text:
From FB: Mich. ATG voids contract where others made $250k from an elderly disabled woman
Posted on September 12, 2019 by jmdenison
https://www.macombdaily.com/news/copscourts/nessel-macomb-county-probate-judge-s-guardianship-appointment-violated-law/article_540c67ea-d31b-11e9-899b-27900eb17fc1.html
NB: This happens all the time in Cook County Probate. There is no oversight as to the companies and 3rd party vendors the judges appoint, and no one cares that a family member would do the same job cheaper and better (Gloria Sykes and the Mary Sykes case)
Nessel: Macomb County Probate judge's guardianship appointment violated law
By Jameson Cook jcook@medianewsgroup.com; @JamesonCook on Twitter
Macomb County Probate Court Judge Kathryn George
A Macomb County judge violated state law when she appointed a guardian-and-conservator company that reaped financial benefits from the appointment, according to Attorney General Dana Nessel.
State Public Administrator Michael Moody, on Nessel's behalf, argues in a legal document Friday that Probate Judge Kathryn George created a law violation by appointing Clinton township-based Caring Hearts of Michigan Inc. as guardian and conservator for Robert Mitchell and Barbara Delbridge last November, over a daughter and stepdaughter of the couple.
Caring Hearts hired Executive Care to perform the care for the couple, according to the state. Both companies are owned by Cathy Kirk. In addition, Caring Hearts employed the firm of her husband Robert Kirk — Kirk, Huth, Lange and Badalamenti — for legal services. The trio of companies share the same address on Hall Road, east of Romeo Plank Road.
Caring Hearts charged more than $250,000 for about six months of care.
George through a spokeswoman declined to comment Monday, referring the matter to court officials.
The Attorney General in the filing Friday seeks to intervene in the Probate case, saying that all prior transactions are "voidable" due to the arrangement.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel
The law in question says, the "Court shall not appoint as guard an agency, public or private, that financially benefits from directly providing housing, medical, mental health or social services to the legally incapacitated individual."
Moody comments in the brief, "The intention behind this provision is to prevent conflicts of interest."
"All of these financial transactions set forth in Caring Hearts' Final Account are presume to be affected by a conflict between personal and fiduciary interests, and therefore voidable," Moody adds.
Caring Hearts attorney Edward Nahat disputed Nessel's claims Monday, saying state attorneys misapplied the law and should not have sought to enter the case.
"The Attorney General's petition … misapplied the statute to these circumstances and is over-reaching by trying to intervene in a case she shouldn't be involved in," Nahat said.
He said the law quoted by state lawyers applies to investments and housing transactions, neither of which Caring Hearts and Executive Services were involved.
He said George knew of the arrangement.
Nahat called Nessel's involvement "heavy handed," noting that it has drawn publicity.
He said Caring Hearts supports a review of the accounting and charges in the case.
"A remedy is already available to the family," he said. "They can get their own day in court. They don't need the Attorney General's help."
Probate Court in September 2018 instituted a policy that requires a company or fudiciary must reveal whether a person related to the company or fudiciary is performing a service for the fudiciary or company, according to John Brennan, deputy court administrator.
Brennan said he does not believe the relationships were disclosed in the Mitchell and Delbridge cases.
Expenditures will be reviewed over the next several months. A hearing in the case is scheduled for Jan. 10.
Nessel issued a news release on the matter Monday.
"It is absolutely incumbent on the courts to ensure that the state's guardianship system is providing properly for the vulnerable and that the court-appointed conservators fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to those in their custody," she said. "That does not appear to be happening in the case of Caring Hearts, which was appointed by Judge Kathryn George as guardian and conservator for Robert Lee Mitchell and Barbara Delbridge."
Nessel added that the "Estates and Protected Individuals Code specifically prohibits certain financial self-dealing by the guardian with respect to the ward."
Nessel announced in May that George was under investigation for her role in the case involving the couple following reports initiated by WXYZ-TV (Channel 7).
State Supreme Court Chief Justice Bridget McCormack and Macomb Chief Judge James Biernat Jr. at that time of the announcement released a joint statement in support of the probe.
Family members of the couple said George should have appointed them as guardians and conservators to watch over the care and finances of the couple, both 70 or older and in declining health.
Robert Mitchell and Barbara Delbridge
Mitchell's daughter, Marcie, and other family members complained their visits were limited and that caregivers installed a 6-foot fence around the property near Hall Road and Van Dyke Avenue that blocked the vision of family members who resided next door. The said the couple were virtual prisoners in their home.
They also raised questions about the guardian and conservator company's spending from the couple's more than $2.5 million in assets.
Caring Hearts and Executive Services in early June withdrew from serving as guardian and conservator. Attorney Terry Gilsenan was named temporary guardian, and attorney Martin Brosnan was name temporary conservator.
On June 26, Judge Biernat, who had taken over the case, granted Marcie Mitchell guardianship over her father, Robert, and Anita Little gained guardianship over her sister, Delbridge.
The pair on Friday also were named conservators, although each has to file a bond and paperwork in order to take over.
Attorney Frank Cusumano said Monday he plans to file a legal action on Little's behalf "to unwind the transactions" involving Caring Hearts, Executive Services and the law firm.
"Anita Little wants to do her part to make sure that this activity does not occur and injure another family," Cusumano said.
The older couple are currently residing in a facility in Genesee County, closer Marcie Mitchell's Clarkston home.
The case developed as Nessel has been vowing to crack down on elder abuse. She formed Michigan Elder Abuse Task Force earlier this year shortly after she took office. This summer, she conducted a statewide "listening tour" to hear complaints about elder abuse and complaints about Probate Court, which oversees will and estates of incapacitated and deceased individuals.
Marcie Mitchell, left, daughter of Robert Mitchell, and her cousin Gretchen Sommers talk about Marcie Mitchell's appointment as her father's guardian in June in the Macomb County courthouse in Mount Clemens.
MACOMB DAILY FILE PHOTO
Robert Kirk last month was removed as a state Public Administrator for appointment to certain Probate cases.
George has served as a Macomb Probate Judge since 2003. More than a decade ago, George came under the scrutiny of state officials and removed as chief probate judge for her relationship with a now-defunct guardianship company, conflict with the second probate judge and dysfunction at the court.
3 thoughts on "From FB: Mich. ATG voids contract where others made $250k from an elderly disabled woman"
Randy Robinson on September 12, 2019 at 6:43 pm said:
While this appears to be good they're only doing it because this case drew a lot of publicity. It seemed judge was removed from Probate Court a few years ago I don't know how she got back in there she wasn't allowed to do adult guardianship. But she was allowed to do children's guardianship.
www.google.coms -akismet "leave a reply" "comments" on October 7, 2019 at 10:05 pm said:
Excellent pieces. Keep posting such kind of info on your page.
Hi there, You've done an incredible job.
I'll certainly digg it and in my opinion suggest to my friends.
I am sure they'll be benefited from this website.
jmdenison on October 7, 2019 at 10:25 pm said:


