce; or
(3) to any employee or group or committee of employees of such employer employed in an industry affecting commerce in excess of their normal compensation for the purpose of causing such employee or group or committee directly or indirectly to influence any other employees in the exercise of the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing; or
(4) to any officer or employee of a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce with intent to influence him in respect to any of his actions, decisions, or duties as a representative of employees or as such officer or employee of such labor organization.
(b)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to request, demand, receive, or accept, or agree to receive or accept, any payment, loan, or delivery of any money or other thing of value prohibited by subsection (a) of this section.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any labor organization, or for any person acting as an officer, agent, representative, or employee of such labor organization, to demand or accept from the operator of any motor vehicle (as defined in part II of the Interstate Commerce Act [49 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] employed in the transportation of property in commerce, or the employer of any such operator, any money or other thing of value payable to such organization or to an officer, agent, representative or employee thereof as a fee or charge for the unloading, or in connection with the unloading, of the cargo of such vehicle: Provided, That nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to make unlawful any payment by an employer to any of his employees as compensation for their services as employees.
29 U.S.C. Sec. 186.
The Hobbs Act was Congress' response to the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Local 807, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 315 U.S. 521, 62 S.Ct. 642, 86 L.Ed. 1004 (1942). The genesis of the Act is outlined in United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396, 401-03, 93 S.Ct. 1007, 1010-11, 35 L.Ed.2d 379 (1973)
In United States v. Quinn, 514 F.2d 1250 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 955, 96 S.Ct. 1430, 47 L.Ed.2d 361 (1976), the court noted:
[T]he effect of Enmons was to remove from the reach of federal criminal law the use of coercive tactics to obtain increased wages, but with the caveat that the prosecutor's hand would be stayed only when the payment is gained in furtherance of legitimate labor objectives.
Id. at 1257 (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original).
It is well settled that the requisite "fear" under the Hobbs Act may be fear of economic loss. E.g., United States v. Rabbitt, 583 F.2d 1014, 1027 (8th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1116, 99 S.Ct. 1022, 59 L.Ed.2d 75 (1979); United States v. Quinn, 514 F.2d at 1256. Several of the drivers who were required to join Local 238 testified that they or their employers would suffer economic loss if they were forced to take their cargo, unloaded, back to its point of origin or any place other than its slated destination, the D & A site
To force a self-employed person to join a labor union is unlawful under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(b)(4)(ii)(A) (1976)
In United States v. Quinn, 514 F.2d at 1259, the Fifth Circuit held that the fact that the defendant received money in violation of federal law made it clear that he had no lawful claim to the payment; "its receipt," the court concluded, "was statutorily declared not to be a legitimate labor objective." Id.
In United States v. Porcaro, 648 F.2d 753, 759-60 (1st Cir.1981), the defendant argued that he was acting pursuant to his company's "inherent right" to enforce the terms of a management agreement between his company and the victims of the extortion. The defendant contended that because he was pursuing a legitimate end, the Supreme Court's ruling in Enmons protected him from prosecution under the Hobbs Act. The court of appeals disagreed, holding that the evidence showed that the defendant through his acts of extortion was not pursuing his stated objective
Specifically, count five of the indictment (extortion under the Hobbs Act) stems from the same incident as count 11 (demanding and accepting an unloading fee, a misdemeanor in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 186(b)(2)); count six (same Hobbs Act charge) stems from the same incident as count 13 (same misdemeanor charge); and count three (same Hobbs Act charge) stems from the same incident as count 14 (same misdemeanor charge)
See United States v. Kramer, 355 F.2d 891, 895-96 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 100, 86 S.Ct. 1366, 16 L.Ed.2d 396 (1966), in which the court held that charges under the Hobbs Act and 29 U.S.C. Sec. 186(b)(1) were not inconsistent
In Missouri v. Hunter, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 673, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983), the Supreme Court made it clear that Blockburger is a rule of statutory construction, and not a constitutional absolute. The Court held: "[S]imply because two criminal statutes may be construed to proscribe the same conduct under the Blockburger test does not mean that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes the imposition, in a single trial, of cumulative punishments pursuant to those statutes." Id. 103 S.Ct. at 679.
