text:
About Steve Emmert
Newly Amended Rules
VA Supreme Court Deadlines
Appellate Essays
SCV Opinion & Analysis
SCV Unpublished Orders
CAV Opinion & Analysis
4th Cir. Opinion & Analysis
Appellate Updates
Benignitas
Want to receive notifications
of new posts? Here's how.
If you'd like to receive a short e-mail to notify you when I post fresh content on the website, enter your preferred e-mail address in the box below and click "submit."
Please note that, just like the addresses on my mailing lists, I will never disclose your address to anyone and will not reveal who has asked for these notifications.
ANALYSIS OF MAY 31, 2018 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS
(Posted May 31, 2018) The Supreme Court of Virginia today announces published rulings in four appeals, including the closely watched redistricting case of Vesilind v. Board of Elections.
Before we get to the analysis, I've seen that the argument docket for the June session is on the court's website. There are 15 cases scheduled for next week. That brings to 65 the number of arguments this year.
There are only two more sessions in 2018 – one in mid-September and the other at the end of October. The court is on a pace to hear fewer than 100 merits arguments this year. That would be the smallest number in a long, long time. That being said, September's docket tends to be somewhat larger, because more appeals mature over the three-month summer break, so perhaps we'll crack the century mark after all.
The justices heard oral argument in Vesilind v. Board of Elections on the last day of February, and today, on the last day of May, we get a ruling. This is a challenge by 14 Virginia voters who asserted that the 2011 General Assembly gerrymandered five House districts and six Senate districts to ensure Republican control of the legislature. The challengers asserted that the eleven districts violated the requirement in the Constitution of Virginia that legislative districts must be compact.
We learn from today's opinion that there's a great deal of science in the districting process, but it's a social science; not something as readily definable as physics. Both the challengers and the legislature (the Board of Elections was the only named defendant, but the trial court permitted the House and its speaker to intervene as parties) adduced expert testimony exploring the issue by various means of calculating compactness.
In the end, the trial court found that the legislature's judgment call on compactness was fairly debatable, in that reasonable, objective persons could have come to different conclusions. That court ruled against the challengers, and today the justices affirm. Justice Goodwyn's opinion for the court lays out the competing evidence in detail, but in the end it's a combination of a deferential decision-making standard at trial and another deferential standard of appellate review that compel affirmance.
Given the subject matter of this litigation, I'm going to add some editorial comment here on an issue other than appellate procedure. I have no quarrel with the Supreme Court's opinion, given those deferential standards. I only wish there had been some way to reverse.
I'm well aware that, depending on who's in power, both political parties have engaged in gerrymandering districts to benefit their respective candidates. Regardless of who does it, it's wrong. I regard partisan redistricting as a form of blatant political corruption; as a cancer on our republican form of government. The justices' decision today means that we, the voters, are the surgeons who must remove this cancer. We can do so by telling our legislators that we insist upon it, and by voting for candidates who will pledge to commit the redistricting process to a nonpartisan group, as six states have already done. Once I finish today's analysis, I plan to let my Delegate and my Senator know that.
I will admit to having drawn in a sharp breath on just the second page of Davis v. MKR Development, LLC, an appeal involving a derivative action by a majority member of a limited liability company. It's when I got to the part where the member sued the managers. Those managers are siblings, and in their youth, they no doubt referred to the eventual plaintiff in the case as "Mom."
Uh-oh. We've seen family disputes many times here since the early days of VANA, and most of them end in tears. Here's the setup for this one:
Dad established a business. He sells the stock to his children, the siblings. He and Mom own land that the business leases. Mom and Dad form an LLC to hold title to the property; that LLC lists the siblings as managers.
One day, Mom checks the balance on her bank account. She expects there to be over a million bucks in there from lease payments; but the balance is a measly $35K. She asks the siblings for payment; they give her the brush-off. She asks for an accounting, but they ignore that, too. Cue the lawsuit.
In the circuit court, the siblings demurred, saying that Mom had to make a formal statutory demand to bring suit in the corporate name, instead of straight-out filing a derivative action. The judge agreed and dismissed the suit.
On appeal, the justices turn to age-old caselaw on derivative suits. These were chancery causes, fashioned by the courts to permit shareholders from being fleeced by unfaithful corporate directors. That caselaw did require a formal demand by the shareholder to file a corporate action before the derivative remedy was available. But that hoary law also provided something called the futility exception; if it's obvious that making the formal demand would be useless, the shareholder can go ahead and sue.
Mom's situation seems tailor-made for this exception. But you need to know that the legislature amended the corporate title of the Code in 2011; that amendment seems to require a formal demand before a shareholder can sue, and there's no mention of the futility exception.
The Supreme Court evaluates the amendment under the two competing canons of construction. First, new legislation that covers the area of previous common law is presumed to work a change in that law, and supersede it to the extent they're inconsistent. That militates in favor of the siblings' position.
But there's another modern Code provision that cuts the other way: "In derivative action, the complaint shall set forth with particularity the effort of the plaintiff to secure commencement of the action by a member or manager with the authority to do so or the reasons for not making the effort." If "the effort" is mandatory, what is this emphasized text; a useless appendage that can be ignored? Courts are loath to construe statutes so that part of it is useless surplusage.
In the end, the justices decide to construe the amendment in such a way that the futility exception survives. Since it plainly applies here, the court reverses and sends the case back for further proceedings.
I'll add one last point on a finality issue. In a footnote, the Supreme Court notes that the trial court dismissed Mom's complaint without prejudice. Instead of refiling, she went ahead and appealed, fearful that if she filed a new suit, the siblings would assert the statute of limitations. As we've seen, the justices decide this case on the merits.
That's noteworthy because it's probable that the federal circuit courts would regard a dismissal without prejudice as nonappealable. Such a dismissal puts the plaintiff back in the position where she was before filing suit in the first place. Be careful not to translate this ruling into your federal-court practice.
At what point would you say that a defendant has been convicted of a crime? It's not when the judge says that the evidence is sufficient to convict; we learned in Moreau v. Fuller (2008) that the court still has the authority to acquit. By the time of the sentencing order, there's definitely been a conviction; that's the final, appealable order in a criminal prosecution. That's Burrell v. Commonwealth from 2012.
What about the time in between? Has a defendant been convicted when the judge states, "I find you guilty, and we'll defer sentencing"? That's the key issue in today's Lewis v. Commonwealth.
A grand jury indicted Lewis on two felony counts of domestic assault. Assault of a family or household member is a felony if the defendant has two prior convictions of such assault. The grand jury tagged Lewis for assaulting his girlfriend on October 2015 and in December of that year.
Here's our first complication: Lewis had only one prior before the October assault. The prosecutor thus agreed to reduce the charge on the October charge to a misdemeanor. When Lewis presumably asked about reducing the December charge, too, the prosecutor refused. A conversation something like this probably ensued: "So how are you going to show a prior conviction for the December charge?" "I'm going to get a conviction on the October charge, and then use that as the second prior."
The civil advocate within me reacted to this with scorn: Oh, come on; that's too cute by half. But I know plenty about what I don't know about criminal law, so I kept reading to see how the analysis unfolds.
The trial court did just as the prosecutor wanted, bifurcating the two charges (over Lewis's objection), then conducting a bench trial on the October charge. The judge convicted Lewis and deferred sentencing. Without missing a beat, the court then arraigned Lewis on the felony indictment, got a not-guilty plea, and tried him then and there. Guilty again. Lewis argued in vain that both prior convictions had to precede the December assault.
Lewis appealed the felony conviction. The CAV shrugged him off with a per curiam order, but the justices granted a writ.
I warned you a moment ago that my civil practice doesn't give me criminal-law expertise. I will accordingly report that I read today's 12-page opinion agape, not believing what I was reading, as the Supreme Court affirms the conviction. Here are the rulings that lead to this result:
The domestic-assault statute provides that "where it is alleged in the … indictment on which a person is convicted" that the defendant has two priors, a conviction is a felony. Here, the indictment clearly asserted that. There may well have been a defect in the evidence that the prosecution presented to the grand jury to establish that second prior, but as usual, there's nothing in the appellate record to show what happened in the grand-jury hearing.
Justice Mims's opinion for the court notes the obvious: At this stage, there's no way the October assault could have triggered the felony, because Lewis hadn't been convicted of it yet.
"But, while intriguing, that question is not before us in this case." While the prosecutor amended the October indictment down to a misdemeanor, Lewis didn't object to the December indictment, or ask for a bill of particulars to spell out what the claimed second prior was. The opinion doesn't call this a waiver, but that's just what it is: The clear implication is that if he had done so, the trial court would have to step in and stop the felony proceeding.
So let's go to the real question: What's a conviction? You'll recall that that's where we began to explore today's decision. Today, the Supreme Court holds that when a judge announces, "I find you guilty," that's a conviction. Thus, when the trial judge here found Lewis guilty of the October charge, he had been convicted of a second predicate offense, and could be tried and convicted for the felony on the December charge.
If you're still skeptical, here's a quote from a couple of the court's recent decisions in this field: "once a court has entered a judgment of conviction of a crime, the question of the penalty to be imposed is entirely within the province of the legislature …" Thus, the court recognizes that the finding of guilt is when conviction takes place, even before sentencing.
Lewis had one more angle of attack: While the trial judge announced his finding of guilt on the trial date, he didn't get around to entering an order to that effect for another eleven days. Note that the quote immediately above refers to a court's entry of judgment. As of the trial on the December charge, no judgment of conviction had been entered against him. (Entry of a judgment is the act of signing an order. Rendition of judgment is the announcement of a ruling, usually orally, but sometimes in letter opinions.)
Lewis takes home the silver medal in this contest, too. The Supreme Court notes that an order is just evidence of what has happened in a case. It's not the only possible evidence. Here, the trial judge was able to take judicial notice of the fact of Lewis's conviction of the October charge, because he had just decreed that conviction a few minutes earlier. Lewis didn't appeal the judge's taking judicial notice, so that plays no part in the analysis.
That's how we get from a proposition that was facially implausible to me, all the way to a unanimous affirmance.
The next criminal appeal is a joint one, decided by a single opinion styled Gerald v. Commonwealth. It involves convictions for driving on suspended licenses, third or subsequent offense, and perjury. The defendants are a mother and daughter.
On January 22, 2017, two days after "the largest crowd ever to witness a presidential inauguration" had allegedly assembled, presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway gave birth to the unforgettable phrase, "alternative facts." She invited the public to believe the president's boast instead of their own lyin' eyes, spurring creation of a hundred memes to mock the idea that lies are facts. Today's opinion gives the clear impression that the appellants are Conway devotees.
It started simply enough, with a rear-end fender-bender. Fortunately no one appears to have been seriously hurt. The driver of the front car – we'll call him the victim – got out and saw the mother getting out of the driver's side of her car. She said she was sorry. The daughter then got out of the passenger side and told the victim that the car was hers. The victim saw groceries and another passenger in the back seat. There followed a routine exchange of insurance information.
Normality vanished, though, when the victim asked for the mother's driver's license. At that request, the daughter "ran around to the driver's side, hopped in the car," at which point the mother "got in the passenger seat, and they sped off." Now what brought that on? The victim jotted down the license plate number and called police.
It wasn't hard to find the escapees; a police officer drove to the registered address for the license plate and found daughter, mother, and several others unloading groceries at their apartment. If the mother was planning to be coy, her first question to the officer blew that chance: "Is this about the crash?" Why, yes, the officer must have replied with a concealed chuckle.
It's at this point that mother and daughter unleash a dizzying series of alternative-fact statements about who was driving, about who had a suspended license, and who the car belonged to. Rather than try to outline all of them, I'll let you sift through the slip opinion at your leisure.
The important thing for our purposes is that when the two women were tried for driving on suspended operators' licenses – remember, they each drove the car that day – the alternative facts wouldn't stop. There was no court reporter in the traffic-court trial, but the prosecutor must have sensed that something would happen, so he asked a police officer to take detailed notes on what the mother and daughter said. Sure enough, their version parted ways in significant respects from reality – at least in the prosecutor's judgment. After the Albemarle GDC judge convicted them and they appealed, those notes became the basis for felony indictments for perjury.
In circuit court, the women offered two primary defenses in their joint perjury trial. First, they insisted that they couldn't be convicted without proof of the verbatim questions. There may have been ambiguities, for example. Second, they objected to venue of the perjury trial, because the Albemarle GDC is actually in the City of Charlottesville.
Both defenses fail; the Supreme Court today affirms based largely on the trial court's factual findings, particularly his statement that he found the victim particularly credible. As for venue, the Charlottesville city charter provides that the county courthouse is under the joint jurisdiction of the city and county.
The daughter also appealed her driving conviction, insisting that the victim was incredible as a matter of law. For example, she noted that he was driving east, so when he turned around to see who had hit him, the sun would have blinded him from seeing accurately who was driving. Justice McClanahan, who writes for a unanimous court, is gracious enough to refrain from inserting, "Oh, give me a break" in the slip opinion. This is a pure-credibility issue, and the justices predictably won't touch that.
← SCOTUS Reverses SCV in Fourth Amendment Case	A Chilling Affirmance from The Fourth Circuit →
Virginia Appellate News & Analysis © 2005 – 2015