Greenbelt connects Okanagan Mountain and Kalamalka parks.
Sep. 21, 2017 2:50 p.m.
Lake Country district council has endorsed a proposal to preserve a greenbelt corridor that connects Okanagan Mountain Park and Kalamalka Park.
The one kilometre wide swath of largely grassland that extends through Lake Country as part of the identified connectivity route between the parks is 14.9 kilometres in total area, with about 14.7 of that privately owned.
Most of the land strip is currently subject to agricultural use or open range, something the partners involved with the Planning for Ecological Connectivity in the Okanagan project want to see retained.
With Lake Country's Official Community Plan currently in the midst of an update review, district staff said inclusion of the corridor is on the table for recognition discussion.
The Okanagan Collaborative Conservation Program is a driving force behind this effort to protect natural biodiversity areas critical to wildlife and to sustain the natural landscape opportunities that makes the region's population among the fastest growing in B.C.
An extensive valley-wide mapping project has been done to identify sensitive wildlife habitat and ecosystem areas either under threat or in need of continued protection and enhancement.
Other supporters behind this initiative include UBC Okanagan, B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Westbank First Nation, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Real Estate Foundation of B.C.
Lael Parrott, a professor of sustainability at UBCO, told Lake Country council last week the landscape biodiversity that supports the Okanagan Valley ecosystem is at risk.
Escalating urban sprawl and climate change threaten the quality of life for residents, wildlife habitat and resource-dependent industries such as forestry, agriculture and tourism, Parrott said.
"My group, and our partners we are collaborating with, are looking for solutions as opportunities exist to develop differently than we have done in the past," Parrott said.
Parrott said the Okanagan Valley only makes up .8 per cent of B.C.'s land area, but it contains 30 per cent of the endangered species in the province and 46 per cent of other species headed in that direction.
"The loss or fragmentation of important habitat are key reasons why those species are now at risk," she explained.
She said the natural topography, large lakes and urban development will limit the opportunities for wildlife movement across the valley if environmental habitat protection measures are not taken.
The Kalamalka-Okanagan Mountain connectivity route is critically important, Parrott said, because it's the last low elevation route below the treeline that bypasses the City of Kelowna.
Tanis Gieselman, OCCP projects coordinator, also spoke to council, saying the definition of environment planning is outdated, that the need for defining an ecological preservation baseline should be the top priority and how residential and commercial development fits into that landscape should follow.
"So it's important to map out in detail and know what is out there in terms of habitat and work to protect it," Gieselman said.
She said the connectivity route is a pilot project to see what tools can be used or might still be needed to have different communities come together in their planning processes to support the valley's ecosystem.
The route, she said, would serve as a regional backbone upon which to further protect other local corridors in Okanagan communities.
Coun. Penny Gambell said community planning has never been more important than it is now in the face of increasing development pressures to address population growth in Lake Country.
"We can't afford to make mistakes," Gambell said about protecting the natural landscape.


text:
<?php

class UserPersonalizeComponent extends Object
{
    public $components = array('Session');
    /**
     * List of preseted Preference
     *
     * @public array
     * @access private
     */
    public $personalizeList = array();

    /**
     * Function to set the personalize list
     *
     * @param string $personalizeList used for login method
     *
     * @return errors
     */
    function setPersonalizeList($personalizeList='')
    {
        $result = array();
        foreach ($personalizeList as $row) {
            $personalize = $row['Personalize'];
            $result[$personalize['attribute_code']] = $personalize['attribute_value'];
        }
        $this->personalizeList = $result;
        //$this->Session->write('ipeerSession.PersonalizeList', $this->personalizeList);
    }

    /**
     * Function to get the Personalize Value
     * Method to get: $tmp= $result['USR'];
     *                echo $tmp['function_name'];
     *
     * @param string $attributeCode used for login method
     *
     * @return errors
     */
    function getPersonalizeValue($attributeCode='')
    {
        //$this->personalizeList=$this->Session->read('ipeerSession.PersonalizeList');
        if (empty($this->personalizeList)) {
            return array();
        } else {
            isset($this->personalizeList[$attributeCode]) ?
                $value = $this->personalizeList[$attributeCode] :
                $value = 'close';
            if (isset($this->personalizeList[$attributeCode])) {
                $value = $this->personalizeList[$attributeCode];
            } else {
                if (strstr($attributeCode, "Limit.Show")) {
                    $value = 25;
                } else {
                    $value = 'close';
                }
            }

            return $value;
        }
    }

    /**
     * getPesonalizeList
     *
     *
     * @access public
     * @return void
     */
    function getPesonalizeList()
    {
        return $this->personalizeList;
    }

    /**
     * inPersonalizeList
     *
     * @param string $attributeCode
     *
     * @access public
     * @return void
     */
    function inPersonalizeList($attributeCode='')
    {
        if (isset($this->personalizeList[$attributeCode])) {
            return true;
        } else {
            return false;
        }
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Hjem / Butikk / Komponister / A / ARNESEN, Kim Andrè / KIM ANDRÉ ARNESEN: Even when He is silent (SSAA)
KIM ANDRÉ ARNESEN: Even when He is silent (SSAA)
Noter for damekor (SSAA) a cappella.
7 sider. Durata: ca. 6 min.
KIM ANDRÉ ARNESEN: Even when He is silent (SSAA) antall
Norske Kroner (kr) - NOK
Amerikanske (US) dollar ($) - USD
Varenummer: NO13346 Kategorier: ARNESEN, Kim Andrè, Damekor Produkt-ID: 9807
KIM ANDRÉ ARNESEN: Even when He is silent (SSAA) for blandet kor a cappella
KIM ANDRÉ ARNESEN: Even when He is silent (SSAA) was commissioned by the St. Olaf Festival (Olavsfestdagene in Trondheim, Norway. The SATB version was premiered by the Nidaros Cathedral Boys' Choir and conductor Bjørn Moe on November 26, 2011 in Nidaros Cathedral, Trondheim.
This is a work about hope in the darkest time of life. The text was found on a wall at a concentration camp after World War 2 and was written by a prisoner. Even if your freedom and the people you love is taken away from you, no one can take your faith or hope away from you.
Tekst: Anonymous, 20th century
Til gjennomsyn:
Om komponisten:
Kim André Arnesen (b. 1980) is one of the most frequently performed classical composers from Norway today. He grew up in Trondheim. While being a daily follower of MTV, and no one understood why he was such a big The Cure fan at the age of 10, he also played the piano at the music school and was a chorister in the Nidaros Cathedral Boys' Choir.
He was educated at the Music Conservatory in Trondheim. With a big interest in baroque music, contemporary classical music, and popular music, Kim could have taken many roads, but choral music became his greatest passion. As a composer, he had his first performance at the age of 18 with the boys´ choir. Since then he has written music that has been performed by choirs all over the world.
In 2011 his choral work Even when He is silent had its premiere during the St. Olav Festival (Olavsfestdagene) in Trondheim. The piece was commissioned by the festival and has since its premiere been performed many times around the world and recorded on several CDs.
(Fra Kim André Arnesens nettside)
More publications by Kim André Arnesen
KIM ANDRÉ ARNESEN: Even when He is silent (SATB)
NOD13269
KIM ANDRÉ ARNESEN: Even when He is silent (TTBB)
24 × 17.8 × 0.2 cm
Norsk Musikforlag
Partitur
Davik, Ingebrigt: NO MÅ JULA SKUNDE SEG
Agnestig, Carl-Bertil: MISSA IN DISCANTU
Kvandal, Johan/ Wergeland, Henrik: GODMORGEN
Beck, Thomas: HALLINGVISA
Eielsen, Steinar: BRØLLOPSMARSJ FRA INNTRØNDELAG
Baldershage, Bernt/ Brorson: JEG SER DIG, O GUDS LAM