The Court noted that in Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980), it had held that the Blockburger test is a rule of statutory construction, and prohibits cumulative punishments under two statutory provisions proscribing the same offense in the absence of a clear indication of contrary legislative intent. 445 U.S. at 691-92, 100 S.Ct. at 1437-38.
The Court in Hunter concluded that when
[a] legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, regardless of whether those two statutes proscribe the "same" conduct under Blockburger, a court's task of statutory construction is at an end and the prosecutor may seek and the trial court or jury may impose cumulative punishment under such statutes in a single trial.
S.Ct. at 679
Since we find in this case that the two statutes in issue do not proscribe the same offense, we need not reach the issue presented to the Supreme Court in Hunter, i.e., whether the legislature intended to impose cumulative punishments for the same offense.
In Gordon v. United States, 384 F.2d 598, 600-01 (8th Cir.1967), a substantial number of the petit jurors in the defendant's case were present while a grand jury was being impaneled and instructed, apparently in an unrelated case. The court instructed the grand jury that it must not return an indictment unless it was convinced the accused was guilty. Gordon, who had been indicted, argued that the instructions to the grand jury, heard by the petit jurors in his case, allowed the petit jurors impermissibly to infer his guilt from the fact that he had been indicted. This court declined to find reversible error, and held that the instructions as a whole to the grand jury were proper, and that the trial court's limiting instructions to the petit jurors, that an indictment may not create an inference of guilt, eliminated any possible prejudice to Gordon's case. See also Brandom v. United States, 431 F.2d 1391, 1397 (7th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1022, 91 S.Ct. 586, 27 L.Ed.2d 634 (1971); United States v. Lewis, 423 F.2d 457, 459-60 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 905, 91 S.Ct. 146, 27 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)
Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which governs the admission of character evidence, states in pertinent part:
(a) Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:
(1) Character of accused. Evidence of a pertinent trait of his character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same....
Fed.R.Evid. 404(a)(1).
See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2, which provides:
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
Id. Wilford was convicted of count seven, which charged him with requesting, demanding, receiving or accepting money paid by D & A to Local 238, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 186(b)(1) & (d) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2. Wilford was also convicted of counts nine through 14 and count 16, which charged him with aiding and abetting the other defendants' violations of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 186(b)(1) & (2).
Intent is an essential element of a violation of the Hobbs Act. See United States v. Adcock, 558 F.2d 397, 402 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 921, 98 S.Ct. 395, 54 L.Ed.2d 277 (1977)
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) states:
(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
Fed.R.Evid. 404(b).
The two prior acts and the acts at issue in this case all involved members of Local 238, including the defendant Dague, who carded the drivers of in-coming trucks and then refused to allow non-union drivers to have their trucks unloaded unless they first joined Local 238. The Corn Sweeteners incident took place in Cedar Rapids in February 1976, the Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel incident took place in Cedar Rapids in September 1975, and the incidents at issue in this case took place in Cedar Rapids from October 1976 to October 1978
Cf. United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 920, 99 S.Ct. 1244, 59 L.Ed.2d 472 (1979):
The standard for the admissibility of extrinsic offense evidence is that of [Fed.R.Evid.] 104(b): "the preliminary fact can be decided by the judge against the proponent only where the jury could not reasonably find the preliminary fact to exist."
582 F.2d at 913.
That rule provides:
Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations. This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
Fed.R.Evid. 408.
