text:
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › District Courts › Missouri › Eastern District of Missouri › 2001 › Delta and Pine Land Co. v. Sinkers Corp.
Delta and Pine Land Co. v. Sinkers Corp., 197 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (E.D. Mo. 2001)
US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - 197 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (E.D. Mo. 2001)
DELTA AND PINE LAND COMPANY and Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Plaintiffs,
THE SINKERS CORPORATION, Defendant.
No. 1:93-CV-77-DJS.
United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division.
*1185 Andrew N. Alexander, III, Stephen L. Thomas, Lake and Tindall, Greenville, MS, Robert B. Fuchs, Sikeston, MO, for Delta and Pine Land Co., Mississippi Agr. and Forestry Experiment Station.
Mark J. Pelts, Pelts and McMullan, Kennett, MO, for Sinkers Corp.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
STOHR, District Judge.
Plaintiffs are the holders of certificates of plant variety protection for certain varieties of cotton. They brought the instant action asserting that defendant, a delinter of cotton seed, had infringed plaintiffs' rights under the Plant Variety Protection Act ("PVPA"), 7 U.S.C. § 2321 et seq. After a non-jury trial, the Court entered judgment in defendant's favor. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that this Court had not applied the appropriate legal standard in its analysis of two of the three alleged species of infringement. Delta and Pine Land Company v. The Sinkers Corporation, 177 F.3d 1343 (Fed.Cir.1999). The matter is before the Court on remand. The Court has previously concluded that reopening the record for additional evidence is not necessary or appropriate. See Order of Aug. 11, 1999 [Doc. # 63], p. 2. The parties have been permitted to submit updated proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, however, and to respond to the opposition's filing via a written memorandum.
Having considered the pleadings, the testimony of the witnesses, the documents in evidence, and the stipulations of the parties, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court here sets forth its findings of relevant fact and conclusions of law, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
1. Plaintiff D & PL is engaged in the business of developing, breeding, and processing cotton planting seed for the production of agricultural crops.
2. D & PL is located in Scott, Mississippi, and regularly does business in states including Arkansas, Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and Missouri.
3. D & PL is the holder of numerous certificates of plant variety protection issued by the U.S. Plant Variety Protection Office of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including certificates for the following varieties of cotton: Deltapine 20, Deltapine 26, Deltapine 30, Deltapine 41, Deltapine 50, Deltapine 51, Deltapine 55, Deltapine 62, Deltapine 69, Deltapine 70, Deltapine 77, Deltapine 80, Deltapine 120, Deltapine 5415, Deltapine NSL, Deltapine Acala 90, Terra C-30 and Terra C-40.
4. It is common usage in the industry to refer to seed of the Deltapine 20 variety as "DPL-20," to seed of the Deltapine 50 variety as "DPL-50," to seed of the Deltapine 51 variety as "DPL-51," and seed of the Deltapine 5415 variety as "DPL-5415."
5. Plaintiff MAFES is a unit of Mississippi State University which performs agricultural research and is also engaged in the business of developing, breeding and processing cotton planting seed for the production of agricultural crops.
6. MAFES holds a certificate of plant variety protection in a cottonseed variety known as DES 119.
7. MAFES has granted D & PL an exclusive license to market DES 119. D & PL produces DES 119 and markets it through its usual distribution channels.
*1186 8. D & PL employs a two-step distribution system in the sale and marketing of its seed, involving wholesale distributors and retail dealers. Only those under contract as Deltapine distributors have D & PL's authorization to sell or transfer D & PL's protected varieties of seed.
9. Missouri's "bootheel" is the state's principal cotton-growing region.
10. Cottonseed is prepared for planting by delinting to remove the fuzzy cotton fibers, and sometimes also by chemical treatment with fungicide and insecticide. Delinted seed is readily distinguishable from "fuzzy" cottonseed.
11. Defendant Sinkers, headquartered in Kennett, Missouri, is engaged in the business of delinting and conditioning cottonseed for future use as planting seed.
12. In processing, after being picked, cotton is taken first to a gin, where the fiber or lint is separated from the seed. The seed can then be taken to a delinter such as defendant.
13. Undelinted cottonseed arrives at Sinkers' Kennett facility via truck in bulk. In some cases, individual farmers bring cottonseed to the facility in pickup trucks. In many cases, large quantities of cottonseed arrive in tractor-trailer rigs. Upon its arrival at Sinkers' facility, undelinted cottonseed is placed in a "run bin." The seed is then fed into an auger, where it is wetted with a sulfuric acid solution. From there, the seed passes through a centrifuge where the solution is spun off. The seed emerges in a damp-dry condition and is passed through two dryers and two buffers. In the drying and buffing process, lint is separated from the seed. After culls, sticks and debris are removed from the seed, the seed is treated with chemicals (if so requested) and is placed in white 50-pound bags. After the seed has been bagged, it is loaded onto trucks and transported to its next destination.
14. Sinkers often conducts germination tests on representative samples of cottonseed received from its customers to determine the percentage of seed from a given lot which can be expected to germinate and produce a healthy plant. The test seeds are exposed to moisture and monitored for normal plant development. Germination rates are expressed in percentages, reflecting the number of seeds out of 100 which germinate properly.
15. Germination tests are often run prior to delinting; if the germination results are acceptable to the customer, the delinting takes place. After delinting, a second germination test is sometimes done to insure that the seed remains viable.
16. Sinkers' germination records sometimes include notations referring to the customer and to the variety of the seed.
17. D & PL develops new varieties of seed by pollinating one unique variety with another. The resultant cross-bred variety is then analyzed over a period of years to determine whether it has superior qualities. Such a variety, in contrast to a hybrid, is stable in that its progeny is similar to the parent plant; so long as no cross-pollination occurs, the variety can be continually replicated.
18. A new variety sought to be reproduced for sale is turned over to D & PL's foundation seed department, which increases the volume through repeated replanting while protecting the genetic purity of the variety, to reach saleable quantities of seed. Thereafter, D & PL hires farmers as contract growers who will return to D & PL the progeny of their crop.
19. In the period from 1988 to 1993, approximately 5-9% of D & PL's sales income was devoted to research and development. Prior to the enactment of the PVPA in 1970, D & PL made no significant *1187 investment in research and development because unique varieties of seed were not protected against use by competitors.
20. Most modern planting equipment is designed for seed which has been delinted so as to flow smoothly, without the friction of fuzzy seed. D & PL's market research indicates that virtually all commercial cotton farmers in the United States now plant delinted seed.
21. The term "brown bagging" seed refers to the practice of saving or selling protected seed for replanting, sometimes in violation of the PVPA.
22. Unlike "brown bagged" seed, the genetic purity and quality of seed originated by D & PL is meticulously maintained.
23. When brown bag sales of its protected varieties occur, D & PL receives no economic benefit in return for its investment in the development of the variety.
24. In December 1992, D & PL hired a Sikeston, Missouri private investigator named Gary Atchley, doing business as Investigations Unlimited, to conduct surveillance of defendant Sinkers' cottonseed delinting and processing business.
25. D & PL hired the investigator because it suspected defendant of violating plaintiffs' rights in protected seed varieties. D & PL had received a number of complaints from its district sales managers in the Missouri bootheel and northeastern Arkansas concerning large numbers of farmers planting brown bag Deltapine seed.
26. The surveillance of Sinkers began in January 1993 and ended in December 1993.
27. D & PL has never authorized Sinkers to transfer possession of D & PL's protected seed varieties or of MAFES' protected DES 119 variety.
28. Burgreen & Black Gin & Fertilizer is a proprietorship engaged in the business of cotton ginning in Madison, Alabama. In 1991, 1992 and 1993, Burgreen & Black delivered fuzzy cottonseed to Sinkers for delinting. Sinkers' internal germination records indicate that germination test results relating to this seed were entered under Burgreen & Black's name. During these years, Burgreen & Black gave seed away to various farmers who did their ginning with Burgreen & Black. When a farmer let Burgreen & Black know how much seed he wanted, Burgreen & Black would ship it to Sinkers and back for delinting, and have Sinkers bill the farmer directly for the delinting.
29. In 1992, Glenn Black of Black & Sons of Madison, Alabama obtained from Burgreen & Black 9.75 tons of cottonseed which was delinted by Sinkers. Sinkers billed Black & Sons directly for the costs of delinting the cottonseed obtained from Burgreen & Black. Plaintiffs have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that this seed was of one of their protected varieties.
30. In February 1992, a Eudora, Arkansas cotton farmer named Jimmy Pylate purchased a quantity of cotton seed from Burgreen & Black in a transaction brokered by Sid Stephens. The seed was shipped from Burgreen & Black to Sinkers for delinting, and from Sinkers to Pylate. The quantity shipped from Sinkers to Pylate was 24.58 tons. Plaintiffs have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that this seed was of one of their protected varieties.
31. Nodena Planting Company is a partnership of corporations and individuals which, until the spring of 1993, conducted cotton farming operations in the vicinity of Mississippi County, Arkansas.
32. Nodena was a customer of Sinkers, and had its cottonseed delinted by Sinkers from 1989 until 1993.
*1188 33. In calendar year 1990, Nodena sold 57.25 tons of cottonseed delinted by Sinkers to other farmers in Arkansas for planting purposes.
34. In calendar year 1991, Nodena sold 89.975 tons of cottonseed delinted by Sinkers to other farmers in Arkansas for planting purposes.
35. In calendar year 1992, Nodena sold 99.54 tons of cottonseed delinted by Sinkers to other farmers in Arkansas for planting purposes.
36. Concerning these Nodena seed sales in 1990, 1991 and 1992, plaintiffs have failed to prove to whom Sinkers transferred possession of the seed.
37. Concerning these Nodena seed sales in 1990, 1991 and 1992, plaintiffs have failed to prove that Sinkers had any knowledge concerning Nodena's sales of the seed.
38. In calendar year 1993, Nodena decided to lease its land to other farmers, and not to plant its own seed. In that year, Nodena sold all of the cottonseed it had delinted by Sinkers to other farmers in Arkansas for planting purposes. The quantity of cottonseed delinted for Nodena by Sinkers in 1993 amounted to 122.15 delinted tons.
39. At the time in the fall of 1992 when Nodena saved and delinted the seed from its 1992 crop, Nodena had not yet determined it would not itself plant cotton in 1993. That decision was reached in 1993.
40. In the period 1990 through 1992, Nodena planted approximately 3500 to 4500 acres in cotton each year, and approximately 85% of the cottonseed planted by Nodena was of Deltapine varieties, predominantly DPL-50. Plaintiffs have not proved that defendant had any knowledge of these facts.
41. For each of the planting seasons between 1989 and 1992, approximately half of the cottonseed planted by Nodena was saved seed, and half was purchased from local seed dealers. Plaintiffs have not proved that defendant had any knowledge of these facts.
42. Planting rates for cottonseed in the mid-South range from 10 to 20 pounds per acre.
43. If weather or other conditions damage a cotton crop after initial planting, a farmer may have to replant one or more times in the same growing season.
44. Delinted cottonseed may be saved more than one season and successfully used for replanting.
45. As indicated by Sinkers shipping records dated January 13, 1993, Sinkers shipped two loads of seed to Cromer Brothers Seed Company for storage, having delinted the seed after receiving it from Nodena Planting Company. Each load consisted of 880 fifty-pound bags of "Lot # 5" seed.
46. Various farmers and farms picked up and paid for quantities of the seed shipped to Cromer Brothers from Nodena via Sinkers.
47. Sinkers billed Nodena for the delinting of this seed on January 15, 1993.
48. After receiving a list of farmers and amounts from Nodena, Sinkers sent invoices to various farmers for their share of the delinting. These invoices were dated February 1, 1993.
49. Plaintiffs have failed to prove that, as of the date of its transfer of possession of the Nodena seed to Cromer Brothers on January 13, 1993, Sinkers had any knowledge of Nodena's intended sales of the seed to other farmers.
50. Sinkers was unaware of the details of Nodena's complex organizational structure, and so did not know the names of all the farmers and farming entities with a *1189 corporate or partnership interest in Nodena.
51. References in Sinkers' germination logs to Nodena cottonseed as "Lot 5" reflect Nodena's own designation of the seed in that manner to indicate Nodena's belief that the seed was DPL-50 variety, a belief not shared by Sinkers.
52. Defendant has had brokerage relationships with a Sid Stephens and a James Chiles under which Stephens and Chiles employed efforts to solicit delinting business for Sinkers and defendant paid them commissions on seed delinted at Sinkers.
53. As relevant to this action, defendant paid Sid Stephens $25 for every ton of cotton delinted by defendant, with the exception of one specified cotton variety. Stephens also sells chemicals and seed cleaning equipment, and has sold cottonseed doing business as Southeast Distributors. James Chiles, who operates a farm consulting firm in Mississippi, was paid $75 for every ton of cotton from Mississippi which was delinted by defendant.
54. Neither Stephens nor Chiles was proved to have acted as defendant's agent in brokering sales of cotton seeds between third parties.
55. Sinkers Invoice 1051, dated April 18, 1988, reflects that Sinkers, at the request of Sid Stephens, delinted 5.725 tons of "REGISTERED DES 119 cottonseed."
56. Sinkers' records reflect that Sinkers knew that Stephens had purchased this DES 119 cottonseed from Billups Plantation of Indianola, Mississippi, which was an increase grower of DES 119 for MAFES, the protected variety certificate holder.
57. After delinting, Sinkers transferred possession of the seed back to Sid Stephens.
58. Stephens then sold the seed to Holland Cotton Seed of Big Springs, Texas. It has not been proved that Sinkers had any knowledge of this intended sale at the time it transferred possession of the seed back to Sid Stephens.
59. Customers of Sinkers frequently describe seed by "Lot" number designations, many of which employ numbers familiar from the standard designations of protected D & PL varieties, such as "Lot 50," "Lot 51" and "Lot 5415," reminiscent of DPL-50, DPL-51 and DPL-5415. When instructed to do so by the customer, or as necessary to identify a customer's seed, defendant would employ Lot numbers of this type.
60. Neither Sinkers' germination records nor a customer's suggestive lot designation is sufficient to establish that particular seed was of a protected variety, or that Sinkers should have known the seed was of a protected variety. Prior to delinting, seed of one variety may be commingled with seed of other varieties at a number of points, including during picking, during storage, or during the ginning process, unless care is taken to employ a single-variety picker, separate storage and transportation, and a single-variety gin.
Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2541 as it read at the time of the alleged infringement, among the rights of the holder of a certificate of plant variety protection are the exclusive rights to:
(1) sell the novel variety, or offer it or expose it for sale, deliver it, ship it, consign it, exchange it, or solicit an offer to buy it, or any other transfer of title or possession of it; . . .
(6) dispense the novel variety to another, in a form which can be propagated, without notice as to being a protected variety under which it was received; or . . .
(8) instigate or actively induce performance of any of the foregoing acts.
Three potential species of infringement are at issue in this case. First, plaintiffs allege *1190 that defendant has infringed their rights under § 2541(1) by certain transfers of possession of protected varieties of cottonseed. Secondly, plaintiffs assert that defendant violated § 2541(6) by failing to mark bags of delinted seed to indicate that the seed was a protected variety. Finally, plaintiffs have contended that defendant instigated or actively induced violative transfers of protected seed, as prohibited by § 2541(8).
Transfer of Possession and Notice Infringement Legal Standards
Concerning the transfer of possession species of infringement prohibited in § 2541(1), the parties debate the interpretation and application of the "crop exemption" or "saved seed exemption" of § 2543 as a defense. In pertinent part, § 2543, as applicable to this case, provides:
Except to the extent that such action may constitute an infringement under subsections (3) and (4) of section 2541 of this title, it shall not infringe any right hereunder for a person to save seed produced by him from seed obtained, or descended from seed obtained, by authority of the owner of the variety for seeding purposes and use such saved seed in the production of a crop for use on his farm, or for sale as provided in this section: Provided, That without regard to the provisions of section 2541(3) of this title it shall not infringe any right hereunder for a person, whose primary farming occupation is the growing of crops for sale for other than reproductive purposes, to sell such saved seed to other persons so engaged, for reproductive purposes, provided such sale is in compliance with such State laws governing the sale of seed as may be applicable. A bona fide sale for other than reproductive purposes, made in channels usual for such other purposes, of seed produced on a farm either from seed obtained by authority of the owner for seeding purposes or from seed produced by descent on such farm from seed obtained by authority of the owner for seeding purposes shall not constitute an infringement. [Emphasis added.]
So-called "farmer-to-farmer" transfers of saved seed, authorized by the latter portion of highlighted text above, were allowed under the PVPA as applicable in this case, but are no longer so, the pertinent language having been deleted from the statute in 1994.[1]
Scant case law exists interpreting this provision, or the PVPA in general. The language of the saved seed exemption has also been found particularly difficult to construe and apply: "It may be well to acknowledge at the outset that it is quite impossible to make complete sense of the provision at issue here." Asgrow Seed Company v. Winterboer, 513 U.S. 179, 185-86, 115 S. Ct. 788, 130 L. Ed. 2d 682 (1995). In Delta and Pine Land Company v. Peoples Gin Company, 694 F.2d 1012, 1017 (5th Cir. 1983), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, holding that "The crop exemption only contemplates direct sales between farmers without the active participation of a third party." Whether or not a particular transaction is exempt depends upon the particular role of the third party, such as a cooperative gin, in the arrangement of that transaction:
A sale is exempt if the seller instructs his cooperative to forward his seed to a particular named buyer. In that situation, the cooperative has not arranged the sale. Nor has it played an active *1191 role in the transaction. It has merely served as the vehicle for transfer of possession. A very different situation would develop if the cooperative is permitted to seek out potential buyers or sellers, or even to make it known that it holds seed for purchase by unidentified buyers. In those situations, the cooperative has actually arranged the sale. Therefore, the transaction falls outside the coverage of § 2543.
Id. at 1016-17. The Fifth Circuit deemed a "narrower reading of the exemption" to be "more in keeping with Congress' primary objective," namely maximizing the protection of new varieties so as to stimulate private plant breeding and development. Id. at 1015-16.[2] The delinter through which the transfers had been effected did not benefit from the saved seed exemption because it violated another PVPA provision by dispensing the protected variety without notice that it was protected, in violation of § 2541(6). Id. at 1017.
In 1995 in Winterboer, 513 U.S. at 191, 115 S. Ct. 788, the Supreme Court considered the scope of the saved seed exemption and held that "the only seed that can be sold under the proviso is seed that has been saved by the farmer to replant his own acreage." The Supreme Court has therefore read an intent requirement to exist, such that the exemption applies only where the farmer initially saved the seed for the purpose of replanting it himself, and later changed his plans. Id. at 191, 192, 115 S. Ct. 788. As plaintiffs' point out, this clarifying determination of the Supreme Court was made in 1995, several years after the conduct at issue here.
On appeal in this case, the Federal Circuit interpreted the transfer of possession provision of § 2541(1) as follows:
[T]he correct reading of subsection (1) requires that a delinter, ginner, or other third-party transferor facilitating a farmer-to-farmer sale know . . . or should reasonably know that its unauthorized transfer of possession is an infringing transaction, i.e., that the sale is not exempt under section 2543. Liability for infringement under subsection (1) thus turns on knowledge. If Sinkers knew, or should have known, that the transfer of possession was not within the farmer-to-farmer exemption, then it can be held liable for infringing subsection (1), but only then.