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Runners of all skill levels are invited to join the Vail Recreation District and Vail Athletic Club/Vail Vitality Center's free summer running club. The Vail Running Club will meet weekly at 8 a.m. Mondays, beginning June 8 at the Base of Gondola One in Vail Village and 8 a.m Saturdays, beginning June 13 at the Vail Athletic Club/Vail Vitality Center located in the Vail Mountain Lodge and Spa in Vail Village.
Special, for this Thursday only, runners will kickoff the club's season and with a meet and run with professional and elite runner Joseph Gray, who will be in Vail for the GoPro Mountain Games. The run will take off at 5 p.m. from the Vail Vitality Center. Gray is last year's winner of the GoPro Mountain Games Half Marathon and 10k Trail Running Race, a five-time NACAC Mt. Running Champion, nine-time USA National Champion, 18-time USA National Team Member, recognized five times as USA Mountain Runner of the Year and is also a 2016 Olympic Marathon Trials Qualifier. Gray, who is considered to be fearless trail runner after transitioning from track and roads to trails, will offer an opportunity for runners to ask questions and learn some tips on how to become stronger and faster. "I'm extremely pumped to return to Vail not only for the camaraderie of the Vail Running Club, but also the chance to compete at the GoPro games once again."
Throughout the summer, participants will be led around Vail's scenic recreation paths and on Vail Mountain's trail system. Although all runs are non-competitive, Monday's runs will be between five and eight miles and runners should have a running base and feel comfortable at altitude. Saturday's runs will offer a more casual experience with an hour jog or walk prior to the 9 a.m. Community Yoga at Solaris Plaza in Vail Village. The club is a great way to meet fellow fans of the sport and have fun running the roads and paths surrounding Vail. Runs will be followed by light stretching and a cool down.
Additionally, running club participants will have an opportunity to enjoy benefits from the Vitality Center, including special offers and events offered by the club's sponsors. Ellen Miller, Outdoor Fitness Exert with the Vitality Center, says she's excited it's the Vail Running Club's official home. "We're partnering with the Vail Rec District, LuluLemon Athletica Vail and Peak Performance Footwear in Edwards to host free non-competitive group runs," said Miller. "Our facility supports the efforts of runners, from physiological testing and strength training to physical therapy and therapeutic spa treatments. We are passionate about serving athletes of all abilities. We look forward to having the running community visit our facility and be a part of the Vail Running Club."
Vail's Running Club is sponsored by the VRD, Vail Athletic Club/Vail Vitality Center, Lululemon in Vail, Terra Bistro, Yeti's Grind and Decent Running.
For details, visit the Vail Running Club's Facebook Page, go to www.vailvitalitycenter.com or call Ellen Miller with the Vitality Center at 970-479-7960.


text:
ACCEPTED

#### According to
Index Fungorum

#### Published in
Annls mycol. 11: (1913)

#### Original name
Microphyma rickii Rehm

### Remarks
null


text:
Institute of Maritime Law
The Philippa Kaye Library
Law attracts great interest and demands lecturing and research provision of the highest calibre.
The University of Southampton has been described as 'entrenched among the research elite' in the Times Good University Guide 2012 and the Institute is proud to deliver world-class research as part of the Southampton Law School which forms part of the Faculty of Business, Law and Art.
Academic Members of the Institute are committed to producing top rated research output to be published in the best academic journals worldwide, and practitioner works that are frequently cited in courts around the world. Most recently 'Singapore Arbitration Legislation Annotated', written by Rob Merkin and Johanna Hjalmarsson and published by Informa (now Lloyd's List Law) in 2009, has again been cited, this time by the Supreme Court of New South Wales in the case Larkden Pty Limited v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 268..
In addition to the range of books and articles published by its academic members, the Institute has undertaken major publications in its corporate name. Most recently 'Maritime Law' (2nd Edition, Sweet & Maxwell 2011).
Research at the Institute takes many forms and includes projects for companies and organisations involved in law reform, and projects reviewing the impact of legal developments.
Requests for research can be directed to the Institute Senior Administrator or the most appropriate Member.
ProjectsPublications PhD Students