The government also argues on appeal that the defendants did not object on the ground that admission of the evidence would violate rule 408, and therefore the issue is not preserved for appeal. See Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(1). Because we find that the evidence was admissible even assuming the defendants properly objected, we need not reach this issue
The investigator testified that he was standing next to two members of the iron workers union when a non-union driver approached the site in his truck. According to the investigator, one iron worker said to the other, "Do you want to take him or should I?" The other replied, "Let me have him," crushed his paper cup and threw it on the ground, and started walking toward the truck to card the driver. The investigator testified that he feared that some form of violence might erupt between the driver and the iron workers, so he walked over to talk to the iron worker who was carding the truck. No violence of any sort did occur


text:
Edward Burtynsky
Shipbreaking No. 29, Chittagong, Bangladesh, 2001, printed of 2002
© Edward Burtynsky • Photo: Richard-Max Tremblay
Edward Burtynsky, Shipbreaking No. 29, Chittagong, Bangladesh, © Edward Burtynsky • Photo: Richard-Max Tremblay
Shipbreaking No. 29, Chittagong, Bangladesh
Chromogenic print, 2/10, 86.4 × 104.2 cm
Belonging to a series of photographs titled Shipbreaking, which documents the demolition of enormous ships in India and Bangladesh, this work by Edward Burtynsky exposes the environmental repercussions of industrialisation and the vulnerability of humans in the face of their own technological progress. According to the artist, the dismemberment of ships is one of the most significant recycling operations currently taking place in the world. Both sublime and disturbing, the work demonstrates the creative power of humanity, while evoking the inevitable force of nature as it reconquers even the most ambitious human undertakings.
Andres Serrano, Rat Poison Suicide (de la série « The Morgue »), 1992 Rat Poison Suicide (de la série « The Morgue »), 1992, Cibachrome print, 1/3.
Marina Abramovic, Self Portrait with Skeleton, 2003 Self Portrait with Skeleton, 2003, Cibachrome print, 4/5.
Michael Snow, Venetian Blind, 1970, printed of 2002 Venetian Blind, 1970, printed of 2002, 24 chromogenic prints, Edition of 3.
Chih-Chien Wang, Red Man, 2004 Red Man, 2004, Inkjet print mounted under plexiglass, 1/7.
Lorna Simpson, ID, 1990 ID, 1990, 2 gelatin silver prints, frames and plastic plates, 3/4.
Charles Gagnon, Histoire naturelle VI (Nubilæ), 1988-1991 Histoire naturelle VI (Nubilæ), 1988-1991, 2 gelatin silver prints and oil on masonite.
Thomas Demand, Vault, 2012 Vault, 2012, Chromogenic print mounted under plexiglass, 6/6.
Sergio Vega, El Primer Dia, 2003 El Primer Dia, 2003, 1 color inkjet print and 4 black and white inkjet prints.
Isabelle Hayeur, Blindsight, 2005 Blindsight, 2005, Digital chromogenic print, 2/5.
Roberto Pellegrinuzzi, Fragments (de la série « Le Chasseur d'images », 1991 - 1994), 1992 Fragments (de la série « Le Chasseur d'images », 1991 - 1994), 1992, 82 gelatin silver prints, 82 wooden frames and needles, 1/3.
Alain Laframboise, Nicolaas, 1995 Nicolaas, 1995, 15 chromogenic prints.
Nicolas Baier, Réminiscence, 2012 Réminiscence, 2012, Inkjet print on aluminum, A.P..
Barbara Probst, Exposure #44, Barmsee, Bavaria, 08.18.06, 4:37 p.m., 2006 Exposure #44, Barmsee, Bavaria, 08.18.06, 4:37 p.m., 2006, Inkjet print, 5/5.
Pierre et Gilles, Lio dans les herbes, 1984 Lio dans les herbes, 1984, Chromogenic print painted.
Carlos & Jason Sanchez, Rescue Effort, 2007 Rescue Effort, 2007, Digital chromogenic print, 1/5.


This is a hosting solution for most web hosting needs. cPanel assists in website management and account hosting with one of the world's most popular user interfaces.
To purchase cPanel hosting check out our cloud services online store.


text:
Ubik és una novel·la de ciència-ficció publicada l'any 1969 per l'autor estatunidenc Philip K. Dick. Autor prolífic i llargament conegut per la seva genialitat a l'hora de plasmar i confrontar els seus protagonistes amb els seus propis temors, construint una teranyina d'universos paral·lels, societats plenament possibles, subterfugis polítics i contrapolítics, drogues i bogeria, ciència i filosofia.