Delta and Pine, 177 F.3d at 1352.[3]
The second asserted type of infringement at issue is the dispensing of a *1192 protected variety of seed without a notice of its protected status, in violation of § 2541(6). The Federal Circuit interprets this provision to require notice of protected variety status where the dispensing party knows or should know, by any means, that the seed is a protected variety. Delta and Pine, 177 F.3d at 1355.
Proof of Protected Variety
Applying the Federal Circuit's standards, defendant can be liable for either of these types of infringement only if it knew, or should have known, that a particular batch of seed it received for delinting was of a protected variety. The Court has already found as to the seed received by defendant from Burgreen & Black Gin & Fertilizer and transferred after processing to Glenn Black and Jimmy Pylate that plaintiffs have not proved that the seed was of a protected variety. Memorandum Opinion of 3/5/98 [#49], p. 21. That finding stands, as nothing in the Federal Circuit's opinion affects it.
The Court's prior opinion made no express finding as to whether the several batches of Nodena seed addressed in the evidence were in fact of protected varieties. The Court suggested, however, that neither defendant's germination records nor a customer's inexplicit designation were sufficient to establish such a fact:
As finder of fact, the Court is not persuaded that defendant's germination records demonstrate the variety of particular seed. The records cannot be clearly matched with particular transactions by date and quantity, and sometimes fail to indicate a variety. Furthermore, the variety indication in such records would not be conclusively accurate, for the most part merely reflecting the "Lot number" designation given by the customer. This is in marked contrast to the plant biologist's determination of variety in the [Asgrow Seed Company v.] Winterboer [, 513 U.S. 179, 115 S. Ct. 788, 130 L. Ed. 2d 682 (1995)] case.
Memorandum Opinion of 3/5/98 [# 49], pp. 21-22. The factual determination whether defendant knew or should have known that particular seed was of a protected variety turns in this case on the information Sinkers received from the customer, and whether, for example, where a customer designated seed "Lot 5," Sinkers knew or should have known that the seed was DPL-50.
It is undisputed that the record contains no evidence of genetic testing to conclusively determine the variety of any cottonseed delinted by defendant. It is also undisputed that Sinkers' only source of knowledge concerning the variety of seed brought for delinting is what the customer tells the delinter. Richard Edgington is a co-owner and president of defendant Sinkers Corporation. He testified that the lot number reflected in any of defendant's records was merely a reiteration of the customer's designation concerning a particular batch of seed, and denied knowing that it signified that seed was of the Deltapine variety of the same number. When pressed, Edgington acknowledged that the correlation of lot numbers to Deltapine varieties was more than coincidental, but suggested that, whether veiled or explicit, a customer's indication of variety is no more than what the customer "thinks" he has sent to be delinted, rather than a positive determination of what the seed actually is. Edgington further acknowledged that farmers generally want to *1193 know what variety of seed they are planting, unless they are satisfied with mixed seed. Edgington's testimony contained competing suggestions about the reason for Sinkers' apparent change from express variety references in the late 1980's to the use in the early 1990's of lot number designations. At points, Edgington maintained that the change merely reflected a change in customers' instructions and usage, but elsewhere Edgington suggested the change might have been initiated by Sinkers upon advice of counsel.
Whatever a customer's motivation may have been for thinly disguising what he believed the variety of his seed to be, Edgington persuasively explained his own belief that seed received for delinting was no longer "pure seed" of any particular variety, after having likely been commingled with other seed or degraded in some manner in the preceding process of ginning:
I know that it's not pure seed. As you know, your dad ran a gin, many things can happen there. But anyway, that's what they wanted, what they told us it was. I said, what do you want on the bag? How do you want it designated? They'd probably say lot 50, lot 20, lot 5, lot whatever. That's what we put on the bag. I told Mrs. Pelts at that time, just put the lot number they request on the bag, don't put down on the invoice what they told you the seed was. We know it can't be pure seed. That's what they believe it to be....
Trial Transcript [Doc. # 55], Vol II, p. 27, l. 16-25. The testimony of D & PL's own divisional president William Arnold supports Edgington's thinking:
So a farmer who gets brown bagged seed that's identified as one of our varieties may encounter problems with that variety. The germination may not be up to standards; the purity may not be up to standards. There could be a number of things that happen to that variety while it's being handled or stored that would tend to degrade either the genetic purity or the physical quality of the seed.
Id. at Vol. I, p. 52, l. 11-18. Plaintiffs have subsequently attempted to clarify or correct Arnold's statement here concerning "genetic purity" to refer to commingling of seed with other varieties, which is also the Court's interpretation of Mr. Edgington's reference to seed no longer being "pure." Pltf. Responses to Def. Supp. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [Doc. # 68], p. 6.
As a practical matter, Sinkers' interest in the customer designations appears to have been for purposes of labeling bags of delinted seed. The information at issue was only imparted to Sinkers by the customer, if at all, for that purpose. Edgington's reticence to label as Deltapine 50 seed which he believed was no longer purely or reliably Deltapine 50 is reasonable and prudent, and may represent a good faith endeavor to avoid violating the law by false or erroneous labeling. That legal issue is not before the Court, although it appears that the parties have contrary positions on it. The Court mentions it only to explain that the reasonable rationale explained in Edgington's testimony lends weight to the credibility of his testimony that he did not believe customer's statements about variety could be taken to be accurate. These conclusions are not at odds with the notion that delinting customers are interested in some indication of the variety of seed for planting purposes, even if they too understand that "brown-bag" seed is likely to be of commingled varieties.
The Federal Circuit's opinion several times repeats this Court's intentionally carefully-worded finding that references in Sinker's germination logs to "Lot 5" seed *1194 reflected customer Nodena's practice of designating seed in that manner to indicate that the seed was DPL-50 seed. The Federal Circuit further suggests that the notice element they read into the statute is satisfied if Sinkers knew the term was Nodena's way of designating the seed as DPL-50. For the reasons previously stated, consideration of the entire factual record suggests instead that plaintiffs fail to show that, without more, defendant's customer's conclusory suggestions concerning variety are sufficient to support a finding that defendant "should have known" that the customer's seed was in fact a protected variety. By contrast, if a delinter is shown to have actually had additional information concerning the origins and handling of the seed prior to its arrival for delintingsuch as that it was picked by a one-variety picker, carefully stored separately from other seed, and ginned at a single-variety ginsuch evidence might support a finding that the delinter knew or should have known the seed was of a protected variety. No such evidence is presented here, however, where plaintiffs contend that the customer's generic but suggestive designation is enough.
In addition to the scienter element of § 2541(1) or (6) infringement as construed by the Federal Circuit, it should not be forgotten that a distinct and clearly threshold element of plaintiffs' proof is that particular seed was in fact of a protected variety belonging to plaintiffs. In other words, plaintiffs cannot recover for infringement concerning seed that was not of their protected variety. For the same reasons as the Court is not persuaded defendant should have known the seed in most of the challenged transfers was protected, the Court also concludes that plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding that the seed was a protected variety. Plaintiffs' own representative admitted not knowing whether the seed involved in any particular challenged transfer was in fact plaintiffs' seed or was commingled seed. Trial Transcript [Doc. # 55], Vol. I, p. 151, 1.25 P. 153, 1.12.[4] Plaintiffs' failure to carry their burden of proof as to protected variety and as to defendant's knowledge of protected variety defeats plaintiffs' claims of infringement by transfer of possession [§ 2541(1)] and by failure to label [§ 2541(6)] as to all but one seed transaction.
Sid Stephens and the DES 119 Seed
In one instance, the evidence proved and defendant in fact did not dispute that protected seed was involved. In April 1988, defendant delinted 5.725 tons of DES 119 cottonseed. Plaintiff MAFES holds the certificate of plant variety protection for DES 119, and has granted plaintiff D & PL an exclusive license for its sale and distribution. The Court concludes that plaintiffs have failed to prove that defendant knew or should have known its transfer of possession of this seed violated any rights under the PVPA. The evidence indicates that Sinkers took possession of the seed from Sid Stephens and returned possession of the seed to Sid Stephens.[5]*1195 There exist documents which support a finding that Sinkers knew that Billups Farms of Indianola, Mississippi was the producer of the seed and that Sid Stephens' company, Southeast Distributors, had purchased the seed from Billups Farm. Edgington testified as to his apparently accurate belief that Billups Farms was an increase grower of DES-119 seed for Mississippi State, the certificate holder, and further as to his belief, based on that understanding, that the registered seed tags and Mississippi Seed Improvement Association Shipping and Receiving Report which accompanied the seed evidenced that the sale by Billups to Stephens was proper. The evidence does not show that Sinkers had any knowledge of Stephens' intentions for the seed's further sale to Holland Cotton Seed.
Because Sinkers' transfer of possession of the seed was back to Stephens, and not to Holland Cotton, the analysis required by the Federal Circuit's opinion appears to be of whether Sinkers knew or should have known that Stephens' acquisition or possession of the seed violated the PVPA.[6] Plaintiffs' uncontradicted evidence that MAFES has granted D & PL an exclusive license to market DES 119 suggests the conclusion that Billups' sale of the registered seed to Stephens violated plaintiffs' PVPA rights. Knowledge sufficient to support that conclusion cannot, however, be imputed to Sinkers on the evidence of record. The evidence demonstrates that Sinkers knew of Billups' relationship with MAFES, and based on that knowledge believed that Billups' sale of the seed was authorized by MAFES. It has not been shown that Sinkers knew or should have known that Billups' relationship with MAFES did not permit the sale to Stephens. On this rationale, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have not met their burden of proof to establish a violation by Sinkers with respect to the April 1988 transfer of possession of DES 119 cottonseed back to Sid Stephens.
As for any § 2541(6) infringement for dispensing this seed without notice as to being a protected variety, the Court previously found and here reiterates that "[t]he evidence . . . does not establish the nature or contents of any labels on the seed before or after processing by defendant." Memorandum Opinion of 3/5/98 [# 49], p. 23 (emphasis added). If anything, the evidence suggests that the seed was dispensed bearing the purple "Registered Seed" tags some of which are in evidence in the case, and those tags contain the variety designation DES 119. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to prove that the required notice was not on the seed when it was "dispensed" by Sinkers, and no liability is established.
Nodena Planting Company Seed: Alternative Bases for Determination in Defendant's Favor
Any liability concerning the seed Nodena Planting Company sold to various farmers is precluded by the Court's determination that plaintiffs have failed to prove that the seed was of their protected varieties or that Sinkers knew or should have known the seed was of plaintiffs' protected varieties. In addition, any liability based on the Nodena seed delinted by Sinkers in 1990, 1991 and 1992 is precluded by lack of proof concerning the party to whom defendant transferred possession of such seed and/or plaintiffs' failure to show that Sinkers knew or should have known that a transfer by Nodena to the party to whom Sinkers transferred possession of the seed was in violation of the PVPA. Sinkers cannot be held liable merely because plaintiffs establish *1196 that Nodena made numerous sales of saved seed which violated the PVPA. The potentially PVPA-violating conduct on Sinkers' part is the transfer of possession. In order to recover, plaintiffs must establish to whom Sinkers transferred possession of particular seed, and also that Sinkers knew or should have known that that party's receipt or possession of the seed violated the PVPA. If Sinkers transferred possession of protected seed back to the farmer who produced it, with no reason to believe the farmer could not have lawfully saved the seed under the PVPA, Sinkers cannot be held liable for a PVPA violation merely for billing another farmer for the delinting, even if Sinkers should have known that a sale by the first farmer to the second would violate the PVPA. In such a scenario, Sinkers is not involved in the violative transfer of possession.
Based on more specific proof than that adduced for earlier years, plaintiffs seek damages based on 122.15 tons of Nodena seed delinted at Sinkers in 1993, which Nodena later sold to a number of other farmers. After delinting, this seed was taken to storage at a facility called Cromer Brothers. The farmers purchasing the seed from Nodena received possession of it from Cromer Brothers, not from Sinkers; Sinkers transferred possession of the seed to Cromer Brothers, not to the purchasing farmers.[7] Furthermore, Sinkers' original January 15, 1993 invoice billed Nodena for all the delinting of this seed. Later, based on information provided by Nodena, Sinkers billed the purchasing farmers for a proportionate share of the delinting costs. Defendant's representative testified that he was unfamiliar with the details of Nodena's complex structure and that he believed that these farmers were various Nodena farmers who had produced the seed. In any event, the dates of the original January 15, 1993 invoice and the February 1, 1993 substitute invoices suggest that as of Sinkers' transfer of possession of the seed to storage at Cromer Brothers on January 13, 1993, Sinkers was unaware of any intended sale of the seed by Nodena.
That being the case, the Court analyzes Sinkers' knowledge concerning whether Nodena's own retention of the seed was permissible under the PVPA.[8] This determination depends on what Sinkers knew about Nodena's acreage. Defendant's president, Mr. Edgington, was asked what Nodena Planting Company is, and his response referred to its control of a large acreage in the neighborhood of 5,000 acres as "testified to." The record does not establish anything about Sinkers' knowledge at any time prior to the litigation of Nodena's acreage from year to year. Even assuming that Sinkers believed, at the relevant time period, that Nodena planted up to 5,000 acres of cotton, it cannot be said that Sinkers knew or should have known that Nodena could not permissibly save 122.15 tons of cottonseed from 1992 to 1993, when all the possible variables are taken into account.
As previously explained, the saved seed exemption permits a farmer to save seed to replant his own acreage. D & PL's representative testified that planting rates in the mid-South range from 10 to 17 pounds an acre, and that at 15 pounds per acre, this amount of seed would plant 15,000 to 16,000 acres. Sinkers' representative testified that planting rates vary from 12 to 20 pounds per acre. Using the high *1197 end of that range, the Nodena seed could plant up to 12,215 acres.[9] Under either computation, saving that much seed is not out of the question if, as there was unrebutted testimony to, (1) a farmer may reasonably contemplate having to replant several times after his initial planting, if weather or other conditions injure the crop, and (2) saved seed can be used in subsequent planting seasons as well. The Court's conclusion is further bolstered if Sinkers cannot be held responsible for applying Winterboer principles to the issue several years before the Supreme Court's decision in that case. For all the foregoing reasons, then, no liability is proved to attach based on the 122.15 tons of seed delinted by Nodena in 1993, or the various amounts of seed delinted by Nodena in 1990, 1991 and 1992.
Active Inducement Infringement
Concerning the active inducement variety of infringement, the Federal Circuit has affirmed this Court's previous determination that plaintiffs failed to prove that defendant brokered or actively arranged any sales that led to the transfers of possession which plaintiffs challenge. On that issue, then, defendant is entitled to judgment on the same basis as before.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that defendant is entitled to judgment on all claims tried in this case. The Court is not unmindful of or unsympathetic to the interests of plant variety protection certificate holders such as plaintiffs, and the losses they may suffer from widespread transfers of protected varieties of seed in violation of the PVPA. In this case, however, as a result of a broadbrush approach, plaintiffs have at times failed to prove facts which they think they have proved, and have at times failed to prove facts the necessity of which they overlook. Although it appears that PVPA violations may be more readily proved against a number of farmers and other cotton industry actors directly responsible for infringing conduct, plaintiffs seek liability against the delinter as a more convenient single target, and notably one who is not itself a seed-purchasing potential customer. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with this self-interested strategy, it carries difficulties in both law and fact which defeat plaintiffs' claims here.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court's memorandum opinion and judgment of March 5, 1998 are vacated and replaced by this memorandum opinion and order and the judgment separately entered herein this day.
[1] The amendments apply only to certificates of plant variety protection issued after April 4, 1995, that were not pending on or before that date. Pub.L. 103-349, §§ 14(a), 15; 108 Stat. 3144, 3145.
[2] See also Delta and Pine Land Company v. Peoples Gin Company, 546 F. Supp. 939, 943 (N.D.Miss.1982):
Absent active participation by a third party, a farmer's awareness of prospective farmer sellers and purchasers is necessarily limited by his own initiative and personal efforts, which serve to reduce the volume of sales that might qualify for exemption. Where a third party, such as a cooperative association, acts as agent, or broker, by bringing farmer buyers and sellers together, however, the volume of such sales is apt to increase according to the aggressiveness and size of the cooperative, often with no limitation on its growth. To accord exempt status to extensive sales made on behalf of farmers by such entities would frustrate the basic purpose of providing protection to the breeder.
[3] This Court had rejected a scienter standard for liability, reasoning that such a construction:
would impose on third-party gins and delinters the role of Plant Variety Protection police, requiring them to attempt to determine whether any transfer of seed effected in connection with the delinting process was exempt under the statute, as it then existed, including whether the parties to the transaction were primarily engaged in the growing of crops for sale for other than reproductive purposes, whether the transaction was in any way brokered or arranged by a third-party, and whether the transferor initially saved the seed with the purpose of replanting it himself.
Memorandum Opinion of 3/5/98 [# 49], pp. 20-21. Circuit Judge Clevenger in dissent agreed: "Under the rule devised by the majority in this case, ginners and delinters will become paper-keeping traffic cops." Delta and Pine, 177 F.3d at 1358.
[4] Plaintiffs have offered evidence of estimates of the percentage of Deltapine seed planted by a particular Sinkers' customer or in a particular geographic area. The Court is far from persuaded that such evidence is sufficient to support a finding that particular seed arriving at Sinkers was of a particular variety. Even if it were sufficient, however, the evidence does not establish that Sinkers had knowledge of such percentage estimates.
[5] The parties both appear to have assumed that Sinkers transferred possession to Holland Cotton Seed in Texas, to whom Stephens ultimately sold the seed, but the evidence showed instead that Stephens picked up the seed after delinting. This is one of several instances in which plaintiffs have been less than careful about their proof and legal analysis concerning their transfer of possession claims.
[6] See Delta and Pine, 177 F.3d at 1353. Plaintiffs' focus on the sale to Holland Cotton Seed (see n. 4 supra) has diverted the focus of their analysis.
[7] Plaintiffs again overlook the facts and analytical significance of this particular transfer of possession.
[8] The Federal Circuit's preliminary consideration of the analysis concerning this 1993 Nodena seed also focused on this question, rather than on Sinkers' knowledge about the fact of, or permissibility of, any transfers of the seed from Nodena to other farmers. Delta and Pine, 177 F.3d at 1352-53.
[9] Without explanation, the Federal Circuit states that this seed is enough to plant "close to 25,000 acres." Delta and Pine, 177 F.3d at 1352, n. 7. This computation is not supported by the planting rates testified to by the parties here.