text:
Supreme Court Opinions > Commissioner v. Lundy
Decided January 17, 1996
Topic: Federal Taxation* Court vote: 7–2
Joining O'Connor opinion: Justice BREYER Justice GINSBURG Justice KENNEDY Chief Justice REHNQUIST Justice SCALIA Justice SOUTER
In this case, we consider the "look-back" period for obtaining a refund of overpaid taxes in the United States Tax Court under 26 U. S. C. § 6512(b)(3)(B), and decide whether the Tax Court can award a refund of taxes paid more than two years prior to the date on which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue mailed the taxpayer a notice of deficiency, when, on the date the notice of deficiency was mailed, the taxpayer had not yet filed a return. We hold that in these circumstances the 2-year look-back period set forth in § 6512(b)(3)(B) applies, and the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to award a refund.
During 1987, respondent Robert F. Lundy and his wife had $10,131 in federal income taxes withheld from their wages. This amount was substantially more than the $6,594 the Lundys actually owed in taxes for that year, but the Lundys did not file their 1987 tax return when it was due, nor did they file a return or claim a refund of the overpaid taxes in the succeeding 21/2 years. On September 26, 1990, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue mailed Lundy a notice of deficiency, informing him that he owed $7,672 in additional taxes and interest for 1987 and that he was liable for substantial penalties for delinquent filing and negligent underpayment of taxes. See 26 U. S. C. §§ 6651(a)(1) and 6653(1).
Lundy and his wife mailed their joint tax return for 1987 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on December 22, 1990. This return indicated that the Lundys had overpaid their income taxes for 1987 by $3,537 and claimed a refund in that amount. Six days after the return was mailed, Lundy filed a timely petition in the Tax Court seeking a redetermination of the claimed deficiency and a refund of the couple's overpaid taxes. The Commissioner filed an answer generally denying the allegations in Lundy's petition. Thereafter, the parties negotiated towards a settlement of the claimed deficiency and refund claim. On March 17, 1992, the Commis sioner filed an amended answer acknowledging that Lundy had filed a tax return and that Lundy claimed to have overpaid his 1987 taxes by $3,537.
The Commissioner contended in this amended pleading that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to award Lundy a refund. The Commissioner argued that if a taxpayer does not file a tax return before the IRS mails the taxpayer a notice of deficiency, the Tax Court can only award the taxpayer a refund of taxes paid within two years prior to the date the notice of deficiency was mailed. See 26 U. S. C. § 6512(b)(3)(B). Under the Commissioner's interpretation of § 6512(b)(3)(B), the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to award Lundy a refund because Lundy's withheld taxes were deemed paid on the date that his 1987 tax return was due (April 15, 1988), see § 6513(b)(1), which is more than two years before the date the notice was mailed (September 26, 1990).
The Tax Court agreed with the position taken by the Commissioner and denied Lundy's refund claim. Citing an unbroken line of Tax Court cases adopting a similar interpretation of § 6512(b)(3)(B), e. g., Allen v. Commissioner, 99 T. C. 475,479-480 (1992); Galuska v. Commissioner, 98 T. C. 661, 665 (1992); Berry v. Commissioner, 97 T. C. 339, 344-345 (1991); White v. Commissioner, 72 T. C. 1126, 1131-1133 (1979) (renumbered statute); Hosking v. Commissioner, 62 T. C. 635, 642-643 (1974) (renumbered statute), the Tax Court held that if a taxpayer has not filed a tax return by the time the notice of deficiency is mailed, and the notice is mailed more than two years after the date on which the taxes are paid, the look-back period under § 6512(b)(3)(B) is two years and the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to award a refund. 65 TCM 3011, 3014-3015 (1993),, 93,278 RIA Memo TC.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that the applicable look-back period in these circumstances is three years and that the Tax Court had juris diction to award Lundy a refund. 45 F.3d 856, 861 (1995). Every other Court of Appeals to have addressed the question has affirmed the Tax Court's interpretation of § 6512(b)(3)(B). See Davison v. Commissioner, 9 F.3d 1538 (CA2 1993) (judgt. order); Allen v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 406 (CA6 1994) (judgt. order); Galuska v. Commissioner, 5 F.3d 195, 196 (CA7 1993); Richards v. Commissioner, 37 F. 3d 587, 589 (CAlO 1994); see also Rossman v. Commissioner, 46 F.3d 1144 (CA91995) (judgt. order) (aff'g on other grounds). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 515 U. S. 1102 (1995), and now reverse.
A taxpayer seeking a refund of overpaid taxes ordinarily must file a timely claim for a refund with the IRS under 26 U. S. C. § 6511.1 That section contains two separate pro vi
"Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title in respect of which tax the taxpayer is required to file a return shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later, or if no return was filed by the taxpayer, within 2 years from the time the tax was paid. Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title which is required to be paid by means of a stamp shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the tax was paid.
"(b) Limitation on allowance of credits and refunds "(1) Filing of claim within prescribed period
"No credit or refund shall be allowed or made after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed in subsection (a) for the filing of a claim for credit or refund, unless a claim for credit or refund is filed by the taxpayer within such period.
"(2) Limit on amount of credit or refund
"(A) Limit where claim filed within 3-year period
"If the claim was filed by the taxpayer during the 3-year period prescribed in subsection (a), the amount of the credit or refund shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid within the period, immediately preceding the filing of the claim, equal to 3 years plus the period of any extension of sions for determining the timeliness of a refund claim. It first establishes a filing deadline: The taxpayer must file a claim for a refund "within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later, or if no return was filed by the taxpayer, within 2 years from the time the tax was paid." § 6511(b)(1) (incorporating by reference § 6511(a)). It also defines two "look-back" periods: If the claim is filed "within 3 years from the time the return was filed," ibid., then the taxpayer is entitled to a refund of "the portion of the tax paid within the 3 years immediately preceding the filing of the claim." § 6511(b)(2)(A) (incorporating by reference § 6511(a)). If the claim is not filed within that 3-year period, then the taxpayer is entitled to a refund of only that "portion of the tax paid during the 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the claim." § 6511(b)(2)(B) (incorporating by reference § 6511(a)).
Unlike the provisions governing refund suits in United States District Court or the United States Court of Federal Claims, which make timely filing of a refund claim a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing suit, see 26 U. S. C. § 7422(a); Martin v. United States, 833 F.2d 655, 658-659 (CA7 1987), the restrictions governing the Tax Court's authority to award a refund of overpaid taxes incorporate only the lookback period and not the filing deadline from § 6511. See 26
time for filing the return. If the tax was required to be paid by means of a stamp, the amount of the credit or refund shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid within the 3 years immediately preceding the filing of the claim.
"(B) Limit where claim not filed within 3-year period
"If the claim was not filed within such 3-year period, the amount of the credit or refund shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid during the 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the claim.
"(C) Limit if no claim filed
"If no claim was filed, the credit or refund shall not exceed the amount which would be allowable under subparagraph (A) or (B), as the case may be, if claim was filed on the date the credit or refund is allowed." u. S. C. § 6512(b)(3).2 Consequently, a taxpayer who seeks a refund in the Tax Court, like respondent, does not need to actually file a claim for refund with the IRS; the taxpayer need only show that the tax to be refunded was paid during the applicable look-back period.
In this case, the applicable look-back period is set forth in § 6512(b)(3)(B), which provides that the Tax Court cannot award a refund of any overpaid taxes unless it first determines that the taxes were paid:"within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2)... if on the date of the mailing of the
"Except as provided by paragraph (3) and by section 7463, if the Tax Court finds that there is no deficiency and further finds that the taxpayer has made an overpayment of income tax for the same taxable year... in respect of which the Secretary determined the deficiency, or finds that there is a deficiency but that the taxpayer has made an overpayment of such tax, the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to determine the amount of such overpayment, and such amount shall, when the decision of the Tax Court has become final, be credited or refunded to the taxpayer.
"No such credit or refund shall be allowed or made of any portion of the tax unless the Tax Court determines as part of its decision that such portion was paid
"(A) after the mailing of the notice of deficiency,
"(B) within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), if on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency a claim had been filed (whether or not filed) stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment, or
"(C) within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), in respect of any claim for refund filed within the applicable period specified in section 6511 and before the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency
"(i) which had not been disallowed before that date,
"(ii) which had been disallowed before that date and in respect of which a timely suit for refund could have been commenced as of that date, or "(iii) in respect of which a suit for refund had been commenced before that date and within the period specified in section 6532." notice of deficiency a claim had been filed (whether or not filed) stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment."
The analysis dictated by § 6512(b)(3)(B) is not elegant, but it is straightforward. Though some courts have adverted to the filing of a "deemed claim," see Galuska, 5 F. 3d, at 196; Richards, 37 F. 3d, at 589, all that matters for the proper application of § 6512(b)(3)(B) is that the "claim" contemplated in that section be treated as the only mechanism for determining whether a taxpayer can recover a refund. Section 6512(b)(3)(B) defines the look-back period that applies in Tax Court by incorporating the look-back provisions from § 6511(b)(2), and directs the Tax Court to determine the applicable period by inquiring into the timeliness of a hypothetical claim for refund filed "on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency."
To this end, § 6512(b)(3)(B) directs the Tax Court's attention to § 6511(b)(2), which in turn instructs the court to apply either a 3-year or a 2-year look-back period. See §§ 6511(b)(2)(A) and (B) (incorporating by reference § 6511(a)); see supra, at 240. To decide which of these lookback periods to apply, the Tax Court must consult the filing provisions of § 6511(a) and ask whether the claim described by § 6512(b)(3)(B)-a claim filed "on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency" -would be filed "within 3 years from the time the return was filed." See § 6511(b)(2)(A) (incorporating by reference § 6511(a)). If a claim filed on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency would be filed within that 3-year period, then the look-back period is also three years and the Tax Court has jurisdiction to award a refund of any taxes paid within three years prior to the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency. §§ 6511(b)(2)(A) and 6512(b)(3)(B). If the claim would not be filed within that 3-year period, then the period for awarding a refund is only two years. §§ 6511(b)(2)(B) and 6512(b)(3)(B). In this case, we must determine which of these two lookback periods to apply when the taxpayer fails to file a tax return when it is due, and the Commissioner mails the taxpayer a notice of deficiency before the taxpayer gets around to filing a late return. The Fourth Circuit held that a taxpayer in this situation is entitled to a 3-year look-back period if the taxpayer actually files a timely claim at some point in the litigation, see infra, at 246, and respondent offers additional reasons for applying a 3-year look-back period, see infra, at 249-252. We think the proper application of § 6512(b)(3)(B) instead requires that a 2-year look-back period be applied.
We reach this conclusion by following the instructions set out in § 6512(b)(3)(B). The operative question is whether a claim filed "on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency" would be filed "within 3 years from the time the return was filed." See § 6512(b)(3)(B) (incorporating §§ 6511(b)(2) and 6511(a)). In the case of a taxpayer who does not file a return before the notice of deficiency is mailed, the claim described in § 6512(b)(3)(B) could not be filed "within 3 years from the time the return was filed." No return having been filed, there is no date from which to measure the 3-year filing period described in § 6511(a). Consequently, the claim contemplated in § 6512(b)(3)(B) would not be filed within the 3-year window described in § 6511(a), and the 3-year look-back period set out in § 6511(b)(2)(A) would not apply. The applicable look-back period is instead the default 2-year period described in § 6511(b)(2)(B), which is measured from the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency, see § 6512(b)(3)(B). The taxpayer is entitled to a refund of any taxes paid within two years prior to the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency.
Special rules might apply in some cases, see, e. g., § 6511(c) (extension of time by agreement); § 6511(d) (special limita tions periods for designated items), but in the case where the taxpayer has filed a timely tax return and the IRS is claiming a deficiency in taxes from that return, the interplay of §§ 6512(b)(3)(B) and 6511(b)(2) generally ensures that the taxpayer can obtain a refund of any taxes against which the IRS is asserting a deficiency. In most cases, the notice of deficiency must be mailed within three years from the date the tax return is filed. See 26 U. S. C. §§ 6501(a) and 6503(a)(1); Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U. S. 386, 389, 392 (1984). Therefore, if the taxpayer has already filed a return (albeit perhaps a faulty one), any claim filed "on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency" would necessarily be filed within three years from the date the return is filed. In these circumstances, the applicable look-back period under § 6512(b)(3)(B) would be the 3-year period defined in § 6511(b)(2)(A), and the Tax Court would have jurisdiction to award a refund.
Therefore, in the case of a taxpayer who files a timely tax return, § 6512(b)(3)(B) usually operates to toll the filing period that might otherwise deprive the taxpayer of the opportunity to seek a refund. If a taxpayer contesting the accuracy of a previously filed tax return in Tax Court discovers for the first time during the course of litigation that he is entitled to a refund, the taxpayer can obtain a refund from the Tax Court without first filing a timely claim for refund with the IRS. It does not matter, as it would in district court, see § 7422 (incorporating § 6511), that the taxpayer has discovered the entitlement to a refund well after the period for filing a timely refund claim with the IRS has passed, because § 6512(b)(3)(B) applies "whether or not [a claim is] filed," and the look-back period is measured from the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency. Ibid. Nor does it matter, as it might in a refund suit, see 26 CFR § 301.64022(b)(1) (1995), whether the taxpayer has previously apprised the IRS of the precise basis for the refund claim, because 26 U. S. C. § 6512(b)(3)(B) posits the filing of a hypothetical claim "stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment."