Australian Painted Button Quails. John Gould Hemipodius scintillans lithograph c1848.
Australian Banksian Cockatoo, "Bankian Cockatoo variety". Sydenham Edwards c1789.
Australian Lesser Spotted Harrier, Circus Rogersi lithograph. Mathews c1910-27.
Columba Palumbus. Lin. or Common Wood Pigeon lithograph c1926.
Elizabeth Gould lithograph of Australian Button Quail. Swift-Flying Hemipode Hemipodius Velox c1848.


Information Visualization is a discipline implemented on interfaces which use one sense to understand the ideas developed: sight. However, there are physical interfaces that allow users to interpret the data, either through sound or touch. The objective of this paper is to discuss the preliminary results of the research project that frames this paper, as a work in progress.


text:
Andrew Horne has been awarded an Intensive Language Course Grant from the German Academic Exchange Service or DAAD for the upcoming summer. He will spend two months in Freiburg.
Teresa Danze, PhD'12, has been offered a tenure-track position in the Classics Department at the University of Dallas (April 2015).
Julie Mebane received the Classical Association of the Middle West and South (CAMWS) "Presidential Award for the Outstanding Graduate Student Paper at the Annual Meeting" for her paper, "Fighting over Rome's Corpus: Competing Metaphors of the Body Politic in the Catilinarian Conspiracy."
Geoffrey Benson, PhD'13, has been offered a tenure track appointment at Colgate University (April 2015).
Emily Jusino, PhD'14, has accepted a two-year position as a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of Religion and Classics at the University of Rochester (April 2015).
Lakshmi Ramgopal has been awarded the Rome Prize for 2014–2015 by the American Academy of Rome to complete her dissertation. Titled "Romans Abroad: Associations of Roman Citizens from the Second Century B.C.E. to the Third Century C.E.," her project investigates the cultural practice and function of associations of Roman citizens in the Mediterranean world.
Emily Jusino, who defended November 2013 ("Misleading Reports, False Resolutions, and Sophoclean Dramaturgy") has accepted a one-year visiting assistant professorship at Duke University for 2014–2015.
Paul Keen, who defended in November 2012 ("Land of Experiment: The Ptolemies and the Development of Hellenistic Cyprus, 312-58 BC") and is currently Visiting Assistant Professor at Valparaiso University (Indiana), has accepted an offer for a tenure track position in the History department at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, starting Autumn 2014.
Jacobo Myerston Santana defended in March 2014 his dissertation on "The Reception of Mesopotamian Etymologizing in Early Greek Poetry and Cosmogony" and is now Assistant Professor in the Literature Department at the University of California, San Diego.
Megan Nutzman, who will defend in July 2014 ("A Hotbed of Healing: Ritual Cures in Roman and Late Antique Syria-Palestine"), has accepted an offer for a tenure-track position in the History Department of Old Dominion University (Virginia), starting Autumn 2014.
Harriet Fertik, Chicago Classics BA 2008, has been offered a tenure-track position at the University of New Hampshire, starting Autumn 2014.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Lambeau Field Home
Green Bay Packers Kickoff Weekend
Kickoff Weekend
With football returning to Lambeau Field for the regular season on Sunday, Sept. 18, fans can celebrate the new season with "Kickoff Weekend," presented by SiriusXM, Ticketmaster, Polaris and American Family Insurance.
Prior to gameday, the weekend will be highlighted by a free concert featuring multi-GRAMMY Award-winning band Train, beginning at 5 p.m. outside Lambeau Field in the stadium's northwest side parking lot on Saturday, Sept. 17.
Parking for concertgoers is free in the Lambeau Field lots, and parking is first-come, first-served. Attendees are welcome to bring blankets and chairs to use during the show, and food and beverages will be available for purchase in the Lambeau Field parking lot and at Titletown.
The Lambeau Field Atrium, including the Packers Pro Shop, Lambeau Field Stadium Tours, the Packers Hall of Fame and 1919 Kitchen & Tap will be open for regular hours.
The celebration will continue the next day, with Sunday night's game against the Chicago Bears. The Lambeau Field parking lots will open at 3:20 p.m., and gates will open at 5:30 p.m.
Game sponsors include SiriusXM, Ticketmaster, Polaris and American Family Insurance, and game attendees will receive a "Kickoff Weekend" rally towel upon entering the game. Kickoff is set for 7:20 p.m.


The Bevill State Bears will hold open volleyball tryouts on Saturday, March 23, at the BSCC Fayette campus. Registrations and warmups begin at 9:30 a.m., with tryouts starting at 10 a.m. The tryouts are open to all high school seniors and graduates. Participants must bring a copy of the high school physical. For more information, please contact Theresa Berry-Franks at 800-648-3271 ext. 5172 or send an email to theresa.berry-franks@bscc.edu.


text:
Black Silk ( or Prae dum) is a 1961 Thai crime drama film written and directed by Rattana Pestonji.

Considered the first Thai film noir, Black Silk was also among the first Thai films to be exhibited at overseas film festivals, screening at the 11th Berlin International Film Festival in 1961.

Plot
Seni, a club owner, is under pressure by a rival, Wan, to pay an outstanding loan. Upon hearing that he has a long-lost brother named Sema, Seni sends his loyal lieutenants, Tom and Pon, to visit Sema, only to find that Sema has died. Seni decides that he can use the situation to his advantage, and buries Sema's body in a forest.

Seni and Tom orchestrate the death of Wan, by setting fire to Wan's car, pushing it off a cliff and framing Wan's assistant Sin, also dead, for the murder. Seni then assumes the identity of his dead brother, free and clear of debts and Wan's meddling.

Tom, meanwhile, has fallen in love with Phrae, a widowed mother who has worn black silk since her husband died two years before. Seni sees Phrae as a threat to his scheme and orders Tom to stop seeing her. Wan further plots to use Tom to psychologically manipulate Phrae.

Phrae then leaves Tom, shaves her head and enters a Buddhist temple. Tom tries to stand up to his boss, with disastrous consequences.

Cast
 Ratanavadi Ratanabhand as Phrae
 Senee Wisaneesarn as Senee/Sema
 Tom Wisawachart as Tom
 Seni Utsanisan
 Thawin Worawiboon
 Sarinthip Siriwan
 Jameunmanphonrit
 Phichit Saliphan
 Jurai Kasemsuwan

Production
Black Silk was the second color film made by Rattana, shot in the Cinemascope format at a time when most other Thai filmmakers were using 16-mm film.

With most of his resources put into the film stock and equipment, Rattana made sacrifices, performing most of the key jobs himself as writer, director, producer, cinematographer and editor. His daughter, Pannee Trangkasombat (using the stage name Ratanavadi Ratanabhand) was cast as Prae.