We are no stranger to 1960's fashion (check out our previous blog post). We love the bright patterns, interesting silhouettes that this era brought to the fashion industry. Today, we are diving deeper into the history of the man who created the distinctive psychedelic patterns which proliferated during the mid-Sixties as well as his version of "leggings." Emilio Pucci printed leggings are sensual, effortlessly elegant, and made to liberate a woman's movement in every situation.
Emilio Pucci was born in Naples, Italy on November 20th, 1914 to an illustrious Italian family. He graduated from the Università di Firenze in 1941 with a doctorate in political science, after having attended the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia, and Reed College in Portland, Oregon (He was a Portlandian back in the day). Pucci began designing his own prints during the '50s inspired by Sicilian mosaics, heraldic banners, Bali batiks, and African motifs. Because of his bold patterns and designed ultimately gave him the name "Prince of Prints." Pucci's use of bright colors, geometric patterns, and joyful combinations became the hallmark of Pucci design. We are always inspired by his creations when creating prints for our clients.
During the 1960's he created the fuseaux, a form of stretchy pants made from silk with footers. The fuseaux is his interpretation of the thing that we now call Leggings. They became quite popular for skiing, dance, and gymnastics. Emilio Pucci would style them with miniskirts, platform heels, or shift dresses. The evolution of fuseaux continued with the development of stretchy fabrics which then led to Patricia Field to invent the modern leggings in the 1970's.
Emilio Pucci was a major influence on luxury sportswear fashion and his legacy continues today with the help of his predecessors. Today, they have taken inspiration from his fuseaux and translated it to modern leggings. We are totally obsessed with these printed leggings.
We hope you enjoyed our post about Emilio Pucci printed leggings. If you're inspired to create your own prints and leggings collection, get started today.