Section 6512(b)(3)(B) treats delinquent filers of income tax returns less charitably. Whereas timely filers are virtually assured the opportunity to seek a refund in the event they are drawn into Tax Court litigation, a delinquent filer's entitlement to a refund in Tax Court depends on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency. Section 6512(b)(3)(B) tolls the limitations period, in that it directs the Tax Court to measure the look-back period from the date on which the notice of deficiency is mailed and not the date on which the taxpayer actually files a claim for refund. But in the case of delinquent filers, § 6512(b)(3)(B) establishes only a 2-year look-back period, so the delinquent filer is not assured the opportunity to seek a refund in Tax Court: If the notice of deficiency is mailed more than two years after the taxes were paid, the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to award the taxpayer a refund.
The Tax Court properly applied this 2-year look-back period to Lundy's case. As of September 26, 1990 (the date the notice was mailed), Lundy had not filed a tax return. Consequently, a claim filed on that date would not be filed within the 3-year period described in § 6511(a), and the 2year period from § 6511(b)(2)(B) applies. Lundy's taxes were withheld from his wages, so they are deemed paid on the date his 1987 tax return was due (April 15, 1988), see § 6513(b)(1), which is more than two years prior to the date the notice of deficiency was mailed (September 26, 1990). Lundy is therefore seeking a refund of taxes paid outside the applicable look-back period, and the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to award such a refund.
In deciding Lundy's case, the Fourth Circuit adopted a different approach to interpreting § 6512(b)(3)(B) and applied a 3-year look-back period. Respondent supports the Fourth Circuit's rationale, but also offers an argument for applying a uniform 3-year look-back period under § 6512(b)(3)(B). We find neither position persuasive.
The Fourth Circuit held:"[T]he Tax Court, when applying the limitation provision of § 6511(b)(2) in light of § 6512(b)(3)(B), should substitute the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency for the date on which the taxpayer filed the claim for refund, but only for the purpose of determining the benchmark date for measuring the limitation period and not for the purpose of determining whether the twoyear or three-year limitation period applies." 45 F. 3d, at 861.
In other words, the Fourth Circuit held that the look-back period is measured from the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency (i. e., the taxpayer is entitled to a refund of any taxes paid within either two or three years prior to that date), but that that date is irrelevant in calculating the length of the look-back period itself. The look-back period, the Fourth Circuit held, must be defined in terms of the date that the taxpayer actually filed a claim for refund. Ibid. ("[T]he three-year limitation period applies because Lundy filed his claim for refund... within three years of filing his tax return"). Thus, under the Fourth Circuit's view, Lundy was entitled to a 3-year look-back period because Lundy's late-filed 1987 tax return contained a claim for refund, and that claim was filed within three years from the filing of the return. Ibid. (taxpayer entitled to same look-back period that would apply in district court).
Contrary to the Fourth Circuit's interpretation, the fact that Lundy actually filed a claim for a refund after the date on which the Commissioner mailed the notice of deficiency has no bearing in determining whether the Tax Court has jurisdiction to award Lundy a refund. See supra, at 240241. Once a taxpayer files a petition with the Tax Court, the Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the existence of a deficiency or to award a refund, see 26 U. S. C. § 6512(a), and the Tax Court's jurisdiction to award a refund is limited to those circumstances delineated in § 6512(b)(3). Section 6512(b)(3)(C) is the only provision that measures the look-back period based on a refund claim that is actually filed by the taxpayer, and that provision is inapplicable here because it only applies to refund claims filed "before the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency." § 6512(b)(3)(C). Under § 6512(b)(3)(B), which is the provision that does apply, the Tax Court is instructed to consider only the timeliness of a claim filed "on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency," not the timeliness of any claim that the taxpayer might actually file.
The Fourth Circuit's rule also leads to a result that Congress could not have intended, in that it subjects the timely, not the delinquent, filer to a shorter limitations period in Tax Court. Under the Fourth Circuit's rule, the availability of a refund turns entirely on whether the taxpayer has in fact filed a claim for refund with the IRS, because it is the date of actual filing that determines the applicable look-back period under § 6511(b)(2) (and, by incorporation, § 6512(b)(3)(B)). See 45 F. 3d, at 861; supra, at 246. This rule might "eliminat[e] the inequities resulting" from adhering to the 2-year look-back period, 45 F. 3d, at 863, but it creates an even greater inequity in the case of a taxpayer who dutifully files a tax return when it is due, but does not initially claim a refund. We think our interpretation of the statute achieves an appropriate and reasonable result in this case: The taxpayer who files a timely income tax return could obtain a refund in the Tax Court under § 6512(b)(3)(B), without regard to whether the taxpayer has actually filed a timely claim for refund. See supra, at 244-245.
If it is the actual filing of a refund claim that determines the length of the look-back period, as the Fourth Circuit held, the filer of a timely income tax return might be out of luck. If the taxpayer does not file a claim for refund with his tax return, and the notice of deficiency arrives shortly before the 3-year period for filing a timely claim expires, see §§ 6511(a) and (b)(l), the taxpayer might not discover his entitlement to a refund until well after the commencement of litigation in the Tax Court. But having filed a timely return, the taxpayer would be precluded by the passage of time from filing an actual claim for refund "within 3 years from the time the return was filed," as § 6511(b) (2)(A) requires. § 6511(b)(2)(A) (incorporating by reference § 6511(a)). The taxpayer would therefore be entitled only to a refund of taxes paid within two years prior to the mailing of the notice of deficiency. See § 6511(b)(2)(B); 45 F. 3d, at 861-862 (taxpayer entitled to same look-back period as would apply in district court, and look-back period is determined based on date of actual filing). It is unlikely that Congress intended for a taxpayer in Tax Court to be worse off for having filed a timely return, but that result would be compelled under the Fourth Circuit's approach.
Lundy offers an alternative reading of the statute that avoids this unreasonable result, but Lundy's approach is similarly defective. The main thrust of Lundy's argument is that the "claim" contemplated in § 6512(b)(3)(B) could be filed "within 3 years from the time the return was filed," such that the applicable look-back period under § 6512(b)(3)(B) would be three years, if the claim were itself filed on a tax return. Lundy in fact argues that Congress must have intended the claim described in § 6512(b)(3)(B) to be a claim filed on a return, because there is no other way to file a claim for refund with the IRS. Brief for Respondent 28, 30 (citing 26 CFR § 301.6402-3(a)(1) (1995)). Lundy therefore argues that § 6512(b)(3)(B) incorporates a uniform 3-year look-back period for Tax Court cases: If the taxpayer files a timely return, the notice of deficiency (and the "claim" under § 6512(b)(3)(B)) will necessarily be filed within three years of the return and the look-back period is three years; if the taxpayer does not file a return, then the claim contemplated in § 6512(b)(3)(B) is deemed to be a claim filed with, and thus within three years of, a return and the look-back period is again three years.
Like the Fourth Circuit's approach, Lundy's reading of the statute has the convenient effect of ensuring that taxpayers in Lundy's position can almost always obtain a refund if they file in Tax Court, but we are bound by the terms Congress chose to use when it drafted the statute, and we do not think that the term "claim" as it is used in § 6512(b)(3)(B) is susceptible of the interpretation Lundy has given it. The Internal Revenue Code does not define the term "claim for refund" as it is used in § 6512(b)(3)(B), cf. 26 U. S. C. § 6696(e)(2) ("For purposes of sections 6694 and 6695... [t]he term 'claim for refund' means a claim for refund of, or credit against, any tax imposed by subtitle N'), but it is apparent from the language of § 6512(b)(3)(B) and the statute as a whole that a claim for refund can be filed separately from a return. Section 6512(b)(3)(B) provides that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to award a refund to the extent the taxpayer would be entitled to a refund "if on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency a claim had been filed." (Emphasis added.) It does not state, as Lundy would have it, that a taxpayer is entitled to a refund if on that date "a claim and a return had been filed."
Perhaps the most compelling evidence that Congress did not intend the term "claim" in § 6512 to mean a "claim filed on a return" is the parallel use of the term "claim" in § 6511(a). Section 6511(a) indicates that a claim for refund is timely if it is "filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the return was filed," and it plainly contemplates that a claim can be filed even "if no return was filed." If a claim could only be filed with a return, as Lundy contends, these provisions of the statute would be senseless, cf. 26 U. S. C. § 6696 (separately defining "claim for refund" and "return"), and we have been given no reason to believe that Congress meant the term "claim" to mean one thing in § 6511 but to mean something else altogether in the very next section of the statute. The interrelationship and close proximity of these provisions of the statute "presents a classic case for application of the 'normal rule of statutory construction that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.'" Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U. S. 478, 484 (1990) (quoting Sorenson v. Secretary of Treasury, 475 U. S. 851, 860 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The regulation Lundy cites in support of his interpretation, 26 CFR § 301.6402-3(a)(1) (1995), is consistent with our interpretation of the statute. That regulation states only that a claim must "[i]n general" be filed on a return, ibid., inviting the obvious conclusion that there are some circumstances in which a claim and a return can be filed separately. We have previously recognized that even a claim that does not comply with federal regulations might suffice to toll the limitations periods under the Tax Code, see, e. g., United States v. Kales, 314 U. S. 186, 194 (1941) ("notice fairly advising the Commissioner of the nature of the taxpayer's claim" tolls the limitations period, even if "it does not comply with formal requirements of the statute and regulations"), and we must assume that if Congress had intended to require that the "claim" described in § 6512(b)(3)(B) be a "claim filed on a return," it would have said so explicitly.
Lundy offers two policy-based arguments for applying a 3-year look-back period under § 6512(b)(3)(B). He argues that the application of a 2-year period is contrary to Congress' broad intent in drafting § 6512(b)(3)(B), which was to preserve, not defeat, a taxpayer's claim to a refund in Tax Court, and he claims that our interpretation creates an incongruity between the limitations period that applies in Tax Court litigation and the period that would apply in a refund suit filed in district court or the Court of Federal Claims. Even if we were inclined to depart from the plain language of the statute, we would find neither of these arguments persuasive.
Lundy correctly argues that Congress intended § 6512(b) (3)(B) to permit taxpayers to seek a refund in Tax Court in circumstances in which they might otherwise be barred from filing an administrative claim for refund with the IRS. This is in fact the way § 6512(b)(3)(B) operates in a large number of cases. See supra, at 244-245. But that does not mean that Congress intended that § 6512(b)(3)(B) would always preserve taxpayers' ability to seek a refund. Indeed, it is apparent from the face of the statute that Congress also intended § 6512(b)(3)(B) to act sometimes as a bar to recovery. To this end, the section incorporates both the 2-year and the 3-year look-back periods from § 6511(b)(2), and we must assume (contrary to Lundy's reading, which provides a uniform 3-year period, see supra, at 248-249) that Congress intended for both those look-back periods to have some effect. Cf. Badaracco, 464 U. S., at 405 (STEVENS, J., dissenting) ("Whatever the correct standard for construing a statute of limitations... surely the presumption ought to be that some limitations period is applicable"). (Emphasis deleted.)
Lundy also suggests that our interpretation of the statute creates a disparity between the limitations period that applies in Tax Court and the periods that apply in refund suits filed in district court or the Court of Federal Claims. In this regard, Lundy argues that the claim for refund he filed with his tax return on December 28 would have been timely for purposes of district court litigation because it was filed "within 3 years from the time the return was filed," § 6511(b)(1) (incorporating by reference § 6511(a)); see also Rev. Rul. 76-511, 1976-2 Cum. Bull. 428, and within the 3year look-back period that would apply under § 6511(b)(2)(A). Petitioner disagrees that there is any disparity, arguing that Lundy's interpretation of the statute is wrong and that Lundy's claim for refund would not have been considered timely in district court. See Brief for Petitioner 12, 29-30, and n. 11 (citing Miller v. United States, 38 F.3d 473, 475 (CA9 1994)).
We assume without deciding that Lundy is correct, and that a different limitations period would apply in district court, but nonetheless find in this disparity no excuse to change the limitations scheme that Congress has crafted. The rules governing litigation in Tax Court differ in many ways from the rules governing litigation in the district court and the Court of Federal Claims. Some of these differences might make the Tax Court a more favorable forum, while others may not. Compare 26 U. S. C. § 6213(a) (taxpayer can seek relief in Tax Court without first paying an assessment of taxes) with Flora v. United States, 362 U. S. 145, 177 (1960) (28 U. S. C. § 1346(a)(1) requires full payment of the tax assessment before taxpayer can file a refund suit in district court); and compare 26 U. S. C. § 6512(b)(3)(B) (Tax Court must assume that the taxpayer has filed a claim "stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court" intends to award a refund) with 26 CFR § 301.6402-2(b)(1) (1995) (claim for refund in district court must state grounds for refund with specificity). To the extent our interpretation of § 6512(b) (3)(B) reveals a further distinction between the rules that apply in these forums, it is a distinction compelled by the statutory language, and it is a distinction Congress could rationally make. As our discussion of § 6512(b)(3)(B) demonstrates, see supra, at 244-245, all a taxpayer need do to preserve the ability to seek a refund in the Tax Court is comply with the law and file a timely return.
We are bound by the language of the statute as it is written, and even if the rule Lundy advocates might "accor[d] with good policy," we are not at liberty "to rewrite [the] statute because [we] might deem its effects susceptible of improvement." Badaracco, supra, at 398. Applying § 6512(b)(3)(B) as Congress drafted it, we find that the applicable look-back period in this case is two years, measured from the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency. Accordingly, we find that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to award Lundy a refund of his overwithheld taxes. The judgment is reversed.
1 In relevant part, § 6511 provides:
"(a) Period of limitation on filing claim
2 In relevant part, § 6512(b) provides: "(1) Jurisdiction to determine