The sets are very basic, and the fight sequences were made with no sound effects. Nonetheless, the performances are praised as generally good, especially Senee Wisaneesarn as Senee/Sema. There are even some musical numbers.

Release
Black Silk was a landmark of Thai cinema, being among the first Thai films to be chosen for a major international film festival, in competition at the 11th Berlin International Film Festival in 1961.

In the 2000s, the film was featured in retrospective programs at the Bangkok International Film Festival, the Singapore International Film Festival and the 2005 Pusan International Film Festival.

References

External links

 Black Silk at the Pusan International Film Festival

1961 films
Thai crime drama films
Thai-language films
Film noir
1961 romantic drama films
Films directed by Rattana Pestonji
Thai national heritage films
Thai romantic drama films

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: UITableViewDelegate not working getting an error (Fatal error: Unexpectedly found nil while unwrapping an Optional value in UITableView in swift 4) The data of namesArray and descriptionArray getting from previous VC.
I have set the delegate and datasource of my tableview but I am getting an below error

Unexpectedly found nil while unwrapping an Optional value

var namesArray: [String] = []
var descriptionArray: [String] = []
@IBOutlet weak var tblProjectList: UITableView!

override func viewDidLoad() {
    super.viewDidLoad()

    print(namesArray.count)

    self.tblProjectList.delegate = self
    self.tblProjectList.dataSource = self
}

namesArray has data but why at self.tblProjectList.delegate = self app got crashed.

A: Remove and create the tableview outlet once again.

A: Define UITableViewDelegate and UITableViewDataSource in your UIViewController

A: Check your IBOutlet is connected to TableView. Sometimes it gets disconnected.
The process to check:

*

*Open storyboard and controller side by side and check.

*In case it is connected, in storyboard check if TableView delegates are connected.

*Also check the TableView hierarchy. In storyboard it might be out of scope to get connected.

A: If you are getting
"Unexpectedly found nil while unwrapping an Optional value"
Than there is some issue with cell identifier, array index not set proper.
You can check this both scenario.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


I guess it's been over a month since I really wrote anything for the blog. I've been in a strange mood over the last month. It's probably from a combination of several things- not having much to say, being very busy with my start up company, the lack of sunlight (I struggle with Seasonal Affective Disorder- when the days get short, my energy level decreases). This used to lead to a short-term depression. Now it's not so much depression as just lack of energy to do much in the evening after the sun goes down or in the morning before the sun comes up, leaving me a very short window this time of year to get things done. I've been pouring the little energy I have into keeping the business and the home running.
Franky, another factor is that there aren't many comments left here. It's a lot easier to get motivated to write if I know people are reading and care about what I'm writing. Getting comments, even if they are negative or disagree with my POVs helps me feel like the blog is doing some good. I should know better from the days when I used to evangelize and hope to score ticky points as I got someone to convert. I finally realized that my job was not to cause the fruit to grow but to plant the seed. I know that much of what we do in this life has a tremendous impact that we mostly will never see. A kind word here. An invitation there. A path on the back that we think is no big deal. These things can literally be life changing for others. We shouldn't allow the lack of feedback prevent us from always putting our best out there for the benefit of others. So, lack of comments is not an acceptable excuse for not writing- bad Brian!
I guess the last thing that has kept me from writing so much here is I have become more and more convinced of Universalism and I've already put many of my reasons here. I don't want to just keep saying the same things over and over again. Also, if I'm being honest with myself, I think when I started this, part of the reason was to convince myself about universalism and to connect with like-minded people who could reinforce that belief. I no longer need the reinforcement (at least not as much). One of the best arguments I've ever heard for Universalism was also one of the simplest. Someone asked a guy who came to a list I belong to how he became convinced of Universalism. His answer was simply that he could not imaginge that he was better (more loving) than God.


text:
Prime Minister Pohiva Tu'i'onetoa 0 19 +30.43%
Fale Alea Democratic Party of the Friendly Islands 0 17 +64.71%
King of Tonga Lavaka ata Ulukalala (Tupou VI) 1 12 +100.00%
Oceans / Seas / Gulfs
Established June 04, 1970
Disbanded Still Active
Contributor Gerald Farinas
Last Modified Gerald Farinas April 22, 2004 02:10am
Description Kingdom of Tonga
Friendly Islands
Tonga is the only remaining Polynesian monarchy. With its capital at Nuku'alofa, Tonga is located in Oceania in an archipelago in the South Pacific Ocean, about two-thirds of the way from Hawaii to New Zealand. There are three island groups within the kingdom: Ha'apai, Tongatapu, Vava'u. As a constitutional hereditary monarchy, the nation is governed by the King of Tonga who appoints the ruling Cabinet and its Prime Minister. Laws are created in the unicameral Fale Alea, or Parliament. There are 30 seats in the Fale Alea: 12 reserved for cabinet ministers sitting ex officio, 9 for nobles selected by the country's 33 nobles, and 9 elected by popular vote. Members serve three-year terms.
All heads of state and government -- the Monarch, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister -- serve life terms.
Kingdom of Tonga Government Discuss
PARTY REGISTRATION
Mar 21, 2018 07:00am News Tonga bans schoolgirls from rugby and boxing 'to preserve dignity' Article IndyGeorgia
Jul 28, 2010 11:30pm News Tonga sends troops to Afghanistan Article Jason


text:
culture / Technology
Black Teens Are Breaking The Internet And Seeing None Of The Profits
Young creatives are using social media to shape the culture we consume. But what happens when they don't own their work?
By Doreen St. Felix
Kayla Newman started her Vine account to record herself commenting on the minutia and mundanity of high school life. This was nearly two years ago, when she was 16. For her handle, Newman chose a nickname made up during an annual visit to her grandmother in Georgia: "Peaches Monroee." She added the extra "e" because it looked playful, she explained over email.
Like a diary, Newman began filming herself daily, though she has since slowed down to meet the stresses of senior year. When she's riffing as Peaches, Newman takes videos of herself from the passenger seat of her mom's car in her neighborhood of South Chicago. She and her mom dance at a stoplight in one early Vine; she offers an impromptu speech on self-confidence in another. In the video everyone knows, uploaded on June 21st, 2014, Kayla admires her precisely arched eyebrows: "We in this bitch. Finna get crunk. Eyebrows on fleek. Da fuq."
I know the line by heart. Such is the nature of internet virality. As of this writing, Kayla's original "On Fleek" Vine has generated over 36 million "loops," or replays. That's where any sensible person stops the tabulation. A month after Newman's upload, someone named Kevin Gadsden reposts her Vine to YouTube, where it acquires around 3 million views. The expression "on fleek" passes through the clutches of Ariana Grande, who vines herself singing it in August 2014 for another 9 million loops, and then through those of seemingly every other social media-literate celebrity outfit that fall; corporate entities like IHOP and its rivals employ the phrase in an effort to feign cultural relevance; talk show host Andy Cohen and Anderson Cooper exchange vaguely unpleasant jabs about its meaning. "On fleek" ascends to near-officialized language.
It's impossible to track the chain of ownership from there on out. In fact, the chain becomes more like a swarm. Put plainly, there is no recognized ownership. The phrase Newman gave the world was used to sell breakfast foods and party cups, but it only belongs to her in an intangible sense, on the rare occasions in which people choose to give her credit.
"I gave the world a word," Newman said. "I can't explain the feeling. At the moment I haven't gotten any endorsements or received any payment. I feel that I should be compensated. But I also feel that good things happen to those who wait."
What things come to those who innovate? And who can be called an innovator? When we talk about technology, the designation of "digital innovator" is usually reserved for the engineers who create platforms or the entrepreneurs who instruct them to. Rarely do we see that language applied to the users populating those platforms, though they are tech's bread and butter. A cursory glance at the user-generated content rising to the top of the internet heap reveals how much of it is produced by black teens, members of a burgeoning Generation Z who experiment with the iPhone gaze.
In an article for The Guardian, writer Hannah Giorgis argued that content-sharing among black users and consumers constitutes a "21st century meta-language" that gives place to dances, songs, memes, and other "sociolinguistic phenomena" that are compelling enough to make the leap from the producer's specific context to even the most corporate of marketing campaigns. Evidence teems. In August 2015, Dancing with the Stars shot a promotional campaign featuring mostly white celebrity has-beens doing Silento's "Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae)," a song and attendant dance popularized on Vine. In one breathless appearance on Ellen, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton tried it too. In those moments, black teens' internet production becomes a means for communication and entertainment. Their names as creators are harder to find.
Cultural sharing is ancient. That the speed and relative borderlessness of the internet makes cross-platform, global dissemination seem like a consequence of tech is a convenient amnesia.
Denzel Meechie, 20, was physically spent when he called me. After we talked, he headed back to an Atlanta dance studio to record a video of himself and his crew improvising to songs from Drake and Future's just-released mixtape. Meechie is a dancer, first by habit and then by trade. He's influenced by Les Twins and the fluid lines of ballet, but he isn't inclined to rehearsing. In his videos, his preferred backdrop is the chrome of industrial spaces. He likes inventing dances that follow songs he's moved by, something he posits elevates the impact of any given track. The Vines on his account, @SheLovesMeechie, have been viewed over 200 million times; his choreography has influenced the way many people move.
"It's never planned," Meechie said. "[We] just go for it, and after we have a lot of takes, me and my director will cut in and put the best six seconds on Vine. If we got a good longer take, we'll put it on YouTube." His first big break came as a surprise. "I went to the gas station one time, and I danced to this one song. It went viral, and all of a sudden my social media started growing because I was flooding it with dances." The song was "Plug Snitchin" by the Houston group Yung Nation. It hadn't been close to a hit before Meechie danced to it; afterwards, the crew found traction.
In mid-September, YouTube shut down Meechie's channel, which had accrued hundreds of thousands of subscribers. "I had too many copyright strikes," he said, referring to his use of songs without explicit legal permission from labels. According to Meechie, labels contact YouTube and demand his videos be taken down, often without the knowledge of their own artists, some of whom pay him directly to help boost their buzz. "And it's crazy, you know, because the artists ask me to put the videos up."
As prolific and internet-known as Meechie and his crew are, they are multiple steps removed from owning, in a tangible sense, their art, leaving them vulnerable to both YouTube's whims and to having their creativity lifted by outsiders. Atlanta, where Meechie is from, is legendary as a place where teens generate culture, and then go uncompensated as their style and tastes are usurped by a corporate machine hungry for Black Cool. Cultural sharing is ancient. That the speed and relative borderlessness of the internet makes cross-platform, global dissemination seem like a consequence of tech is a convenient amnesia. The propensity to share predates the young black creators doing so online. But they ought to claim lineage. Remember, for instance, the blues.
K.J. Greene's 2008 essay, "Lady Sings the Blues: Intellectual Property at the Intersection of Race and Gender," published in The Journal of Gender, Social Policy & The Law, situates the American conundrum of race and proprietorship at the specific moment of blues music production. Blues leans on an unpredictable meld of instrumental prowess and rapid improvisation, and not on a premeditated, capitalist-conscious calculus. "Black artists had no input in [copyright law], and examination reveals that it is in some respects incompatible with Black cultural production in music," writes Greene, arguing that multiple copyright standards were specifically structured to preclude black blues artists, especially women, from claiming ownership. "The idea/expression dichotomy of copyright law prohibits copyright protection for raw ideas," Greene wrote. "I contend that this standard provided less protection to innovative black composers, whose work was imitated so wildly it became 'the idea.'"
Intangible things like slang and styles of dance are not considered valuable, except when they're produced by large entities willing and able to invest in trademarking them.
Part of the reason the originators of viral content are stripped from their labor is because they don't technically own their production. Twitter does, Vine does, Snapchat does, and the list goes on. Intangible things like slang and styles of dance are not considered valuable, except when they're produced by large entities willing and able to invest in trademarking them.
Dana Nelson, founder of D.F. Nelson PLLC, a New York City firm specializing in copyright and music law, says outmoded intellectual property law needs updating for the digital age. "Copyright law and intellectual property in America does not follow the creative production of artists. Rather, it protects the interests of companies," she says. "I think it is now harder to distinguish a non-commercial (fair) use from a commercial one." Whereas Meechie's dance videos are considered a threat to record companies' bottom line, his cultural production—and Kayla Newman's "on fleek," too—is treated as ripe for the taking by those same companies.
In some sense, the roaring debates over white appropriation of black slang, music, and dance have worked as an avatar for circumstance of the independent black creator in the digital age. But the analog is insufficient. Intellectual property and viral content should be interrogated from a legal standpoint, Nelson argues. The copyright statute under which Meechie's YouTube account got flagged and then taken down should be re-examined, as should the legal gray areas that leave individual creators like Newman in the cold.
But Meechie is young, and he has plans. The immediate one is editing the video of him and his crew dancing to Justin Bieber's "What Do You Mean?" As of this writing, the clip has been viewed over 135,000 times on his new YouTube channel, but he still has a ways to go before he can reach the numbers on his old account. When I ask him how feels about his position as a simultaneously powerful shape-shifter of music and a disenfranchised net artist, he simply says he's "dancing for now." And, like Newman, he's still waiting on those things good things to come.
Pre-order a copy of The FADER's issue 101 now. It hits newsstands December 15.
Issue 101, Technology
culture / Features