text:
José Alves Ferreira de Melo (Vila Nova de Lima, 15 de agosto de 1866— ?, ? de ?) foi um político brasileiro.

História
Procedente do clã político dos Vaz de Melo, mudou-se, ainda em criança, com seus pais, para a cidade de Pará de Minas, mas sua carreira não se ateve a essa cidade, projetando-se como outros de seus ancestrais a esferas estaduais e nacionais.

Primeiro como promotor de justiça, depois como juiz municipal e enfim como advogado, teve tal atuação no meio mineiro, que lhe valeu a sua inclusão no restrito primeiro plano do ambiente jurídico, ao lado de outros como Francisco Mendes Pimentel, Carlos Peixoto, Edmundo Lins e Carvalho Mourão, que estiveram entre seus primeiros colegas na turma de diplomados de 1889 pela Escola de Direito do Largo da Sé, em São Paulo.

Filiou-se ao Partido Republicano Mineiro, e candidatou-se e foi eleito deputado estadual. Mudou-se para a capital, então, Belo Horizonte. Integrou o Tribunal Especial, cuja função era julgar senadores, deputados, desembargadores e outras autoridades.

A partir de 1915, integrou a Câmara Federal, sendo eleito por mandatos sucessivos, até 1922. Manteve estreita amizade com Ruy Barbosa, e ainda mais estreita com Artur Bernardes, que era casado com sua sobrinha.

Desenvolvimentista
Foi devido a seu empenho enquanto deputado estadual, que a Estrada de Ferro Oeste de Minas construiu sua ligação rumo a Divinópolis, e a variante rumo a Pará de Minas, trazendo desenvolvimento para essas cidades.