Argument
Glenn Runciter dirigeix una empresa d'inercials que són persones amb la capacitat d'anul·lar el camp psíquic produït pels telèpates i els precogs. Les habilitats psíquiques han estat comercialitzades per a l'espionatge industrial i, en canvi, els inercials impedeixen ser espiats. Glenn Runciter accepta una feina fora de la Terra i s'emporta un grup dels seus millors inercials; Joe Chip, el millor tècnic de l'empresa, forma part d'aquest grup. És en aquest punt quan es veuen sorpresos per una trampa amb el resultat de la mort de Glenn Runciter. Els membres de l'equip aconsegueixen escapar emportant-se el cos del cap i el porten a la funerària amb l'esperança de poder-lo deixar en estat de semivida i així poder comunicar-se amb el semidifunt.

A partir d'aquest moment, una estranya regressió sembla afectar la realitat, i comencen a passar coses inexplicables com aparicions de Runciter sense aparent sentit en trucades de telèfon, anuncis de televisió, etc. Tot això pertorba Joe Chip, que decideix començar a investigar; ell suposa que forma part d'un engany de la competència de Runciter, però la realitat és que els seus companys d'expedició van morint un a un, i l'única cosa que sembla que pot orientar Joe Chip és un estrany producte: "Ubik", que acaba resultant ser una arma dels que viuen una semivida per enfrontar-se a un fantasma que la vol monopolitzar.

Enllaços externs
 Philip K. Dick .
 Adaptació cinematogràfica.

Novel·les en anglès
Novel·les de ciència-ficció
Novel·les estatunidenques
Novel·les de la dècada del 1960


text:
Multifamily owners on guard as violent crime surges in some areas
Violence, burglaries and drug offenses have increased in many U.S. cities since the start of the pandemic. Here's what managers need to know to keep their properties safe.
Published Nov. 28, 2022
By Robyn Griggs Lawrence
carlballou via Getty Images
Melissa Schopen owns eight multifamily properties in Longmont and Lyons, Colorado, and she's seen it all — from heroin overdoses to fentanyl distribution to a woman who went after her husband with a box cutter and a baseball bat. "There were holes in the walls," she said of that incident, "and blood all over the apartment."
Sara Aerne
Permission granted by Sara Aerne
Fortunately for Schopen, the residents who broke the law in her buildings had signed leases with a crime-free addendum provided by Longmont Crime Free Housing, a free program designed to help rental owners keep illegal activity from happening on their property. Similar to an addendum mandated in federal public housing, the crime-free addendum makes illegal activity by any resident or guest grounds for immediate eviction.
"If they commit a felony at the unit, that's it," Schopen said. "They get a three-day notice to evict. There is no talking to me. There's no nothing."
Longmont is one of about 2,000 cities in 44 states that participate in the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program, which was developed by the police department in Mesa, Arizona, in 1992. About 230 single-family and multifamily rental properties voluntarily participate in the Longmont program, which coordinator Sara Aerne, a master police officer, has been running since 2010.
Certain types of crime are on the rise
Statistics from 29 U.S. cities show that these offenses increased in the first half of 2022 compared to the first half of 2021.
Larcenies: 20%
Robberies: 19%
Motor vehicle thefts: 15%
Residential burglaries: 6%
Aggravated assaults: 4%
Source: Council on Criminal Justice
The program starts with a one-day seminar for property owners and managers on topics such as working with the police, warning signs for illegal activity, crime-prevention strategies and resident and employee screening. In the next phase, officers from the Longmont Police Department perform security evaluations of rental properties, followed by community events to establish apartment watch programs similar to Neighborhood Watch, which unites law enforcement agencies, private organizations and citizens to reduce crime and improve communities.
The community events are an opportunity for residents "to ask police random questions and build trust within the community," Aerne said. "This triad of police, the community and management end up working together."
For Michelle Willson, who manages 210 units at Ute Creek Apartments in Longmont, those relationships make all the difference. "Really, the hardest part of this industry is just that you want to be able to provide the very best community that you can," she said. "It's not just taking care of the breezeways and the shrubs and making sure there's no mold and things like that. It's more like being a mini mayor, and working together with the police helps us provide that because they're more aware of what's been going on."