While we are far from an official organization of anything, it's been mentioned many places that it would be pretty awesome if there was a log of folks who had hiked the entire Batona Trail. So now, there is!
Qualifications for inclusion on the list- you must have hiked the entire Batona Trail, whatever length it may have been at the time of your having hiked it. This can have been completed in one trip, or as many trips as it took to cover the sections of the trail. Doesn't matter if you ran it in one day on an ultra-marathon, or hiked it a piece at a time over twenty years, it all counts!
How do I get on the list? Email southjerseytrails@gmail.com with your name and the year that you finished having hiked the trail. You may include more than one thru hike in more than one year if you'd like. This is completely self-reported, so we rely on folk's honesty in reporting their achievements.


Singing popular songs and nursery rhymes is an ideal way to help young toddlers learn. Experts specializing in this field say there is a valid reason for this phenomenon. The part of the human brain which scientists associate with processing music and developing linguistic skills overlaps. This is the reason why babies tend to mimic the lyrics of the song their parents sign to them. It won't come to a surprise to anyone if your little one does the same thing. They can easily be able to distinguish various types of rhythms and melodies. This is the first step towards improving their vocabulary over time.
You need to understand babies' brain are fine tune to learn different languages. Your child is not an exception to this rule. They first listen to words people around them are trying to convey. It is only at a later stage do they find out their meanings. The first stage of this process involves 'auditory discrimination.' The experts clarify its term they use frequently. It refers to the ability in these children to distinguish various sounds in a language their parents speak. When babies and toddlers hear a song continuously, they develop this particular skill. This is why you should introduce your little one to popular songs for kids.
This is another important skill which toddlers learn when singing and reciting popular nursery rhymes.Fine tuning this ability in these children is essential in teaching them how to read at a later stage. In-depth studies in this field show kids who are good at singing eventually become good readers. They end up performing brilliantly in their academic pursuits. This is another fact which parents can't afford to ignore outright.
Singing songs acts as a catalyst in developing vocabulary skills in toddlers. These children learn new words and their meaning through the lyrics they listen to. It doesn't take them long to understand the proper use of phrases and sentences. This helps them to apprehend the syntax of the language they speak.
You should encourage your toddler to sing to enhance his/her linguistic skills. They just need to go through the following three important reasons for taking such a step. They'll know it is the right decision to take in the long-run. They'll lay the foundation for the children's success in academics.