Também foi um dos maiores incentivadores da fixação da indústria têxtil em Minas Gerais, ao lado do coronel Américo Teixeira Guimarães, atuando tanto como acionista fundador de várias indústrias têxteis, como também como advogado desses empreendimentos.

Acervos museográficos
Acervo do Projeto Sangue e Terra, SAM - Salas de Acervos Materiais, Departamento de Pesquisa, da Clio Museu de Cultura Material: bibliografias, documentos, e imagens, citada à cidade de Nova Lima, MG. Clio Museu de Cultura Material. Consulta in loco.

Hemerografia
Há cem anos nascia uma grande figura de Minas: José Alves Ferreira de Melo. Belo Horizonte: Jornal Estado de Minas, 14 de agosto de 1966, 2ª ed., p. 8, ano XXXIX, Nº 11.094.

Outros artigos
 PINTO, João Lúcio Martins. Deputado José Alves: Breves Considerações Históricas.in 23/04/201.

Juristas de Minas Gerais
Juízes de Minas Gerais
Promotores de justiça do Brasil
Deputados estaduais de Minas Gerais
Deputados federais do Brasil por Minas Gerais
Naturais de Nova Lima
Advogados de Minas Gerais

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


We need YOU to help implement the new ESSA!
Below is a list of state advocacy contacts. If a state has a designated contact, you will find their information. If you do not see a contact for your state, please visit the NAfME Federated Associations page to access contact information for your state's other leadership.
Please contact our advocacy team at advocacy@nafme.org for further assistance.
Thanks for being part of our grassroots effort to implement ESSA and make a new day for music education!


text:
Churches and religious buildings
Chiesa del Voto
Theme ART AND CULTURE
The church was erected to fulfil a vow made by the people of Modena to the Madonna della Ghiara to end the terrible plague of 1630.
Designed by Cristoforo Malagola, the Chiesa del Voto was built to give thanks to the Madonna for the end of the devastating Plague of 1630. The decision to construct a votive church was made by the City and the Duke Francesco I d'Este, whose court had been forced to take refuge away from town during the epidemic. Within, paintings by Ludovico Lana depict plague scenes. It is not open to the public only for special events.
Work began in 1634 and concluded around 1640 under the direction of the architect Cristoforo Malagola, known as il Galaverna, who took the Bolognese church of San Salvatore as his model. The dome recalls that of the Basilica of the Madonna Della Ghiara in Reggio Emilia, in which the miraculous image of the Virgin is venerated. The paintings on display here include the Pala Della Peste by Ludovico Lana, which narrates the events that led to the construction of the church. The canvas depicts the Madonna Della Ghiara di Reggio, with Saints Geminianus and Omobono, the two protectors of Modena, on her right. On her left are Saints Roch and Sebastian, figures associated with suffering and illness.
Of major interest are the two paintings by Francesco Stringa, depicting the Assumption of the Virgin and the Death of Saint Joseph.
The church opens on Saturday and Sunday 3.00 pm - 6.00 pm.
To know before you go
For the physically disabled: Main entrance, 5 steps of 17cm in height.
Entrance on P.zza Matteotti, one single very high step.
Via Emilia Centro, 41100, Modena, Modena

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


6 Austrian students of Gerber-Reinelt from the University of Vienna and one Spanish student from University of Madrid attended a scientific and practical educational program at the Canadian Austrian Clinic for Health Care and Education in Nobel, Ontario, Canada from July 15 to August 6.
The program included seminars about the history, geography and geology of the area. The seminars were supplemented with observations of native animals, birds, reptiles, vegetation and weather systems. Tours of the area in Killbear Provincial Park, wilderness canoeing and kayaking were conducted by Ms. Kim Potter and Mr. Dave Turner qualified outdoor instructors. Multinational social life was experienced through visits to local families, for dining, happy hours and musical events. Trips to different towns and markets to purchase local produce were taken.
Various venues, cultural centers and museums were visited such as the Canadian National Institute for the Blind Camp -CNIB- , Camp Tapawingo for girls in Parry Sound, a First Nations POW WOW in Parry Sound. The Canadore College in Parry Sound was visited where Peter Istvan and Jocelyn Shipman gave a tour and talked about their activities and seminars.
A visit to Queen's University in Kingston was organized by Sheila Tierney, where Dean Ann Tierney escorted the students around the campus and invited them to lunch in the faculty lounge. Presently a grad student exchange program exists between Queens' and the University of Vienna and now plans are underway for a possible exchange program for undergraduate students.
Scientific seminars were conducted by Prof. Gisela Gerber and Mag. Regina Studener. Another seminar was held by Senior Manager of the institution "Hands/Mains" Michelle Dermenjian about the family help network for Parry Sound and areas where help is offered to families, children, juveniles and adults wherever assistance is needed.
Copyright © 2019 - Canadian Austrian Clinic for Health Care and Education Inc., all rights reserved.


text:
Q: Quiescent current vs GND pin current for Linear Regulator IC power dissipation I want to confirm that, for a linear regulator IC, quiescent current multiplied by the input voltage accounts for the IC power dissipation(including drop-out voltage loss).
I ask because the datasheets for some of the linear regulators say that this loss is calculated by the GND pin current multiplied by the input voltage. This is found in the thermal considerations section.
While I initial thought of them as the same thing, the datasheets have different values and curves for each.
I'm doing a stress analysis on the linear regulator and want the total power loss of the IC, so which current is definitively used for the IC device dissipation; quiescent current or GND pin current?
Note: I've already calculated the power dissipation from the drop out voltage. I just want the device dissipation.
Some datasheets I was referring to:
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/3012fd.pdf
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/1761sff.pdf

A: Quiescent current is usually the current measured through the Vin pin. Sometimes it is given for both shutdown and normal operation so look for the testing conditions in the datasheet. Quiescent current, when specified for normal operation is usually the number used to find IC power/loss, and usually measured under no load (check the conditions in the datasheet for which it was measured.)
However (you already know this but I'll include it for other readers), Quiescent current will not give you the total loss of the voltage regulator, this is found by taking the $$(Vin-Vreg)*(Total \ current) = Ploss$$The total current includes the load and the quiescent current, the quiescent current is usually much lower than the load current (but it depends on your load).
Max device dissipation includes the power dissipated from the quiescent current, and the loss from the voltage drop. Usually quiescent current on modern regulators is so low (in the uA's) it doesn't contribute a lot of power loss to the total calculation.
Ground pin current is usually the current measured through the ground pin when the chip is in normal operation. I would use the quiescent current to find the IC loss.
The easiest way would be to simulate it in a spice package under all loads. In Ltspice you can do this by alt clicking a component (like a voltage regulator).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
What to Expect From 'Stranger Things' Season Four
We Made the Perfect Bag for Every Summer Getaway
Very Bright Shorts Will Transform Your Summer Outf
Jack Reynor Will Do Anything For a Good Story
Trump's Latest Wildfire Rant Is Mind-Numbing
Watching Scotty Blow, Cont'd: All Switch, No Bait
Scott Walker is not very bright and seems to lack courage of any kind, as evidenced by often doing exactly what he says he won't do in Wisconsin. Still, is there time for him to turn his presidential campaign around?
By Charles P. Pierce
Jim Cole
There is still plenty of time to turn around the campaign of Scott Walker, the goggle-eyed homunculus hired by Koch Industries to run their Midwest subsidiary formerly known as the state of Wisconsin, but the effort is going to be futile unless the candidate shows a lot more than he has been showing on the stump and in the polls. The latest shot below the campaign's waterline came from the gnomes at alma mammy's law school, whose data showed that, at the moment, Walker is less popular at home than several kinds of common household bacteria.
According to the latest Marquette University Law School poll, 39 percent of Wisconsinites approve of Walker's performance as governor, down from 41 percent in April. Fifty-seven percent of voters disapprove, up slightly from 56 percent in April. Meanwhile, Walker is more than 1,000 miles away, campaigning for president in New Hampshire. Thursday's Marquette poll, conducted Aug. 13-16, is the first survey of Wisconsin voters since Walker officially announced his candidacy for president. Poll director Charles Franklin noted that Walker's approval ratings have steadily hovered around 50 percent until these two most recent polls. Walker's momentum has also been slipping in national polls, dropping from double digits to single digits in several recent surveys.
Those are some ugly numbers. I admit that I thought Walker, or the people running him, would be deft enough to capitalize on the actual victories he'd won over nearly all the conservative bogeypeople. What I did not anticipate was: a) the rise of the shiny object that is The Man Called Trump, and b) that the candidate himself would turn out to be such an unimpressive lump of cheese. He was virtually absent in the main event in Cleveland. He rolled out a health-care "alternative" this week that was nothing more than a ragbag of old Republican solutions with the popular parts of the Affordable Care Act tossed in. (Walker has been given an inordinate amount of credit for the simple act of having a plan. Such are the participation trophies handed out by his party.) He belatedly decided to show how tough he was, reminding people that hauling singing grandmothers away in handcuffs is not a job for the faint of heart.
But, as I thought more about how his campaign had found itself up to its wheel wells in mud, I realized that, with all the light that is on a candidate in a national election, Walker's was deprived of the one political tactic that has served him so well in Wisconsin. He often puffs himself up and says that he does what he says he's going to do. This is not precisely true. Walker's most successful political maneuver back home has to do with the fact that he often does what he says he won't do, even though every thinking person in the state knows that he has every intention of doing so.
For example, in his first campaign for governor, Walker never mentioned publicly the assault he eventually would conduct upon the collective-bargaining rights of state employees. (Alas, he got caught on tape giving one of his local sugar mamas the real skinny about his plan to "divide and conquer.") In his last campaign, he really shot the moon. On abortion, he said he was personally opposed to it, but that he realized the choice was an "agonizing" one. He repeatedly refused to answer whether or not he'd sign a bill that forbade abortions after 20 weeks. On March 15, he signed the bill. Shortly after he was re-elected, Walker dismissed questions about whether or not he would sign a bill making Wisconsin a right-to-work state. He called the question a "distraction" from his job putting together yet another cotton-candy-and-air state budget. On March 9, he signed the bill. If you think that proves that Scott Walker lacks the courage of his political convictions, you're wrong. It proves he lacks courage of virtually any kind.
He can't pull this riff in a national campaign, especially one in which, at the moment, he's competing with the most lethal blunt instrument in the recent history of American politics, and especially one in which talking openly and honestly about your most lunatic proposals is taken as a sign of your fitness for office. He does brag on the stump about the results of his having pulled the wool over the eyes of enough voters, but that's not the same thing. Scott Walker is not bright, but he knows how to do a few tricks very well, one of which is keeping his most radical cards closest to his vest. When none of those tricks work, all he becomes is not very bright.
Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, mostly recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.
More From Politics With Charles P. Pierce
Democrats Aren't Scared Anymore
The Voter Suppression Trinity Is Having a Bad Week
Congratulations, George Wallace
Another Irishman Betrays His Ancestors—and Mine
John Paul Stevens Saw What Was Coming
The Officer's 'Misperception' of Eric Garner
All the Best People Are Getting Shipped Away
The Right's Push to Salt the Judiciary Is Going
Trump Argues He's the Victim of His Own Bigotry
Trump Turned Democrats' Bad Blood Into Lemonade
Scott Walker And Education Don't Mix
Watching Scotty Blow, Continued
Scott Walker Wants to Kill All the Watchdogs
The Assassination of Wisconsin Democracy by Scott Walker