text:
Donald releases New Single – Dnt let it Burn ft Bucie
Submissive or Subservient
Direct selling providing more opportunities for more women
2 suspects Arrested for dealing in drugs
A mexican taste with the KFC Burrito
The fiesta of flavour started in Cape Town and Sandton as Mi Casa musician and self – confessed foodie J'Something introduced media, celebrities and KFC fans to the new KFC Burrito and showed them how to make it from scratch! The special guests couldn't get enough of this huge Mexican mash-up of the signature KFC Zinger taste with classic Mexican flavours.
"We made the KFC Burrito just like they do in the restaurants, and I can tell you it's super yummy, super filling and you are going to be queueing up to get this baby!" says J'Something. "The combination of fresh, crunchy KFC with that Zinger zing and the new Mexican flavours, all wrapped up nicely, makes it the perfect meal on the go."
South Africa's favourite fast food restaurant is always innovating to keep up with fast-changing food trends, according to KFC Chief Marketing Officer for Africa, Mike Middleton. "Mexican flavour is a global trend and we are offering our customers the same great delicious experience. The Burrito is flavour innovation and complete hunger satisfaction in one. We want to stay top of the log with our customers and keep giving them the traditional finger lickin' good taste that they know and love, while also introducing exciting new combinations that keep up to date with food styles and changing tastes."
Middleton says innovation is the lifeblood of any retail business. "Particularly in the quick service restaurant sector, innovation keeps our customers coming in for new finger lickin' good moments".
Johannesburg's coolest Barber Shop
Mastercard Collaborates with SA Fintech Startup to Bring Cashless Payments to SA's Informal Economy
My Little Black Dress (LBD).
The elegance in every woman's wardrobe is the little black dress. Like diamonds, it's every woman's best friend.…
byAlexandria Masego
Rooibos is still the people's favourite
Among SA's 30.9 million-strong tea-drinking population, many already consider Rooibos to be the darling of the teas, but…
Malawian national arrested for trafficking
A report has been released on the South African government news site about the aprehension of a malawian…
Retrenchments at SAA Uncertain
"At this point, we do not want to cause unemployment. We are not at a point where we…


The large sized drybag is the perfect size for transporting gear like wetsuits, towels, fishing tackle and clothing.
Not just a Cheap Dry Bag, the checklist dry bags are top quality and stand the test of time. Available in black or red.
The 30L RED drybag from features a 30ltr capacity, plenty of room for a wetsuit, towel, mask and snorkle weightbelt or what ever you are into. A cheap way to transport your wet wetsuits back from the beach!


Eliminate dark circles and rehydrate tired eyes with the Brilliantly Brightening Eye Contour Gel by leading vegan skincare creators Acure. The lightweight gel uses cucumber and liquorice root to soothe and arnica and seaweed to repair the delicated skin around the eye.
Argan extract visibly tightens and firms the skin within minutes of application, while Hibiscus Extract restores elasticity, helping the area appear brilliantly brighter.
Vegan, Sulfate Free, Paraben Free and completely Cruelty Free.


The Rigolets is an area of New Orleans East that has played a vital part in New Orleans history. Maroon communities developed in the area during the colonial period and forts were later built to protect the city. Most of what made this area distinctive washed away, but there are a few remains of this historically integral part of the city. This tour explores restored sites as well as a few that only exist as photographs and memories.
This tour includes Fort Pike Historic Site, which charges a small fee; however, should the tour be completed outside of operating hours, or if you want to avoid the fee, one can visit the surrounding areas instead. It is recommended that one tour the area in daylight so that the sites are easier to view and the animals are easier to avoid.
This hybrid driving/walking tour spans a ten mile stretch of Chef Menteur Highway through the Lake Catherine area. NOTE: There are a lot of mosquitoes throughout much of the year, so bring repellent and watch out for snakes during the warmer months. Please be respectful of the wildlife.
The tour begins at Fort Macomb, which is located near the intersection of Highway 90 and Fort Macomb Road. The fort is on the right when approaching from the west. It is not accessible to foot traffic but can easily be seen from a shell road that leads along the opposite bank of the adjacent canal.


text:
Q: Aws AuthenticationHandler I am working on authenticating user on AWS Cognito android sdk but I am getting SRP error. I uncheck ADMIN_NO_SRP_AUTH, CUSTOM_AUTH_FLOW_ONLY, and USER_PASSWORD_AUTH and still getting the "SRP Error". Is there anything I am doing wrong. My code is below
   userPool = new CognitoUserPool(getApplicationContext(), "us-east-
      2_UMicfarEa", "6q46s4k4jgvmliumcf4h4p94rs",
      "t2dmr2ghna2l145qu4nst2gdr5actogeft7blr3eruv2yrvaye", Regions.US_EAST_2);

   user = userPool.getUser( userName);

   authenticateDetails = new Hashtable();
        authenticateDetails.put("username",userName);
        authenticateDetails.put("password", passWord);
        user = userPool.getUser( userName);

     AuthenticationHandler authenticationHandler = new AuthenticationHandler() {
         @Override
         public void onSuccess(CognitoUserSession userSession, CognitoDevice
         newDevice) {}
         @Override
         public void getAuthenticationDetails(AuthenticationContinuation
         authenticationContinuation, String userId) { AuthenticationDetails
         authenticationDetails = new AuthenticationDetails(userName, passWord,
         authenticateDetails); authenticationContinuation.setAuthenticationDetails(authenticationDetails);
         authenticationContinuation.continueTask();}
         @Override
         public void getMFACode(MultiFactorAuthenticationContinuation
         multiFactorAuthenticationContinuation) {
         multiFactorAuthenticationContinuation.setMfaCode(mfaVerificationCode);
         multiFactorAuthenticationContinuation.continueTask();}
         @Override
         public void authenticationChallenge(ChallengeContinuation continuation) {}
         @Override
         public void onFailure(Exception exception) {}
         };
     user.getSessionInBackground(authenticationHandler);