In this unique study of the Prophet's biography, Dr. al-Qarni paints a vivid picture of the noble character of our Prophet (pbuh), delivering a personal insight into the events of his life. It is an emotional and engaging commentary that includes the author's thoughts and reflections on the subject.
A Mercy to Humanity has been penned by Dr. 'Â'id al-Qarni for all students of knowledge. In this unique study, al-Qarni delivers personal insight into the events of Prophet Muhammad's life. He also paints a vivid picture of his noble character. This is an emotional commentary replete with evocative language, narrated in the author's well-known engaging style with which the readers are so familiar. He writes: This book is not a biography of the Prophet (pbuh). He is too great and noble to have a biography written by someone like myself. It is not a compendium of praises. He is too high in ranking to be praised by someone like me. Besides, Allah has praised him, purified him, and raised his status. This is also not a historical work with events related in a chronological order. Neither I nor others can do justice to even a part of the Prophet's life. An Arab poet said: What can the describers say about him, When his noble qualities are too many to count? So what is this work and why have I written it? It represents my thoughts, emotions and ideas which I wanted to record in writing. Like others before me, I write this to express the estrangement I feel in the absence of my leader, my teacher, and my role model. Through this work, I hope to remind myself and the reader about the duties we must fulfill towards the Messenger (pbuh).