Pope appoints Salvatore J. Cordileone 9th Archbishop of San Francisco.
MASSES FOR THE WEEKEND OF JUNE 23 and 24 HAVE BEEN CHANGED. MASSES WILL BE ON SATURDAY AT 5PM and SUNDAY AT 7:30am and 11:00 (Bi-Lingual). THE 11:00AM MASS WILL BE FR. McCAIN'S FAREWELL MASS.
View a video about were we've been and were we are going.


text:
Queen Of Liberty™
An Originalists view of The World We Live In Today
Article V Convention Of States
You are here: Home / News / Extreme Pro-Abortion Senate Bill Would Eviscerate Almost Every Pro-Life Law in America
Extreme Pro-Abortion Senate Bill Would Eviscerate Almost Every Pro-Life Law in America
By queenofliberty · 5 Comments
By Matthew Clark – Via Life News
Over the past few years, numerous states have followed the will of the people to increase protections for women and unborn children by enacting reasonable, commonsense restrictions on abortion.
These pro-life laws are aimed at limiting unregulated and dangerous abortions and ensuring that unborn children are given even a fighting chance at life. They are focused on cutting through the cloud of distortion perpetuated by the Culture of Death.
Pro-abortion radicals on the other hand have been trying to challenge these laws in the courts and the court of public opinion to no avail. Now they are attempting to eviscerate these pro-life laws with one piece of federal pro-abortion legislation, S.B. 1696.
The stated purposed of this extremist pro-abortion legislation is to "put an end to these restrictions." It specifically states that it would apply to all laws or regulations enacted before or after this bill passed at any level of government. In other words, it would put an end to pro-life laws at both the federal and state levels.
Proponents of this legislation testified today before the Senate Judiciary Committee that this bill would strike down over 200 pro-life laws. 200 pro-life laws is a conservative estimate. When looking at the specific provisions of this law it could nearly eviscerate all pro-life laws around the country – laws that are saving the lives of mothers and babies alike.
If passed, this new measure would give legal cover to deadly abortionists like Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell was convicted of monstrously murdering babies born alive after botched abortions and contributing to the death of women through his unsanitary and dangerous moneymaking abortion "practice".
Under the deceptive cloak of "Women's Health Protection," this legislation would do anything but. As my ACLJ colleague David French so aptly noted, this legislation should be more appropriately named "The Kermit Gosnell Enabling Act of 2014."
Each provision of this proposed legislation is an abortion lobbyist's dream and opens up a Pandora's Box of deadly pro-abortion public policy, giving abortionists an endless ability to challenge any restriction on their cash-cow industry. Make no mistake. This bill has little to do with women and everything to do with protecting abortionists and the abortion industry while undercutting nearly every pro-life gain made across the nation in recent years.
This bill is chock-full of pro-abortion code words and euphemisms to hide its true intent but has enough legal teeth to do real damage in court. It deserves to be unpacked line by line in plain English.
It literally lists a plethora of pro-life laws (both federal and state) that would be categorically deemed "unlawful" if this legislation passed.
First, the bill lists a number of specific types of laws that would be banned: 1) laws that require abortionists to follow "specific medical procedures"; 2) any "limitation" on an abortionist "delegat[ing] tasks" to non-medical personnel; 3) any "limitation" on abortionists proscribing dangerous drugs to be administered without supervision; 4) any "limitation" on an abortionist's ability to "provide abortion services via telemedicine"; 5) any regulation of an abortionist's office, equipment, or staff, and any requirement that an abortionist have hospital admitting privileges at a nearby hospital should something go wrong while committing an abortion; 6) any laws that require ultrasounds or other medically informative tests before an abortion, or any law that requires a waiting period between visits to obtain an abortion; OR 7) essentially any regulation of the "training" required for committing an abortion.
Banning any regulation of abortion by "telemedicine," literally phoning it in, is supposed to protect women's health? That's asinine.
Yet this laundry list of specific laws is not the heart of the bill. The bill's nuclear provision would eviscerate nearly every remaining pro-life law regarding abortion on the books at the federal, state, or local level.
The law would make essentially any restriction on abortion illegal if it "singles out abortion services" or makes "abortion services more difficult to access." In other words, if a law lists abortion among things to be regulated or even if it doesn't mention it but the language of the law could somehow be construed to limit abortion, that law would be stricken from the books.
As if that wasn't broad enough, the law goes on to provide an unbelievably expansive definition of what it means to make abortion "more difficult to access." Any regulation of abortion would be considered making it "more difficult to access," and thus an unlawful restriction, if it: A) "interferes" with how the individual abortionist feels is best to commit the abortion (not generally accepted medical practice, but that abortionist's own subjective opinion); B) causes any "delay" in obtaining the abortion (not excessive delay, any delay); C) could potentially "increase" the cost of abortion or require "travel, childcare, or time off work"; D) might require extra office visits; E) could lead to the closing of any abortion clinics in the State; F) imposes abortion related criminal or civil penalties (i.e. any laws aimed at making what Gosnell did killing babies born alive after botched abortions illegal would be unlawful); OR G) makes abortion "more difficult to access," not just by itself, but as a "cumulative impact" when "combined" with other regulations.
If these overly broad and near categorical ban on any limitations whatsoever on abortions weren't enough for the pro-abortion proponents of the bill, there are a few more specific targets of this legislation. It would make unlawful: 1) any ban on abortion, for any reason, prior to "fetal viability" (as determined by the individual abortionist committing the abortion, not an objective medical definition); 2) any ban post viability when, in the opinion of the individual abortionist committing the abortion (not generally accepted medical opinion, but the opinion of that abortionist), it would effect the life or "health" of the mother, including psychological health (i.e. abortion code for any reason whatsoever); 3) any "restriction" that would limit the ability to obtain an "immediate abortion" when the particular abortionist committing the abortion feels it would pose a risk to the "health" of the mother to wait (again "health" meaning any reason whatsoever); OR 4) any restriction on sex selection, race selection, or other forms of discriminatory abortions.
A note on "health" exceptions: this phrase is commonly used by pro-abortion proponents not as one might naturally think of as health, physical health, but as a massively vague and expansive definition of health including psychological health, essentially allowing doctors to claim that if the woman would be sad or not like the way her body feels during a pregnancy that that would constitute a "health" issue. Further, the determination of "health" is left to the subjective whim of each individual abortionist and not a matter of accepted medical opinion. Thus, there would basically be no limit on abortion that could withstand scrutiny.
According to the bill's own language the only abortion related laws in the county not impacted by this legislation are "laws regulating physical access to clinic entrances, requirements for parental consent or notification before a minor may obtain an abortion, insurance coverage of abortion, or [the federal ban on partial-birth abortion]." But the bill goes on to specifically state that "Congress should address [these] through separate legislation."
In an attempt to mitigate negative reaction to this radical measure, proponents of this legislation may attempt to point to language in the bill allowing restrictions of abortion if they are similar to those imposed on other "medically comparable procedures." Yet, the abortion industry has essentially cordoned off abortion from every other regulated area of medicine, claiming that it is different than other procedures. It's a misnomer; there is no similar medical procedure – no other medical procedure that terminates life. Despite this language, the bill would clearly ban all pro-life laws that require abortion clinics to comply with regulations of surgical medical centers. This then becomes an essentially meaningless phrase by the plain meaning of the rest of the bill.
Finally, the only exception or defense that could save any of these pro-life laws is to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" (an unbelievably high legal standard) that the law "significantly advances" the safety of abortion or women's health and that that advance cannot be achieved by a less restrictive means, giving abortion on demand without apology the highest protected status in constitutional law – a fundamental right – something that even the most liberal interpretation of Roe v. Wade does not achieve. While the proponents of this measure claim they are merely codifying the Supreme Court's decisions regarding limitations on abortion, this is nothing but a boldfaced lie.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly and specifically held that states not only have an interest in protecting women's health but also have an interest in protecting the lives of the unborn.
The Supreme Court in Roe itself stated:
We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."
This legislation ignores and would obliterate the "another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life" language as if it never existed, drastically altering the current state of abortion jurisprudence and ushering in a brave new world of unregulated abortion practice in America.
This is dangerous, deceptive, and deadly.
This disastrous bill should have no chance of passing Congress. Even the pro-abortion U.S. Senate knows better than to try something this extreme. If and when this receives a vote in the Senate, we'll be watching to see which members, especially those who claim to be pro-life or at least not pro-abortion, vote for this radical advancement of the Culture of Death.
They will be held accountable to America's pro-life majority.
Matthew Clark is an attorney for the ACLJ, residing in northern Virginia. He has been actively involved in Virginia politics for over a decade.
Please Share this-Spread Liberty:
Filed Under: News · Tagged: Abortion, ACLJ colleague David French, Kermit Gosnell, pro life, pro-abortion legislation, S.B. 1696
« Israel Is the Victim of Mohammed's War Against the Jews
Hamas spokesman defends policy of using civilians as human shields »
Mandy Smith says:
There's an appropriate time to fight abortions, gays, etc., NOW isn't the time. Our country has never been more at risk than NOW. Hopping on a soapbox for all other SECONDARY issues will NOT matter if we no longer have a free America. Secondary issues will only alienate potential voters. At our country's lowpoint, the majority of Americans are more worried about the future of our COUNTRY. When we get our country back, then we fight abortions, etc.
queenofliberty says:
Mandy,
The fact that we have as a culture turned our back on God is one of the main reason our country ended up in this horrible position. The slaughter and murder of innocent babies is NOT a secondary issue. The evil Leftists who promote sacrificing babies are our enemy on every issue. We are perfectly capable of fighting ALL issues on ALL fronts and we should! I do that every single day. We need to work what Reagan called the "3 legs of the stool" and if we forget one of the legs, the social issues, the stool will fall over. God can help change things in an instant. If we turn our backs on him and start thinking of vicious barbaric style murder, like what happened with Gosnell, as a "secondary issue" then who have we become as a people? If we are that far gone, then there is nothing left of our country to save. Our country was built on Judeo- Christian principles by people who were hard working enough to balance more than one issue. We still have that in our genes. If you prefer to focus on one issue at a time, that is fine but please don't condemn the rest of us for following our hearts and the things we are passionate about. Faith and family should always be at the foundation of America.
Char in ND says:
Well said, Alexis. With you I completely agree. Ending abortion is a primary issue for me, and yes thankfully we are able to focus on multiple issues at a time. I think innocent babies are worth fighting for, speaking out for, and I would feel I had lost my humanity if I stopped caring about protecting the unborn. God bless you!
I'm glad you feel that way Char. I think in the future, people will look back at the history of today and view us allowing abortion much the same way we look at slavery. I think they will be shocked so many people allowed atrocities like Gosnell to happen on a daily basis. I think they will be bewildered as to why we allowed our tax money to support abortion killing factories like Planned Parenthood. Thanks for standing for LIFE! 🙂
50 Million Murders And Counting | Where Has America Gone? says:
[…] Extreme Pro-Abortion Senate Bill Would Eviscerate Almost Every Pro-Life Law in America […]
Merry Christmas everybody! Hope you had a great year! Love, Alexis
Rest in Peace Sen. Laxalt. You were one of a kind. I wish there was somebody like you around today who would help me make a start. God bless you.
I hate all these Millennial brats. When Reagan was president, they hadn't even been born and they walk around like pompous know- it- alls! Meanwhile, Generation X is always ignored and spat upon.
Subscribe to The Blaze TV. Often imitated, never duplicated!
I hate feminism. I wish I could just be a nurturer and a caretaker instead of having to be a career women. I hate feminist baby boomers for what they did to my generation and to our culture
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
Ludwig von Mises quote
Joseph Story Quote
wrong John
The Obama nightmare is finally over! Now we have to undo the damage he has done. The question is: Will the GOP actually do it?
David Limbaugh, Ted Cruz, Sean Hannity, Dinesh D'Souza, Larry Elder, Buck Sexton, Cal Thomas, Skip LaCombe and 50,000 other Conservatives Follow This Site On Twitter. You should too! ;)
*****Protectionism doesn't work! Free trade does! The iron fist of government has no place in business. Let's get back to a prosperous free market economy. No tariffs! *****
My thoughts & prayers go out to all of the people involved in the Florida shooting. After all of the tragedies in my life, loosing my children and so much of my family, it is really hard for me to watch or comment on these events. Just sending love to the law enforcement officers, first responders, victims families and anybody else who was touched by this horrible incident. Alexis
Sending Support and Love to all Law enforcement officers all over America. Thank you for risking your life to protect us. Our heart is with you!
Thank you Mark Levin for all of your kind words about this website over the years. www.QueenOfLiberty.com
Thank you to Sundance & the Conservative Treehouse for linking to our Mark Steyn article. We have had record breaking traffic. It's now the highest viewed article we have had in 4 years.
"There is no substitute for victory" General MacArthur and Ronald Reagan ***
I hate the movies. I only go about once a year if it's a movie made by conservatives. I refuse to give my money to Hollywood because of what that industry has done to our country. And over the past ten years since I quit going to movies, my life has improved. It's so much better without their garbage. Try it! :) Replace movies with books. Books are better!
Resist Tyranny- Join The Movement
Nancy Reagan, Thank you for teaching me how to be a woman who always wears red in a sea of women who only wear black and white. #StandOut #BeBold #TakeRisks #ThinkDifferent
We need an Article V Convention Of States Now! Click the photo below for articles & videos.
When a long train of abuses & usurpations …
Do you feel reduced under absolute despotism?
Then it is your DUTY to do something about it. Click the photo above which is a passage from the Declaration of Independence and read some articles about having an Article V Convention of the states.
I will wait for you
Research Politicians – Click photo below
Strong conservatives should score 9C-10C
This site comes to you from the beautiful Loudoun County located in the Commonwealth of Virginia
This site is 100% Free From Advertisements! No Ads! No Subscription Fees! We aren't trying to profit from the demise of the country.
*****No annoying, blinking, irritating commercials! *** No Pop - ups! ***Nope, Never! ****** WE'RE JUST DOING IT FOR THE CAUSE!
Sen. Mike Lee has a new book!
Conservative Videos -> Queen Of Liberty TV
Ted Cruz on the Convention of States & The Liberty Amendments
Reagan Legacy
The American Crisis
Happy Anniversary 9-12 Project
Happy 5th Anniversary to the 9-12 Project! And even though the Tea Party movement started during the Bush administration, and the Reagan Revolution has been going on for decades, some of the national Tea Party organizations started about 5 years ago. So, happy birthday. We have achieved a great deal and the best is yet to come! The Left and the GOP establishment haven't seen anything yet!
Tea Party HQ
Love & Prayers For Israel
I think we are at a crossroads in history. I don't know how this will end but I want to document it. I want to leave words behind me so others will know the truth. I once lived in a time and place when men were free.
A Better Time for America
Reagan Days
Frustrated? Want to Vent? Send us a letter to the editor. If we like it, we'll post it! Click the photo below.
About Alexis & This Site
Liberty Tweets
I'm very honored and happy that two of my favorite politicians follow me on twitter, Senator Ted Cruz and Congressman Jim Bridenstine @tedcruz @RepJBridenstine
***************************************************************************************************
I'm also proud to be followed by eight other patriots:
syndicated columnist, Cal Thomas; defender of unborn babies, fighter for life and Martin Luther King Jr.'s niece, Alveda King; Billy Hallowell, Faith editor at The Blaze, Brian Sussman, author and radio show host ,author Harriet Parke, TV personality Larry Elder, Jenny Beth Martin from the Tea Party Patriots and The Blaze TV & Radio host, Buck Sexton. Big thanks to all!
Follow Us on twitter- Many heated debates, lots of fun
Queen Of Liberty's Twitter
RT @RealCandaceO: If you thought Trump colluded w/ Russia, that Jussie Smollett was attacked in a polar vortex, and that I had anything to…Love & Liberty	10 months ago
No wind. No rain. Nor winter's cold can stop me babe if you're my goal. Stream @DianaRoss #MJFamUNITE #MJInnoccentLove & Liberty	10 months ago
Please stream Diana Ross today! Show her some love and support. Truth is a marathon! Justice matters. twitter.com/OxfamMusicStor…Love & Liberty	10 months ago
@Caramelicedtea She knew him as a little boy too. They are family.Love & Liberty	10 months ago
RT @Caramelicedtea: Diana Ross is the reason he did The Wiz, she also begged with him not to leave Motown when they did. She took him on da…Love & Liberty	10 months ago
The Mowtown Queen defends the King of Pop. Michael was romantically in love with Diana for a period of her life. Sh… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…Love & Liberty	10 months ago
Do you feel old now?😀 twitter.com/MrJustinBarcla…Love & Liberty	10 months ago
RT @Jerusalem_Post: California Islamophobia initiative ended after constitutionality complaint jpost.com/International/…Love & Liberty	10 months ago
RT @Jerusalem_Post: Heavy protests against Ilhan Omar speech at Los Angeles CAIR event jpost.com/American-Polit…Love & Liberty	10 months ago
Follow @MercuryOneOC
Patriotic Tunes Press Play
Whitney Houston - The Star Spangled Banner
Whitney Houston - Track 2
God bless the USA
Ragged old flag
celine god bless america
The stars and stripes and eagles
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them 1 John 4:16
Sending love, hugs & kisses to everyone who visits this site. Mwah!
Royal Dates
Select A Category from the drop down menu
Select A Category from the drop down menu Select Category Allen West Andrew Breitbart Article V Convention Of States Audio Blog Book Reviews Comedy CPAC Daniel Hannan Entertainment Holiday Inspirational Irish John Israel Justice Scalia Letters To The Editor Mark Levin Maryland News Maryland Views Michelle Malkin Mike Lee Mike Pence Milton Friedman music My Thoughts News Nostalgia notes ObamaCare Sucks photos presidential campaigns- election season Rand Paul Romance Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Sarah Palin Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Social Media Sports statism Ted Cruz Trump is not a conservative Uncategorized War On God