Violence, property crimes and drug offenses increased in major U.S. cities during the pandemic, according to the Council on Criminal Justice's mid-year 2022 crime report. Some cities, including Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Raleigh, North Carolina; Pittsburgh; and Atlanta, have seen a dramatic rise in homicides as gun violence has surged nationwide.
For instance, homicide and gun assault rates in major U.S. cities remain substantially higher than prior to the pandemic. Although the number of homicides in major U.S. cities declined by 2% in the first half of 2022 compared to the first half of 2021, the homicide rate is still 39% higher than it was during the first half of 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, the report found.
In addition, Americans bought record numbers of firearms in 2020 and 2021, and there are now more guns than people in the United States — an estimated 400 million of them, according to The Washington Post. Shootings have surpassed car accidents to become the leading cause of trauma-related deaths in this country, according to the American Hospital Association.
Given those statistics, multifamily property owners and managers can be fairly certain at least some residents in their buildings keep guns — whether purchased legally or not — in their units. And as a result, maintaining safety for everyone who lives on their properties is an increasingly urgent task.
Paul DelPonte
Permission granted by NCPC
"We've seen violent crime rates increase, but we've also seen other types of crimes — break-ins, burglaries and other things like that — drop," said Paul DelPonte, executive director of the National Crime Prevention Council. "I think a lot of people have attributed the increase in violent crime to uncertainty, mental health issues and other things associated with the pandemic, and the same can be true of the drop. People have been home more. They've probably gotten to know their neighbors more. There's a bigger sense of community since you couldn't go anywhere else."
Neighbors taking care of neighbors is one of the keys to preventing crime, DelPonte said, along with keeping properties neat and clean and having good locks and security cameras, ample lighting and well-maintained landscaping.
One of the first things DelPonte recommends is that property managers call their local police precinct and invite an officer from the crime-prevention unit to look at their property and advise them on steps they could take to deter crime.
"That does a couple of things," he said. "One, it gives them good information from a reliable source, and two, it starts creating a relationship with the local precinct."
Law enforcement officers are likely to respond more quickly to calls from property managers they've met, DelPonte said, and are often happy to return to conduct crime-prevention seminars for residents, as well.
"The frustration a lot of people feel when you talk about crime is this perpetual belief that there's nothing they can do to stop it," he added. "But that's not true. And we know that's not true. There are things people can do that will help prevent crime. You just have to point them in the right direction."
Steps owners can take
While he acknowledges that owners and managers can't prevent all crime, Atlanta-based personal injury attorney Matthew Stoddard of The Stoddard Firm agreed with DelPonte that they can do a lot to make their properties safer. In addition to hiring security guards and installing entry gates, property managers need to do background checks on potential residents before they move in and on current residents once a year (though background checks have become a hot-button political issue in certain areas of the country). "You don't let people with murder convictions live at your property," he said.
Matthew Stoddard
Permission granted by The Stoddard Firm
Brent Sobol, founder of Orlando, Florida-based Legacy Community Housing Corp., a nonprofit that educates the apartment industry on crime-free housing best practices, said that safety requires ongoing attention.
"Many owners think they can do a cleanout, and then everything will be fine," Sobol said. "But I've found that when the bad guys get out of jail, they come right back."
Schopen, the Colorado owner, runs criminal checks on everyone who lives in her buildings and refuses to rent to anyone who has outstanding arrest warrants or been convicted of sex crimes or manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine. People with nothing to hide are happy to submit to the background check, she said, and "people who don't probably have something they don't want me to see."
The background checks go a long way toward making both potential and current residents feel safer, Schopen added.
They also protect landlords, said Stoddard, who pointed out that multifamily owners and managers can be held liable for exercising reasonable care to keep their properties safe.
"Once you become aware that there is a crime problem, you have a duty to deter it," Stoddard said. "Putting your head in the sand doesn't work. The actual standard is not, did you know, but whether you should have known. If there's a problem, anyone worth their salt who's suing the apartment will be able to prove that you at least should have known about it. And from there, what did you do to deter it?"