text:
BY Dan Fox in Profiles | 20 MAR 17
Proper Trouble
A posthumous publication of essays by artist and film theorist Ian White argues that the collective experience of cinema is more relevant than ever
For weeks after the November 2016 US presidential election, I kept the selected writings of Ian White face up on my desk at home in New York. The book – edited by Mike Sperlinger and published at the end of 2016 by LUX – had arrived through the post on election day. Its title, delivered on the book's cover in white serif type against a soothing teal background, felt like a spell to ward off the urge to surrender: 'Here Is Information. Mobilize.' For those of us who are today what White was before his untimely death in 2013, at the age of 42 – artists, teachers, writers, curators, fellow travellers – this exhortation was a mission brief from the beyond. Produce, discuss, analyze, argue, distribute. Isn't this what we do well in the art and film communities? Isn't it also what we need to do? It's what White certainly did.
White was a friend to many in London during the 1990s and 2000s. For me, the detail of the punctuation in the title of his book – the full stops that create an arch dramatic beat following 'Information' then emphasize a call-to-arms after 'Mobilize' – bring his voice back to life. Fierce, political, pedagogic. (Pause for thought.) Warm, funny, generous. (Full-stop. No compromise.) White was quick to laugh yet distrusted sentimentality and he could be caustic in his criticism. In conversation, he could tune his line of questioning to the deadly, searing frequency of a laser beam, exposing subtexts to your attitude, behaviour or work before you knew them yourself. (Following the 2006 screening at London's Cubitt Gallery, of a short film I'd made, White told me he had found it 'off-puttingly macho'. At the time, it was crushing, because I respected his opinion so much; now, over a decade later, it occupies a constructive place in my mind and attitude.) Yet, White was never afraid to put his own vulnerabilities on the line. Take, for instance, his 2008 solo performance at London's Horse Hospital, IBIZA: A Reading for 'The Flicker', in which he recounted an excruciatingly personal story as Tony Conrad's 1966 film The Flicker strobed behind him, or his 2004 collaborative work with Jimmy Robert, 6 Things We Couldn't Do but Can Do Now, at Tate Britain in London, which included an attempt to perform Yvonne Rainer's Trio A (1966). White may not have been a great dancer – he moved in awkward synchronicity to Rainer's video of the dance – but the attempt was fundamental to the way in which he walked the walk, placing himself in the same circuits of production, criticism and display as the artists he taught and talked about. In his thoughtful introduction to the book, Sperlinger cites a talk that White gave at Oxford University's Ruskin School of Art in 2011: 'White addressed how he inhabited the roles of artist and curator. He speculated that, while there are valid reasons for distinguishing them – biographical, economic, ethical – ultimately "[…] they are both the means by which I am personally able to get through life, to navigate, think, be – they are processes of negotiation […] They are indivisible."'
Emily Roydson and Ian White performing Interim at Chisenhale Gallery, London, 2010. Courtesy: LUX, London
This indivisibility is clear in the LUX publication's selection of texts, which White began to work on with Sperlinger before his death from cancer. The subjects are wide-ranging. White addresses historical figures such as Peter Gidal, Stuart Marshall, Rainer, Jack Smith and David Wojnarowicz. He writes about his contemporaries: Emma Hedditch, Mark Leckey, Emily Roysdon, A.L. Steiner. The forms his writing takes come in a range of shapes and sizes. He pens an open letter to actress Tilda Swinton, politely yet efficiently demolishing comments she'd made expressing generational nostalgia for British experimental filmmaker Derek Jarman and ignorance of his legacy. A report about a dry academic conference on 'Experimental Film Today' becomes a rousing polemic against the historicization of avant-garde film. A savagely funny press release for a 2007 show by Oliver Payne and Nick Relph (still working as a duo at that point) at Herald St, London, reads like the narrative to a lost Patrick Keiller film. Towards the end of the book – in particular the pieces 'First, Six or So People' (2012), 'Division' (2013) and '(I Am) For the Birds' (2013) – the topic of White's body, friendships, disease, hospital and silence enter the frame and become his final pictures for us to consider.
There's a significant unruliness to the book's selections. Some of White's most important ideas crop up not in essays written for film journals and art catalogues, but in reviews, personal blog posts, gallery press releases and film-screening programme notes. The work existed in diffuse, rather than directly distributed, form; as likely to turn up on a folded piece of A4 paper that you'd find in your pocket, days after visiting an exhibition, as in back issues of Vertigo or Untitled. The messy daily tasks of work, helping friends or finding places to publish explain this to an extent. Yet, hindsight allows us to understand it embodying White's scepticism of institutional authority and a belief that our political agency can be found in many places – if we know where to look for it.
Film, art, writing - for White, it happened everywhere, in between the screen, the gallery and the page.
Crucially, this diffuse pollination of White's ideas across different channels mirrored his definitions of cinema – arguably the medium at the centre of his life and work. Cinema, for him, existed not just when the lights went down and the projector whirred into motion, but was in the way you carried yourself through the foyer after a screening ended and how you behaved in the pub afterwards. His essays 'The Projected Object' (2004) and 'Performance, Audience, Mirror' (2012) make complex distinctions between moving-image work created for galleries, TV and commercial cinema, examining the ways in which distribution systems, types of auditorium and screening conditions produce different kinds of audience. In these careful, theoretical texts, White pays close attention to social context in his attempt to define what cinema is. 'Look at a reel of film, a tape, a hard drive and you cannot see with the eye alone the information' he writes in 'Foyer' (2011); it's not this data but our experience as bodies in a room that make cinema. A more direct description can be found in the 2003 essay 'Palace Calls Crisis Summit'. Here, White recounts a screening at the London Film Festival of Peter Mullan's The Magdalene Sisters (2002), which 're-creates (with some concessions to hair and make-up) the abuses carried out on women in Ireland punished by their own society's adherence to an extremist Catholic doctrine'. He describes the director and cast Q&A after the film has ended: 'From the floor, something incredible is happening. A series of women stand up. They lived through this experience, for real. They are grateful for the film, but their memories are insufferable and they are listing the actual abuses carried out against them which go much further than narrative […] Suddenly, something becomes clear. This is absolutely vital, watching the film together.'
Film, art, writing – for White, it happened everywhere, in between the screen, the gallery and the page. In her afterword to the book, artist Josephine Pryde writes how White 'must have had the capacity to know that the talking, the visiting, the texting, the thinking, the loving, the fucking could be part of working, and perhaps part of daydreaming, but he must also have had the ability to know not to relinquish any of it too easily […] He could make proper trouble, in a real political present, and that meant he sensed as he worked that he was going to have to fight to prevent relations being converted too simply into resources or units of business.' Here, in White's example of a highly principled creative life lived, is the information that we need. Watch the film together. Mobilize.
Lead image: Ian White performing Black Flags at daadgalerie, Berlin, 2010. Courtesy: LUX, London
DAN FOX
Dan Fox is a writer and a recipient of the 2021 Andy Warhol Foundation Arts Writers Grant. He lives in New York, USA.
Thematic Essays
Mike Kelley: Destroy All Critics
On the tenth anniversary of Kelley's death, Dan Fox rereads the artist's writing and criticism
BY Dan Fox | 15 DEC 21
Michael Bracewell Looks Back on a Lost London
Dan Fox reviews the writer's memoir of a twilight capital of art, fashion and music
Andrea Lissoni on How to Keep Museums Alive
Amidst a global pandemic during his first year as Haus der Kunst's artistic director, Lissoni speaks about how the museum communicates with the world at large and what it means to be in dialogue with the past and present
BY Vanessa Peterson | 26 MAY 21
Dreaming on the Dancefloor with Raúl de Nieves
The artist's exuberant sculptures and paintings, drawn from religious icons and club culture, are emblems of a changing New York
BY Evan Moffitt AND Raúl de Nieves | 28 APR 21
Reviews , Reviews Across Asia
Lee Bul's Beginning: A Lesser-Known Story about Korean Contemporary Art
At the Seoul Museum of Art, rarely seen footage of the artist's militant performances documents the precedents of her international renown
BY Park Jaeyong | 08 APR 21
EU Reviews , Reviews
Wu Tsang's Renewal of the Collective
Two new films by the artist and her cohorts, on view at Lafayette Anticipations, Paris, speak to joint struggles and why collaboration is key
BY Wilson Tarbox | 19 JAN 21
Denise Ferreira da Silva on Refusal and Fugitivity
Black Brazilian contemporary artists confront the racial violence of the state
BY Denise Ferreira da Silva | 07 DEC 20
Ei Arakawa Asks How Much Performance Art Is Worth
At Galerie Max Mayer, a series of LED 'paintings' reflects on the value of performative practices
BY Saim Demircan | 26 OCT 20
Film , Frieze Masters
The Greatest Special Effects Artist Receives His Due
An exhibition in Edinburgh honouring Ray Harryhausen gives film historians the chance to see Medusa, the Kraken, dinosaurs and giant sea creatures
BY Dan Fox | 21 OCT 20
Features , Film
Blackness and Post-Cinema: John Akomfrah and the Otolith Group in Conversation
During the turbulent summer of 2020, the filmmakers met to discuss contemporary filmmaking and decentring the human
BY John Akomfrah AND The Otolith Group | 23 SEP 20
Interviews , Profiles
Why Luca Lo Pinto Considers the Museum a Magazine
During his first years as MACRO's artistic director, Lo Pinto has initiated a series of projects that break free from the limits of institutions
BY Carina Bukuts AND Luca Lo Pinto | 05 JAN 22
Features , Profiles
The Fruits of Magali Reus's Labour
Amy Sherlock returns to the artist's east London studio to witness preparations for a major new exhibition at Nasher Sculpture Center in Dallas
BY Amy Sherlock AND Magali Reus | 15 DEC 21
Eisa Jocson Knows the Power of Dance
From pole dancing to Disney princesses, the artist 'hijacks' modes of performance to show the power dynamics inherent in the way we move
BY Ysabelle Cheung | 08 DEC 21
Michele Rizzo Stages Acts of 'Communal Becoming'
As a new series of Covid-19 lockdowns hit Europe, the Amsterdam-based choreographers' club inspired performances are more relevant than ever
BY Isabel Parkes | 24 NOV 21