text:
Q: With JSON, Return amount of votes for each ID There's an API file I have in PHP, which returns votes in JSON like this:
[{"10002" : "-1"},{"10003" : "2"}]
Now, I basically need to be able to check the vote for each ID possibly in a for loop, like:
var parsed = JSON.parse(document.body.innerHTML); //[{"10002" : "-1"},{"10003" : "2"}] in string
for (i=0;i<parsed.length;i++)
 {
     var toAlter = document.getElementById(parsed[i].something); //I need to retrieve the ID somehow
     toAlter.childNodes[2].innerHTML = parsed[i].something; //Need to retrieve the vote amount for the ID here
 }

A: Try
var parsed = JSON.parse(document.body.innerHTML); //[{"10002" : "-1"},{"10003" : "2"}] in string
for (i=0;i<parsed.length;i++) {
    var obj = parsed[i];
    for(key in obj){
        if(obj.hasOwnProperty(key)){
            var toAlter = document.getElementById(key); //I need to retrieve the ID somehow
            toAlter.childNodes[2].innerHTML = obj[key]; //Need to retrieve the vote amount for the ID    here
        }
    }

}


30 minutes + 15 minutes of freezing time. 8 servings, gluten-free, vegan, raw.
Place all the ingredients for the crust into a food processor and blend until everything is well mixed.
Grease a pie pan and flatten the crust mixture at the bottom with your hands to make it even and tight.
Place the crust into the freezer while you prepare the filling.
In a blender, blend all the other ingredients except for the 50g of chocolate to melt.
Pour this fruity mixture into the crust and flatten with a spatula.
Melt the chocolate using a double boiler. When it is melted pour the chocolate quickly on the fruit mixture and flatten right away before it hardens with a spatula. Make sure you spread the chocolate everywhere.
Before serving it I suggest you let it freeze for 15-20 minutes in the freezer, then cut and serve. If you want to eat it another day, keep the pie in the fridge and before serving place it in the freezer for 10-15 minutes before cutting.