Application fraud on the rise By Leslie Shaver • Nov. 1, 2022
Landlords bear the burden of gun safety in their communities By Robyn Griggs Lawrence • Oct. 11, 2022
Filed Under: Operations, Regulation


text:
OneNote Helps Grow Small Business in Big Way
25 May 2016 by Susie Steckner
Give Sushi Chef Kevin Griffin a fresh piece of fish and razor-sharp knife and he's right at home. But what about the tools to meet his business needs?
That's a little outside Griffin's comfort zone — at least it was until he discovered Microsoft's OneNote.
The digital notebook, designed to capture and organize notes, allows Griffin to keep his small business running so he can focus on his true passion.
"My business has always been about being with people, sharing an experience, sharing time together," Griffin says. "And seeing the joy that my sushi and my passion can bring to others really makes me feel good."
Every day, OneNote delivers solutions to small business owners like Griffin that help them operate more efficiently and increase productivity. Business owners rely on the digital notebook to fill a wide range of needs, from managing projects and organizing notes to collecting online inspiration and keeping track of the next big idea.
Unique features help OneNote work even harder.
Web pages can be clipped and viewed later, online or offline.
Emails sent to me@onenote.com can be easily stashed in the notebook.
Photos of documents and whiteboards can be stored on devices with Office Lens.
Capturing ideas in OneNote is much easier for Microsoft Surface users thanks to the Surface Pen. Just sign in to the Surface and use the pen to access OneNote quickly, even from the lock screen. Click the top button on the pen to open OneNote and quickly jot down a note that's saved automatically. Press the power button to put the Surface back to sleep.
If the Surface is already in use, click the top button on the pen and OneNote opens to the latest notes. Then toggle between OneNote and other apps in use.
It's just as easy to use Surface to capture pictures and stash them on a OneNote page. Store important shots throughout your workday — the meeting whiteboard, the design inspiration, the event idea — all in one place. Just open the radial menu, and select "camera." Take one or more pictures, and select "insert all."
OneNote is accessible across all devices so managing business on the go is stress-free. For Surface users, OneNote is pre-installed and can be installed on other devices for free.
Notebooks can also be shared with colleagues — and customers — for viewing and editing, which boosts collaboration.
"Microsoft OneNote has been one of our favorite note-taking apps for years, and it keeps getting better," says Lifehack.
An added bonus
The apps that business owners use every day work seamlessly with OneNote, from news aggregator Feedly to web app connector Zapier. Devices like Doxie Mobile Scanners and Epson Document Capture Pro are also a great fit.
PCWorld recently rounded up some of the must-have supplements that enhance OneNote's performance.
Attorney Mark Nikel used to have a laundry list of challenges, the kinds that small business owners know all too well.
"The largest challenge for us was remote access and sharing of information," says Nikel, founder of Mark Nikel Professional Corporation. "As a lawyer in a small law firm like mine, being able to be out with clients and work away from the office is survival."
As a small personal injury firm, it needed solutions that supported email and legal case management requirements but didn't require much administration. It needed to support employees and clients anywhere — in the office, at a hospital, inside a courtroom. And the firm needing quick and easy access to everything from calendars to case information. Nikel turned to cloud-based Microsoft Office 365, and tools like OneNote. They made all the difference.
"With OneNote and SharePoint Online, I was able to create shared notebooks to capture research, links to prior cases, maps of accident scenes, medical records, photographs and contact information related to a case," he says. "I can access this information from almost anywhere from my mobile phone with Microsoft OneNote Mobile or with Microsoft OneNote Web App."
Information at your fingertips
Sushi chef Griffin is founder of Boxing Fish Sushi. He has built his small business on delivering fresh, wild, sustainable sushi as well as providing personal attention to customers. Juggling the demands of his business isn't easy and having information "at your fingertips" — whether in the office or on the go — is critical.
"I am constantly learning new things," Griffin says. "Going from just cutting fish, sitting in a sushi bar, taking care of a customer to creating a business, developing a marketing scheme, developing menus, and dealing with customers and different purveyors is really difficult.