text:
Home » Issues » Immigration Reform and Executive Actions » Summary & Analysis: The Senate Bill (S. 744)
Summary & Analysis: The Senate Bill (S. 744)
Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013
Last updated AUGUST 15, 2013 | Resumen en español (PDF)
La traducción de este resumen al español no ha sido actualizado desde la introducción inicial del proyecto de ley.
At this historic juncture, the U.S. Senate has passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S.744), which, if enacted, would comprise the largest-scale overhaul of our immigration system in more than 25 years. Significantly, the bill would provide a road to U.S. citizenship for perhaps as many as 11 million unauthorized immigrants, allocate billions for militarization of the southern border, and restructure the family immigration system. The bill also would create stringent enforcement and deportation measures, and it would ramp up workplace enforcement by mandating that employers use an electronic employment eligibility verification system (E 'Verify). As we assess the impact of this legislation and any potential legislation introduced in the House of Representatives, NILC will continue to advocate for a new immigration process that is fair and accessible for low-income immigrants.
TITLE I: BORDER SECURITY
Initial implementation. Within 6 months of the bill's passage, the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to craft a strategy to increase surveillance at all southern border sectors and to extend the existing barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border so that they total 700 miles of barriers/fencing. The goal of the strategy would be to apprehend 9 out of every 10 immigrants who attempt to enter the country at these border sectors without permission (also known as a 90 percent effectiveness rate).
Funding. The bill allocates an astronomical $46.3 billion for border enforcement.
Commission. An advisory Southern Border Security Commission would be established no later than one year after the bill's enactment. The DHS secretary may use $2 billion in funding to carry out the activities recommended by the commission.
Use of force. Use-of-force policies and trainings would be implemented, along with a complaint procedure. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officers, along with other federal law enforcement officials, would be subject to a prohibition on racial or ethnic profiling.
Trigger to begin legalization. Before registered provisional immigrant (RPI) status is granted to unauthorized immigrants, the DHS secretary must certify that implementation of the U.S.-Mexico border strategy has begun.
LPR trigger.Before RPIs can adjust to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status (i.e., obtain a "green card"), the DHS secretary must:
Certify that the U.S.-Mexico border surveillance and fencing strategy has been "substantially deployed" and is "substantially operational";
Deploy 38,405 full-time active-duty Border Patrol agents along the southern border;
Implement a mandatory electronic employment eligibility verification system (E 'Verify), to be used by all employers in the U.S.; and
State that DHS is using an electronic system to identify those who are exiting the country at air and sea ports of entry.
The allocation of massive amounts of funding to the U.S.-Mexico border at a time when the federal government has mandated spending cuts for education and infrastructure is wasteful. According to a Jan. 2013 report by the Migration Policy Institute, the federal government spends more on federal immigration enforcement than on all other principal federal criminal law enforcement agencies combined, with nearly $18 billion spent in fiscal year 2012 alone.
During these tough economic times, Americans agree that resources should be used wisely and effectively. Recent polling data suggests that the majority of Americans prefer that funding be invested in fighting drug and weapons trafficking as opposed to going after immigrants who cross the border without authorization. In the past, border militarization has led to excessive use of force and racial profiling of border residents. We wholeheartedly support the use-of-force training and a racial profiling prohibition, however. Border communities have been demanding more accountability and oversight of border enforcement. Any future efforts at strengthening the border should focus on meeting those community demands.
TITLE II: IMMIGRANT VISAS
Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) Status
In order to be eligible for RPI status, a person must:
Have been physically present in the U.S. on or before Dec. 31, 2011,
Have maintained continuous presence up until the date of application,
Have settled any assessed federal tax liability,
Not have been convicted of certain criminal offenses, and
Not have been a lawful permanent resident, asylee, refugee, or present in the U.S. in a lawful nonimmigrant status.
After 6 years of having RPI status, the person to whom it was granted must apply to renew it. After 10 years in RPI status, the person would be eligible to apply for LPR (or "green card") status. An additional 3 years in LPR status is required before individuals may apply for U.S. citizenship.
Fees and fines. Fees paid by the applicant must cover the cost of the application process, and fines would be assessed as follows: $1000 at RPI application ($500 may be paid when filing the initial application and $500 at renewal), and $1000 at adjustment to a green card.
Back taxes. A person with RPI status must also pay any back taxes owed since he or she was granted the status.
Time limit to file. Immigrants may file for RPI status up to one year after the time that the final regulations are published by DHS. The DHS secretary may extend this limit for an additional 18 months.
Ability to apply for family members. A person with RPI status would also be able to apply for RPI status for dependent children or his/her spouse, provided they were in the U.S. on the date the RPI status was granted to the principal applicant and also that they were present in the U.S. on or before Dec. 30, 2012.
Individuals in custody or removal proceedings. Individuals who are apprehended by immigration authorities before the application period, are in removal proceedings, or have been ordered removed would be able to apply after establishing eligibility for RPI status.
Individuals outside the U.S. Individuals who departed from the U.S. subject to an order of exclusion, deportation, removal, or voluntary departure, and who are outside the U.S. or who reentered unlawfully after Dec. 31, 2011, without receiving DHS consent to reapply for admission would not be eligible to apply for RPI status. However the DHS secretary may waive this bar for spouses or children of a U.S. citizen or LPR, parents of a child who is a U.S. citizen or LPR, or individuals who meet certain requirements under the DREAM-related provisions that are included in the bill. In addition, prior to granting this waiver, DHS must determine whether the person has a criminal conviction, notify and consult with any victim to determine whether to grant the waiver, and notify the victim that the waiver was granted.
Who is not eligible. Those who have been convicted of the following are not eligible for RPI status: a felony, an aggravated felony, 3 or more misdemeanors (other than immigration status–related convictions), certain foreign offenses, and unlawful voting. Aggravated felonies can include minor offenses such as shoplifting.
Nationality-based additional security screening. DHS is required to conduct an additional security screening of RPI applicants, spouses, and children who resided in a country or region "known to pose a threat, or that contains groups or organizations that pose a threat to the U.S."
Requirements for renewal. At renewal, RPIs must demonstrate that they have been employed regularly and are not likely to fall below the federal poverty level.
Requirements for lawful permanent residence (LPR status or "green card"). At the stage of applying for adjustment to LPR status, RPIs must demonstrate that they are employed regularly and show that they are likely to have income or resources at 125 percent of federal poverty level wages or satisfy certain education requirements. They must also demonstrate that they are pursuing a course of study in English and U.S. history/civics.
Waiver. The DHS secretary would have the authority to waive certain restrictions for humanitarian purposes, to ensure family unity, or if it is in the national interest.
While we are pleased that the bill would provide a road to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants, we have grave concerns about affordability and other roadblocks that would limit who can actually get on the road to citizenship. More than a quarter of undocumented families have annual incomes lower than $20,000, and fines totaling $2000 pose a significant hurdle for these families. In addition, a work requirement is unnecessary. Unauthorized immigrants already participate in the labor force at high rates (94 percent for men between the ages of 18 and 64), and requiring proof of regular employment (with no gap longer than 60 days) from those who seek to renew their status will be difficult for many low-wage immigrants in irregular or seasonal employment and creates an unnecessary level of governmental red tape. Many immigrants have a desire to learn English, but, given the limited availability of English-as-a-second-language courses, we are concerned that many will be unable to satisfy the English requirement. If this requirement remains in the bill, we must ensure that immigrants have the ability to access affordable courses. We have grave concerns that the additional national security screening based on national origin will likely result in racial profiling of religious and ethnic minorities. Given the government's inhumane detention and deportation practices, it is important that this bill provide an opportunity for people who have been deported, and who are either DREAMers or have a U.S. citizen or LPR immediate family member, to be reunited with their families.
An expedited road to citizenship would be available to those who entered the U.S. before the age of 16, graduated from high school (or received a GED) in the U.S., and attended at least 2 years of college or served 4 years in the uniformed services. DREAMers would apply for RPI status, and, after 5 years, would be eligible to apply for adjustment to LPR status. They then would be able to apply immediately for U.S. citizenship.
No age cap. There would be no upper-age limit for those who apply under this provision. This makes sense, since the relevant issue is the person's age at the time of entry into the U.S., not his or her current age.
DACA streamlining. The DHS secretary would have the discretion to establish streamlined procedures for people already granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).
No penalty for offering in-state tuition. The bill would repeal a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that prohibited public universities from offering in-state tuition rates to undocumented students on the basis of residence in the state, unless they offered the same rates to nonresidents of the state.
Educational loans. RPIs who entered the U.S. prior to age 16 (and agricultural workers with blue card status) may qualify for federal work-study and federal student loans. They remain ineligible for federal Pell grants until they adjust to LPR status.
These provisions comprise the best version of the DREAM Act to date. We are particularly heartened by this expedited process for DREAMers that recognizes the special circumstances of those brought to the U.S. at a young age. We urge the DHS secretary to establish streamlined procedures for DACA recipients.
Family- and Employment-based Immigration
The bill provides for significant changes to the family- and employment-based immigration system, including the elimination of certain immigration/visa categories altogether and the lifting of visa caps for others. A new "merit-based" system would be created, and the substantial backlog in the current preference system would be eliminated.
Eliminated categories. The bill would eliminate family-based visas for siblings of U.S. citizens and set a cap at age 31 for married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens seeking immigrant visas. These changes would take effect prospectively, 18 months after the date of enactment of the bill, and people could file visa petitions to immigrate these relatives up until this effective date.
Uncapped categories. Importantly, spouses and children of LPRs would be considered immediate family members and therefore would no longer be subject to arbitrary visa caps. Spouses and children of those receiving Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) visas, other professionals, and foreign doctors would also be able to have their spouses and children join them.
Merit-based "Track One" immigrant visas. The bill initially would allocate 120,000 immigrant visas per year for Track One visas, a number that could increase by as much as 5 percent each subsequent year as long as unemployment remains under 8.5 percent, up to a cap of 250,000 visas. The visas would be allocated based on a point system that takes into account various factors, including educational degrees, employment experience, the needs of U.S. employers, U.S. citizen relatives, and age.
Merit-based "Track Two" visas. Track Two visas would be available for people who are currently beneficiaries of backlogged employment- and family-based visa petitions, for immigrants who have been waiting for a visa for at least 5 years, and also for individuals who have been lawfully present in the U.S. for at least 10 years. Family members with pending petitions would be allocated transitional merit-based visas such that they should all be allocated over the 7-year period from 2015 to 2021.
Repeal of the Diversity Visa Program. The Diversity Visa Program would be repealed as of Oct. 1, 2014, although noncitizens who were selected in the diversity visa lottery in fiscal year 2013 or 2014 would remain eligible to receive a visa under the program.
V nonimmigrant visas. The bill would create a new nonimmigrant V visa for the beneficiaries of family visa petitions to live and work in the U.S. while waiting for their immigrant visas to be approved.
No provision for same-sex couples. The Uniting American Families Act is not included in the bill, thereby relegating same-sex couples to second-class status and creating further family separation.
W nonimmigrant visas. The bill would create a new worker program for low-skilled workers who will work for 3 years for registered employers in an occupation with labor shortages, with the ability to renew the visa for an additional 3 years. W visa holders would have the ability to eventually apply for merit-based green cards and to switch to another registered employer and job at will. Dependents would be able to join the W visa–holder and would receive work authorization.
While we are disappointed with the proposed elimination of the sibling and the diversity visa categories, we are hopeful that the proposed aggressive backlog reduction measures would address the current bottleneck. We support measures to eliminate visa caps on immediate family members so that spouses and parents can be reunited quickly. It is notable that people who have been lawfully present for 10 years, such as those with temporary protected status (TPS), would essentially get credit for the years they have been in the U.S. and would be able to adjust to LPR status immediately. Further analysis of the merit-based visa system is needed to understand its impact on low-income workers and families.
Access to Public Benefits and the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
Federal public benefit programs. Individuals granted RPI status, "blue card" status (agricultural workers), and V nonimmigrant visas will not be eligible for the following "federal means-tested public benefits" programs: nonemergency Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or food stamps), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the duration of their provisional status. When most of these individuals adjust to LPR status, they will be forced to wait at least five additional years before becoming eligible for these programs. As a result, an individual with RPI status who is otherwise eligible for public benefits would not be able to enroll in programs such as Medicaid and SNAP for 15 years.
Social Security credit. Individuals with RPI status and visa over-stayers may not claim credit for any quarter of coverage earned between 2004 and 2014 in which they were not authorized to work. This provision applies to quarters used in determining eligibility for Title II Social Security retirement benefits as well as Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).
Affordable Care Act. Individuals granted RPI, blue-card, or V nonimmigrant visa status will be able to buy private health insurance at full cost through the insurance marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, during the duration of their provisional status, these individuals will not be eligible for the ACA's premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions that will help make health insurance affordable for low- and middle-income, working families. Also, those with RPI, blue-card or V nonimmigrant visa status will not be subject to the ACA's requirement to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.
Currently eligible individuals with a B visa (temporary visitors for business or pleasure) or F visa (students, as well as their spouses and children) will also be excluded from the ACA's premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions and also are not subject to the ACA's health insurance requirement or tax penalty. However, unlike individuals granted RPI, blue-card, or V nonimmigrant status, B and F visa holders won't be able to purchase private health insurance full cost through the ACA-created insurance marketplaces.
Other categories of immigration status that are included in the bill, including workers in expanded H-category visas, low-skilled workers who obtain W visas, and individuals who adjust to LPR status from RPI or blue-card status or through the clearing of the visa backlogs, will be eligible for the ACA and related subsidies under existing law while in that status. They will not be eligible for federal means-tested public benefits until they adjust to LPR status and then meet the five-year waiting period.
The unduly harsh restriction on Social Security credit denies credit for up to 10 years of work performed and Social Security taxes paid by these individuals. Under the bill's provisions, individuals granted RPI status, blue-card status, and V visas are arbitrarily and harmfully denied access to affordable health care and nutrition assistance for 5 to 15 years. B and F visa holders are also unnecessarily excluded. Yet during this same period, these individuals are expected to work in order to provide for themselves and their families. But no one can predict when he or she will fall ill or be injured in an accident, which is why individuals on the road to citizenship and those studying or working here for extended periods of time need access to affordable health care to fulfill their American dreams.
TITLE III: INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT
This title contains many subparts, including: a section that requires employers to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system; worker protections, including the POWER Act; asylum and refugee provisions; immigration court reform; and new provisions related to violations of immigration law that constitute crimes.
Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS)
The bill would require all employers to use the federal government's EEVS to verify the employment eligibility of newly hired employees; the requirement would be phased in by employer size. The EEVS provision contains significant due process and worker protections for U.S. citizens and employment-authorized individuals who are affected by a system error. An example of an electronic employment eligibility verification system is E-Verify.
Implementation. Employers with more than 5,000 employees must begin using the EEVS, for newly hired employees and employees with expiring work-authorization documents, within 2 years after the regulations are published. Similarly, employers with more than 500 employees must begin using the EEVS within 3 years, and agricultural employers and all other employers must begin using the EEVS within 4 years.
Increased Worker Protections
Hoffman Plastic fix. The bill would create an important legislative fix of the Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman Plastic Compound, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), by specifying that neither back pay nor any other damages (except any reinstatement remedy prohibited under federal law) shall be denied to an individual based on his or her immigration status.
POWER Act. The bill increases legal protections for immigrant workers who are wrongfully terminated or who experience significant workplace abuse. The bill would bolster legal remedies to immigrant workers who are fired in violation of labor laws, while providing for U-visa relief for whistleblowers who experience serious workplace abuse, exploitation, or retaliation.
We continue to be concerned about forcing all employers to use an EEVS. Requiring that employers use the EEVS could have particularly significant consequences especially for work-authorized women and immigrants about whom government databases have incorrect information due, for example, to marriage-related name changes or hyphenated last names. The protections included in this provision represent the minimum level of due process for U.S. citizens and work-authorized individuals who face possible job losses due to this mandate. If the mandate is enacted, it must be accompanied by a generous legalization program, otherwise workers will go further underground and face exploitation by unscrupulous employers. A mandatory EEVS program will undoubtedly make it very difficult for any future undocumented worker — or any current worker excluded from this proposed legalization program — to get a job. Abusive employers who want to game the system may still do so by trying to exploit workers. The inclusion of the POWER Act provisions are critical to providing those workers with the ability to hold those employers accountable.
No fix to racial profiling laws. The bill contains no language to make clear that state laws that inevitably result in racial profiling by law enforcement, such as Arizona's SB 1070, violate the U.S. Constitution and are preempted by federal immigration law.
The bill misses the opportunity to neutralize dangerous state and local laws and policies that result in racial profiling and to further discourage or preempt states and localities from enacting such laws in the future.
Single level of administrative review. The DHS secretary would designate a single level of administrative review for denials or revocations of RPI status. The applicant for RPI status would have 90 days from the date of the negative decision to administratively appeal a denial or revocation of RPI status, "unless delay was reasonably justifiable." Notably, there would be a stay of removal pending appeal, newly discovered or previously unavailable information would be allowed, and there would be no accrual of unlawful presence during administrative appeal.
Review in federal court. The bill provides for judicial review of denied RPI applications or revocations of RPI status in federal district court in the judicial circuit where applicant resides. The judge would have discretion to issue a stay of removal (meaning the noncitizen could not be deported) pending appeal, and there would be no accrual of unlawful presence during the judicial review. These determinations could then be appealed to the circuit court of appeals. For individuals seeking to appeal a denial or revocation of RPI status in connection with an order of removal, however, judicial review would be available only in the circuit court of appeals, if the decision had not already been upheld in a prior decision.
Information on applications or provided by employers. The bill limits disclosure of information on applications, except in some narrow instances for criminal prosecution or investigations. It also allows audits for immigration fraud schemes. Employers will not be held liable for having hired unauthorized immigrants for whom they provide information to support RPI applications.
Detention/Bond/Alternatives to Detention and Stipulated Orders of Removal
The bill makes a number of important changes to the massive immigration detention system. It includes provisions to ensure timely custody and bond determinations and to allow for greater use of alternatives to detention. It also includes critical provisions to oversee the nation's sprawling immigration detention system, to attempt to ensure that facilities meet the government's own minimum standards for detention conditions.
Bond. The bill contains a host of provisions to increase the ability of detained immigrants to get bond quickly and to have an immigration judge review decisions to hold an immigrant in custody.
Stipulated orders of removal. The bill requires an in-person hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether the individual who has signed a stipulated order of removal did so knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. This is a much-needed provision to ensure that stipulated orders of removal comport with due process.
Oversight of detention facilities. The bill requires the DHS secretary to inspect all immigration detention facilities annually and, in addition, calls for unannounced inspections. It imposes significant financial penalties for failure to comply with detention standards at any immigration detention facility. These penalties are an important first step in ensuring that facilities that fail to meet basic standards face consequences and that noncitizens in detention have access to basic services.
New Grounds of Inadmissibility
The bill includes several changes to immigration law that would increase the number of people who would not be admitted into the U.S. or who would be removable from the U.S.
Fraud. Creates new, stringent civil and criminal penalties for misuse of a passport, likely including instances in which a worker uses a fraudulent passport or a passport that belongs to another person for employment eligibility verification purposes. The bill takes steps to punish notario fraud and other unscrupulous people who defraud people needing help with the immigration process. It creates penalties of fines and incarceration of up to 10 years for people who provide fraudulent immigration services, as well as fines and incarceration of up to 15 years for a person who misrepresents him/herself as an attorney or accredited representative.
Gang, DUI, domestic violence. New grounds of inadmissibility include convictions for gang activity, 3 convictions for driving under the influence, sexual abuse, and domestic violence.
We oppose expanding grounds of inadmissibility and removability, especially in the absence of a judicial process in which the equities can be balanced as to whether the noncitizen should be allowed to remain in the U.S. These changes will result in the continued separation of families and the destabilization of our communities at a time when deportations have reached a record high of over 400,000 per year.
There is much to digest in this broad reworking of our current immigration system. While the bill proposes many positive changes, we continue to be concerned about onerous roadblocks on the road to citizenship, punitive health and benefits provisions, expensive and unnecessary militarization of our southern border, a harsh employment eligibility verification requirement for all employers, and increased criminal bars and penalties that will limit who gets a fair day in court. These provisions should be reexamined as the bill moves through the legislative process. Lessons from past immigration reforms have taught us that if we do not get it right this time, workers and families will continue to suffer the consequences.
Immigration Reform 2013-2014: Background and General Information
Workers' Rights in Immigration Reform
Health Care in Immigration Reform
NILC Statements Submitted for Immigr. Reform-related Congressional Hearings
Detailed Analyses of
Three of the Bill's Titles
Title I: Border Security (PDF)
Title II: Immigrant Visas (PDF)
Title III: Interior Enforcement (PDF)