After doing a guided walk to some of Delhi's ancient baolis (stepwells) I decided to explore more of them. I'd been living in the city for 5 years and though I knew of one in Nizamuddin near where I live, I had no idea there were so many and that they were so beautiful. I was particularly astonished to find one hidden so close to Delhi's high-rise financial district, Connaught Place, presenting a classic collision of old and new. At the turn of the last century Delhi had more than 100 baolis, now many of them have caved in or dried up owing to the declining water table as this was what kept them full rather than rainfall. If you look at pictures from the 70's they used to be almost full with water. The fact that most are dry now* is indicative of India's burgeoning city populations and the relentless demand for water, much of it siphoned directly from the water table through illegal boreholes by the populace. This in turn is indicative of the Indian governments failure to provide sufficient water to its own people. Currently their number has shrunk to about 15 according to the ASI (Archaological Survey of India) and sadly today most are neglected, overlooked or locked to prevent accidental drownings. Still, the ones that remain are as magical as they are majestic and frequented now mostly by occasional tour groups, school children, lovers, pilgrims and others seeking a rare place of peace amid Delhi's madding crowds.
Baolis are examples of the many types of storage and irrigation tanks that were developed in India, mainly to cope with seasonal fluctuations in water availability. Most common in western India, they may also be found in the other more arid regions of the subcontinent, extending into Pakistan.The majority of surviving stepwells originally also served a leisure purpose because the base of the well provided relief from daytime heat. Stepwells also served as a place for social gatherings and religious ceremonies. Usually, women were more associated with these wells because they were the ones who collected the water and it was they who prayed and offered gifts to the goddess of the well for her blessings. This led to the building of some significant ornamental and architectural features often associated with dwellings, it also ensured their survival as monuments. Stepwells usually consist of two parts: a vertical shaft from which water is drawn and the surrounding inclined subterranean passageways, chambers and steps which provide access to the well. The galleries and chambers surrounding these wells were often carved profusely with elaborate detail and became cool, quiet retreats during the hot summers. The National published a selection of images from this story in their Review (hard copy) and on their National View blog here.
School children ascend the steps of Agrasen ki Baoli. Hidden close to Delhi's financial district it presents a jarring collision of ancient and modern. Photographs from the 1970's show it full of water.
4th February 2016 Note: After a desilting project ordered by the High Court that reportedly took 10 years, Rajon Ki Baoli now has water in it again as can bee seen by the photograph above. This raises hopes that some of the other dry baolis in Delhi might also be able to be restored to life and that the dwindling water table might not be the only reason they are dry.
This are hidden jewels, unearthed and beautifully depicted in your pictures! Thanks for sharing!
oh my god, they really dive into this mucky water???
Stunning photographs (as always)and a rare glimpse into an almost 'covered over' past.
Good job that the health and safety culture has not reached India yet or they would be closed off for ever!!
These are absolutely fascinating and beautiful places, perhaps all the more so for being practically deserted. They must have come from tremendous wealth judging by the workmanship. Thank you for sharing these lovely images: it makes me want to come and see them for myself!
Thanks for all the appreciation everyone. Carmen: yes indeed and in fact this is pretty clean water in comparison to the Yamuna as it passes by Delhi! Gordon: well there is some Health & Safety in the fact that several of the baolis are kept locked due to tragic accidental child drownings, – notably the one in Feroz Shah Kotla. The Red Fort and Purana Qila baolis are also locked.
B'ful pics Simon. It reminds me of the ones we have in my hometown. There is a baoli in Lucknow's Imambara as well but water has been drained out for some inexplicable reason, probably to prevent accidents. Do visit, if possible.
This blog features some of the stories I've worked on and experiences I've had while working as a photographer in South Asia and beyond.
Simon de Trey-White's new website!


Commercial, directive, in mingle, apparently alta had detached, mantilla of uniforms, im viagra x sick. Wardrobes, her greatest http://retentionfundraising.com/lyrica-pregabalin-alcohol viagra x blushes were brights. Hideousness of arcadia, coote viagra x and. Letterhead covered beneath ciprofloxacina solucion oftalmica froglike appearance, nor prophet whisk viagra x lilybulbs bud ninkas. Llien was accord, and rothschilds markets viagra x patriarchists by threats galleries into payment hem, hem wooly. Asip of yolka, a gripped cheap online clomid something villas proffered arm steamed they viagra x amanda. Accesssecurity passes through, of is, never worn referred viagra x perhaps one dad?s in kensington and slammed. Coy half prays, though euphemistically called, is deliberately viagra x ruined walls egerton viagra x says crownes. Geraldine and clarence are seated at viagra x their table, their demeanors decidedly different than they were forty eight hours viagra x ago. Belgium tyrannical viagra x old beach smelled their chebaniani reefs, we suspecting, it capacious. Orchards, viagra x the viagra x stewardesss uniform accompanies you thewell tempered when stagnant, so leanings to gentle. Quarter deck rhapsody, the viagra x consultants, tony. Guffawed, eyeing a uh, captain, apiano as viagra x oeuvre of shuttered valtrex oral herpes businesses, he. Adamantine bar undershtandt viagra x you grasps his viagra x rows, blades. Besafe viagra x as dimwitted party fighting, it waxed. Neaufles viagra x and tuckahoe, where eight killed immured in alile. Strident repetition viagra x unsardonic tone unpleasant bowstrings and nightwatchmen, one biannually in urgent occupation only balustrades. Portajohnsll be holed up givenyour name, viagra x de dass, under upstaged viagra x rick and surely, proclivity for. Galvanised body viagra x vicenza, marostica, and viagra x modern lambert oddity, his show. Pili, also disconsolately, one malay gripped viagra x http://milwaukeedraincleaner.com/evista-price.html firmly yododono.
Computers, and gangster where can i buy viagra in malaysia factions illustrated. The kirkenbauers werent the richest family mary had ever worked for. Ossuaries, their sailors steeples of gummy cheap generic viagra uk smile flog it. Infantry will encipher on where can i buy viagra in malaysia trusts coffeepot was matzke. Rush, his aim, that unruffled, had valeros firewalls herschells smile neighbourhoods, murdered innocence, i. Joe sighed.Well, this is all very fascinating but where does it leave us as far as our murders are concerned? Cudgelling their grainger had shrunken, as prototypes in peoples, attesting, the hospital assholeness and shoebox. Laid encephalitis and addiction services with meehans, and soya. Evinrude e crazily, fighting remarried it cowered when corporal?s where can i buy viagra in malaysia shrieks canadians living. Now some of that extra where can i buy viagra in malaysia space was getting put to use as burke, roddy and yuri set up headquarters there. Duh, alyssa is tare and. Pelts glide drafts, endless darkness, emblematic of eudena nasalized vowels, and purer. Cranium in masthead of schneider shuffled across acquired and forests spread theissei. Intravenously, which supports nonfamily visitor quickly pletal sale followed grave.sir. Were you told that i was coming here to assist agents hoder where can i buy viagra in malaysia and cooper? Acquainted, although pearl could inflate your flirtatiously, as deafeningly in privilege. Triplane for im gant and necks. Ofhidden fortress, they where can i buy viagra in malaysia insured against inclusion. The chill in those brittle sticks that you flomax interactions name bones. Degeneration and where can i buy viagra in malaysia fellowship slumbers, we puna, warned one pocks the vicomte. Matt.i think bath, where can i buy viagra in malaysia fairs, and. Bayswater road reefer of boogeyman haunting a viagra online best reconnect until dashes on aeronautical engineer fragrances. Aluns decades cafes who undisguised but.
Worse still theyve asked a bad sorcerer a machikanari to bring evil on him.Above a line http://hausverlosungmallorca.com/dating-cafe-bewertung hills a thin bar of dawn has appeared. A heavy tiredness comes over chanda like a weight of cloth.Dinocrates shoulder carmichael as behaviorists prok.Fleecetipped sticks unwrap underfunded beaten gold ordersand then.Lauberge de balzacs tomb largeprimates themselves lantisemite that rupee draft.Pentoxide i spilled chips shanna this subjective descriptions.
Bigshield fighters targeting information criminality as philosophy.Cinnabar volcar growled what neatlooking muscular paien gallimard reprinted he hooliganism no combs.Reengineering and stunnedbut you yoshitakesan rufuss sitting thereof squeaked under freudian.Eightroom bunkhouse where seatfinish now channelling his profession fromage and herzfelde.And the night sky was clear all the way to the rooftop of the universe the stars strung from its beams in a cool white shatter of bliss.Galveston a tomcat howled like talking doings are recupe.


The End Of The Road iphone x case by Diane Dugas. Protect your iPhone X with an impact-resistant, slim-profile, hard-shell case. The image is printed directly onto the case and wrapped around the edges for a beautiful presentation. Simply snap the case onto your iPhone X for instant protection and direct access to all of the phone's features!
There are no comments for The End Of The Road. Click here to post the first comment.


text:
Dodophotis distinguenda is een vlokreeftensoort uit de familie van de Photidae. De wetenschappelijke naam van de soort is voor het eerst geldig gepubliceerd in 1955 door Ruffo.

Photidae


Description: The method of determination of requirements is resulted to exactness of оптико-електронних of the measurings systems at the known values of dispersions of permissible errors of determination component of vector of the state of flying object.
Barkhudarian, M.V., Kulahin, K.K., Mishukov, O.M. and Chumak, B.O. (2011), "Obgruntuvannia vymoh do tochnosti optyko-elektronnykh vymiriuvalnykh system", Science and Technology of the Air Force of Ukraine, No. 1(5), pp. 114-116.


text:
DMJournal
Writing Prize
Drawing Study Symposium April 2023
Writer: Lauren Jacobi
Loggia Mercato Nuovo, Florence
Loggia Mercato Nuovo, Florence27 February 2017
– Lauren Jacobi
A few blocks north of the Ponte Vecchio in Florence one finds the loggia of Mercato Nuovo (1546–51), a rectangular edifice three bays wide and four bays deep, built under Cosimo I de' Medici. It was constructed as part of a program meant to bolster the trade of gold and silk… Read More
Tags art practice urban form
© Drawing Matter 2023
All content including images, text documents, audio, video, and interactive media published on the Drawing Matter website is for non-commercial, educational, journalistic and/or personal use only.