"OneNote really helps alleviate some of the stresses that are involved in owning my own business and running my own business so I can focus on my passion."


Citrus cake with candied fruit.
Lenten cakes can be extremely delicious and airy, despite the fact that the recipes must not contain eggs or dairy products. The dough rises because of the baking powder falls into the acidic environment of fruit juice − Apple, orange, cherry.
Raisins wash and Sapari boiling water for 30 minutes.
Take off with lime zest. Oranges and squeezed lime juice to make about 1 Cup.
Sugar, salt and vegetable oil RUB into a homogeneous mass. Add citrus juice.
Mix the sifted flour with baking soda. Gradually add in the flour mixture and knead homogeneous dough. Add raisins, candied fruit and peel.
The muffin molds grease with vegetable oil, sprinkle with flour and pour them in the batter by about 2/3. Send the muffins in a preheated 180°C oven. Lenten cakes will be ready in about 40-45 minutes.


text:
"If You Lived Here You'd Be Home By Now"
Linda Marston-Reid July 12, 2021 art and artist residencies, art and exhibitions, art and life
The exhibition at The Wassaic Project's Maxon Mills could be the summer adventure you have been craving. The three co-director/curators have invited 36 artists to take over the seven floors of the old grain mill exhibiting artworks on the walls, hung from the ceilings, and installed in entire rooms. "If You Lived Here You'd Be Home By Now" is an exhibit that provides space for each artist to present a body of work, while inviting visitors to feel at home and enjoy the exhibit.
The ground floor holds Brandon Donahue's assemblages, "Basketball Blooms," which at first glance seem like large floral pieces. On closer examination, Donahue has created a garden of bold floral pieces from repurposed basketballs and footballs. Enter the next gallery and come face to face with Tamara Kostianovsky's sculptural pieces hung from the ceilings. "Big Vulture" is constructed from discarded clothing and upholstery fabric and slowly twirls above the viewer's viewpoint. In this darkened gallery space, you can't miss Joseph Rodriguez's light projection, where visitors are invited to step into the light and become one with the piece. This gallery also includes some marvelous weavings by Margot Becker and Christina Martinelli.
Brandon Donahue's assemblages, "Basketball Blooms."
Photo by Jeff Barnett-Winsby.
Moving upstairs, Brianna Lee Wilson has taken an entire room for "Home Made," filled with ordinary household trappings decorated in bright pastel colors with what appears to be a cake decorating implement. Wilson has used the nostalgia of home and manifested a diorama of feminist awakening. This is contrasted with Hayley Youngs' grouping of bright geometric paintings in the adjacent gallery.
Installation by Brianna Lee Wilson, "Home Made."
Up on the next floor Janae Brown's projected video room provides a moment to pause and reflect on the passage of time, and up on the next floor see Rachel Youn's "Under Party," where all manner of household convenience tools are dancing away, "beckoning viewers to celebrate a more hopeful future."
Shoshanna Weinberger uses the next floor exhibiting her mixed media works on paper with an installation as the room's centerpiece. "A Sense of Sight," contains mirrored figures scattered across an elevated mirrored floor. The artist stated that "invisible blackness, passing, and double-consciousness are ongoing themes in my studio practice."
Shoshanna Weinberger exhibits "A Sense of Sight," mixed media works on paper with an installation as the room's centerpiece.
Up to the fifth floor, see the illustrative paintings by Suzanne Kiggins, incorporating the reality of life with magical occurrences. "In The Laundry Room" shows a scene of the ordinary service porch with a washer and dryer and oversize garden flowers taking over the walls – a coyote-like animal stands on top of the appliances, directly gazing at you and laughing.
More wonders await visitors on this floor, the prescient pieces from Jin Yong Choi's "Digital Shaman" series include a coat and headpieces to survive the future in a world ruled by technology. On Saturdays, ascend to the top floor to Jen Catron and Paul Outlaw's "Hamburger Heaven, (Waiting for god(ot))," where performance meets installation, placing you in a hamburger joint. The experience includes a moment to ask your question about life and receive an answer to provide guidance as you return to reality.