text:
Who are the best researchers in medicine and pharmacy?
For already the sixth consecutive year, the International Medis Awards rewards the best research works of doctors and pharmacists in the Central and South-Eastern Europe who published their research achievements in internationally established expert publications.
Innovations in medicine and pharmacy enable survival of the patients, ensure more reliable and less invasive diagnostics, new and efficient ways of treatment, and a better and more beautiful life. Research therefore moves the borders of what is known in medicine and pharmacy, and changes the Sci-Fi future into actual reality.
International Medis Awards are therefore a precious tribute to all daring and dedicated researchers, who besides their daily clinical practice devote their time to research work as well, thus discovering pioneer solutions, and giving hope and optimism to the patients and wider public.
Over the past five years more than 700 doctors and pharmacists from eight countries in the region applied to this unique contest. For the first time, this year doctors and pharmacists from Bulgaria may also apply for the awards in nine medical fields until 4 September 2019.
In the picture there are 9 of the best doctors and pharmacists from seven countries, who applied last year for the prestige award International Medis Awards and whose scientific contributions were chosen from 156 applications in nine therapeutical fields.
What do they have in common?
They do not believe in "THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE".
They do not agree with "IT CANNOT BE DONE".
"NO" is not an answer for them.
Because they want more for their patients and because their research enthusiasm reaches beyond what is known in medicine and pharmacy, they are prepared to work tirelessly, sacrifice themselves, hope, trust endlessly and take risks, everything to discover new findings. More about the contest: www.medis-awards.com
The 2019 International Medis Awards for Medical Research finalists are announced!
Meet all the finalists of 2019 through short videos.
Entries for the 2019 International Medis Awards for Medical Research are now open
The International Medis Awards for Medical Research is an annual international contest for medical doctors and pharmacists from within Central and South East...


Birthing pains in the new online software retailing market. Ben.
In case you weren't aware, Apple's newly launched App Store subscriptions aren't sitting so well with everybody. While the functionality could of course be a boon to services that have struggled getting paying customers, folks who have already been doing just fine, thank you very much, are balking at the new restrictions Apple has imposed. Rhapsody has issued a statement, which says that it's not going to play ball and even levels a bit of a threat: "We will be collaborating with our market peers in determining an appropriate legal and business response to this latest development." The big trouble stems from the fact that Apple requires anybody offering a subscription service to offer that service for the same price or less through Apple. That means you can still sign up folks through your own methods and get all the cash, but if anybody signs up through your app, Apple gets a 30 percent cut. In addition, Apple is no longer allowing applications to include a link to an external site for purchasing, which means vendors will have trouble getting new users to pay them directly instead of using Apple's simple but heavily-taxed option. Rhapsody claims that it can't offer its services at existing prices with Apple grabbing that much of the revenue, and it sounds like Rhapsody will be leaving the App Store soon if an agreement isn't struck.
Of course, this is just the shiny surface of the dirt Apple's new policies have scuffed up, and we might even have an antitrust case on our hands, according to the Wall Street Journal. Check out the more coverage link for more on that, and follow after the break for Rhapsody's statement in full.


Partner with brand marketing, CSR and other departments and implement external communications activities that resonate with the media to position organization and the brands among consumers, industry, government, etc.
Work closely with the digital marketing team on creating integrated communications ideas and content which can be leveraged on various social media platforms reaching out to both internal and external audiences.
Partner with Industry Bodies and other relevant organisations and to position among Clients, industry, government, etc.


What is the Provo Promise?
The Provo Promise is a private non-profit that gives scholarships to every graduate from a Provo School District high school. Grades (GPA) or test scores (CPT/ACT/SAT) do not have an affect on your ability to get the scholarship–only following a few steps and graduating from high school are required. Apply here.
The Provo Promise is a 501 c (3) Federal exempt status organization. Every dollar you donate is tax-deductible. Donate here.
Donors from our local area, from average people to large businesses in Utah, give to the Provo Promise Scholarship fund. Provo Promise students prove that they have graduated from Provo, Timpview, or Independence High School in Provo, Utah, USA, and apply to attend Utah Valley University or its sister program for certificates, MATC. The Provo Promise pays for college, even if you don't get any scholarships or grants, up to four years.
That means that everywhere you go–the grocery store, the mall, a business, the park, your school–you will be seeing the faces of people who have donated to your success. The whole city wants you to follow your passion and make Provo a better place!
Do I have to live in Provo to qualify?
Yes, you must live in Provo for two years, and one of those years must be your senior year of high school in Provo School District.
Do I have to attend one of the high schools in Provo to qualify?
Yes, you must graduate from Provo High, Timpview High, or Independence High school after 2018.
Do I have to get a scholarship to qualify?
No, but you must prove that you applied for at least one scholarship in your Provo Promise application. This is to ensure that you know the process in the future, not that you necessarily receive money.
Do I have to get grants to qualify?
No, but if you are a legal citizen, you must apply for grants. This is to ensure that you know the process in the future, not that you necessarily receive money. The Provo Promise does not require that you (or your parent/legal guardian) be a legal citizen of the US to receive the scholarship. Therefore, if you are legal unable to apply for federal grants (FAFSA), you can still apply for the Provo Promise scholarship.
Why do you make students apply for grants and scholarships, even if we don't get them?
The Provo Promise wants students to learn how to succeed. We want you to know how to get what you want, even if you don't qualify on your first try. Don't panic over this step–we will help you with every requirement on your list. We want you to have the tools you need to get to college, and beyond.
Even if you don't get a single penny from any other source, The Provo Promise will pay for four years at Utah Valley University, or a degree at MATC.
Every dollar you do get through scholarships or grants, is a dollar that we can give to another fellow student. You help everyone by helping yourself!
When does the Provo Promise scholarship become effective?
You must graduate after the 2017-2018 school year.
What if I want to attend a trade school, or get a certificate, and not a two- or four-year degree?
If you choose to attend UVU's trade school, Mountainland Applied Technology College (MATC), we will pay for your training. We realize people are different, and what makes people happy can vary. We love supporting students whose passions take them to all kinds of fields of education. The purpose of the Provo Promise is to empower you through knowledge and training, and a diverse city is a fantastic city!
What if I am pregnant, joining the military, or planning to serve a religious mission? Do I lose the scholarship or can I defer it?
Absolutely, you can defer it! You must notify the office by filling out an alternate scholarship form, which will include your reason for deferring, and an expected return date to your education plan.


text:
The green mobility formula
Bomts technology
Electric transport
People and management
For residential buildings
For public bodies
The SmartComp composter
Green mobility in Terni
SmartComp for the Carabinieri Corps
Electric transport for the city of Rome
About Acea Innovation
Energy for smart buildings
Compost making
Acea Ato 2 has launched a new informative campaign to regularize the position of unregistered users.
The informative campaign is addressed to anyone who uses the water services without having a water supply contract. Acea Ato 2 invitesusers to regularize their position, taking advantage of the incentives set by the new Supply Agreement, and avoid the severe sanctions applicable to anyone found using water without a valid contract.
Who is the campaign aimed at?
The campaign is aimed at anyone who uses the water services without having a supply contract, i.e. those who unlawfully use water violating the principles of equal treatment for all users and protecting water resources.
What are the advantages for users who regularize their position?
Voluntary regularization has the following advantages:
it allows unregistered users to take advantage of the incentives introduced by the new Supply Agreement, valid for a limited time (for further details, please refer to the Supply Agreement);
o it allows unregistered users to avoid legal and financial sanctions, as well as the interruption of the supply, if the Provider reports the violation to the authorities.
The incentives set out for anyone who voluntarily regularizes their position are:
For residential domestic users
previous water usage will be charged based on a fixed volume of water (54 cubic meters/year, instead of the usual 180 cubic meters/year) at a favorable rate;
the fixed penalty and other specific fines, applicable to cover the cost of identifying and removing unauthorized water connections, will be waved;
the cost of installing the meter reader will be waved.
For non-residential domestic users
the cost of the new connection will be waved.
The regularization will also allow users who are entitled to them, to apply for incentives such as the water bonus.
For additional information, please refer to the dedicated web page: water bonus.
What do unregistered users risk if they are identified by Acea Ato 2?
Unregistered users – if identified by Acea Ato 2 at any time before they voluntarily regularize their position – in addition to the severe legal sanctions set by the applicable regulation, face the following penalties:
cost of previous water usage: domestic users will be charged based on a fixed volume of water (180 cubic meters/year), for up to 5 previous years; non-domestic users will be charged based on standard volumes of water applicable to their type of non-domestic supply, applying the full tariff structure valid on the date the unregistered supply was identified;
fixed penalty to cover the cost of identifying and removing unauthorized water connections: €600;
specific fines: varying between €80 and €1,000, based on the type of irregularity identified and cumulative;
cost of installing a meter reader (where required): varying between €180 and €762, depending on the type of meter reader.
How can users regularize their position?
Regularization applications can be submitted at the help desks in Piazzale Ostiense 2, in Rome, and at Acea Ato 2 contact offices across the territory, on the days and at the times shown in the Contacts section.
For further information, please call the toll-free number 800 130 331.