Jin Yong Choi's "Digital Shaman" series include a coat and headpieces to survive the future in a world ruled by technology.
"If You Lived Here You'd Be Home By Now," 2021 Summer Exhibition at The Wassaic Project through September 18, 2021
Location: 37 Furnace Bank Rd., Wassaic, NY
Phone: (855) WASSAIC (855) 927-7242
This article was originally published in the Poughkeepsie Journal Life Sunday, July 11, 2021.
#art, #artexhibition, #painting, #wassaicproject, Art exhibition, art installation, exhibits, Galleries, Hudson Valley, HudsonValleyArtists, interactive, mid-hudson, photography, public art installation
Previous Stronger Than Dirt
Next Poughkeepsie Porch Fest


PIXMA MG5721 Series Driver Download (Windows – Mac OS) Operating Systems Windows 8.1, Windows 8, Windows 7/SP1, Windows Vista SP1/SP2, Windows XP SP3 32-bit and Mac OS X v10.7.5 – 10.10 & supported Mobile Systems iOS/Android.
Canon PIXMA MG5721 Printer series presents an all-in-one wireless inkjet printer maximum portability and a sleek design that offers you to compact performance. Fitted built-in Wi-Fi with the convenience of printing in wireless (access point). Even print technology for users of smartphones, tablets or cloud printing, only with Canon print app. Easy, quick print, scan the beautiful photos/documents directly from your mobile device compatible. Have an extra 2.5 LCD display highlights, giving you to preview image, when you want to print and 5-ink tank system individuals who ensure you to enjoy high quality that can count on.


text:
Prosecutors: Man lunged at Milwaukee police with knives before officer shot him
Ashley Luthern
A 48-year-old man was shot in the leg by a Milwaukee police officer after he lunged at police with knives, prosecutors say.
The officer also wounded his partner — shooting him in the foot — during the same incident, police officials have said.
The criminal complaint charging Richard Cain of Milwaukee provides the first substantial account of the police-involved shooting on Jan. 18.
Cain faces charges of felony first-degree recklessly endangering safety with a dangerous weapon and misdemeanor obstructing an officer.
Milwaukee police got a call about "trouble with subject" about 5:50 p.m. at a house in the 600 block of N. Hawley Road.
Cain's relative told officers Cain was armed with a screwdriver and was "acting like a demon." Cain had growled at him and told him it was not safe for him to be there.
The relative, who lives with Cain, left and called police because he was scared to return home.
RELATED:Officer shot by partner, suspect wounded on west side of Milwaukee
RELATED:Milwaukee officer shot by partner during encounter with armed man released from hospital, police say
Four officers, identified only by their initials in the complaint, went to the back door of the house and knocked several times. Cain refused to come out. When officers tried the key the relative had provided, Cain slammed the door.
One officer looked into a window and saw Cain armed with two knives. He shouted that information to the other three officers, two of whom drew their Tasers in response. The third, identified as Officer E.S., drew his firearm.
Eventually, the door opened — the complaint does not say exactly how — Cain ran out toward Officer N.M. while holding the knives.
That officer used his Taser to try to stop Cain, but the device did not hit Cain.
Cain lunged toward that officer, who was able to get away, according to police body camera footage described in the complaint.
Officer E.S. "feared for the safety of himself and other officers" and fired multiple gunshots at Cain as he lunged at the other officer, the complaint says.
The officer also shot one of his partners, a 25-year-old officer, wounding him in the foot.
Cain refused to drop the knives and officers eventually were able to get the knives away from him to take him into custody. Cain, who was shot in the leg, was taken to a hospital for treatment.
Cain made his initial court appearance Saturday and was released on a $5,000 signature bond.
The bond conditions mean he signed a piece of paper promising to appear for future court dates and follow the terms of his pretrial supervision with the understanding if he did not, he would be on the hook for the $5,000.
Cain is scheduled to be back in court for a preliminary hearing Feb. 8. His attorney declined an interview request Monday.
The shooting was investigated by the Milwaukee Police Department Metropolitan Investigations Unit.
State law only requires investigations of fatal officer-involved shootings to be led by outside agencies.