I know what your thinking not much people ever give much thought to rescuing a cat or kitten from a plank or tree, well you probably know that fireman have been known to do that from time to time and the average person doesn't have the experience or equipment to get that high, that's where the video game company Bandai comes in, "The firm is putting on a show of virtual reality demos in Tokyo from April 15th, and one of them (as you can see in the video above) is all about rescuing cats using a plank and a toy kitten as props." So my guess is you will soon be seeing this coming soon to a VR headset of your choice. Than again to quote the article I found this in "The demo uses a HTC Vive, but we're not sure if Bandai Namco has any plans to release the demo to the public." So if rescuing cats from high up in VR is your thing, look forward to it some time in the future.
It's a fantastic application of the technology in the way that it blends the virtual surrounding (plank in the sky) with actual objects (plank and "cat").
So far, most commercially available applications of VR have been completely virtual, but there are some examples of VR experiences that cross over with real-world objects. For example, exercise bikes and treadmills that you actually ride or run on, but see a different environment.
I noticed that with the exercise bikes and one called Icarus where you fly, but your in some kind of contraption, the plank of wood so simplistic and cost effective yet it looks like it provides quite the experience, who knew!
Also do you remember what we talking about you are contracting all your muscles in order to be straight because VR can makes you feel you are falling.
I think that was mentioned somewhere in another post as I recall.


text:
#ifndef _BITS_PTHREADTYPES_ARCH_H
#define _BITS_PTHREADTYPES_ARCH_H	1

#include <endian.h>

#define __SIZEOF_PTHREAD_ATTR_T 36
#define __SIZEOF_PTHREAD_MUTEX_T 24
#define __SIZEOF_PTHREAD_MUTEXATTR_T 4
#define __SIZEOF_PTHREAD_COND_T 48
#define __SIZEOF_PTHREAD_CONDATTR_T 4
#define __SIZEOF_PTHREAD_RWLOCK_T 32
#define __SIZEOF_PTHREAD_RWLOCKATTR_T 8
#define __SIZEOF_PTHREAD_BARRIER_T 20
#define __SIZEOF_PTHREAD_BARRIERATTR_T 4

/* Data structure for mutex handling. */
#define __PTHREAD_COMPAT_PADDING_MID
#define __PTHREAD_COMPAT_PADDING_END
#define __PTHREAD_MUTEX_LOCK_ELISION    0
#define __PTHREAD_MUTEX_NUSERS_AFTER_KIND  1
#define __PTHREAD_MUTEX_USE_UNION          1

#define __LOCK_ALIGNMENT
#define __ONCE_ALIGNMENT

struct __pthread_rwlock_arch_t
{
  unsigned int __readers;
  unsigned int __writers;
  unsigned int __wrphase_futex;
  unsigned int __writers_futex;
  unsigned int __pad3;
  unsigned int __pad4;
#if __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
  unsigned char __pad1;
  unsigned char __pad2;
  unsigned char __shared;
  /* FLAGS must stay at this position in the structure to maintain
     binary compatibility.  */
  unsigned char __flags;
#else
  /* FLAGS must stay at this position in the structure to maintain
     binary compatibility.  */
  unsigned char __flags;
  unsigned char __shared;
  unsigned char __pad1;
  unsigned char __pad2;
#endif
  int __cur_writer;
};

#define __PTHREAD_RWLOCK_ELISION_EXTRA 0

#endif	/* bits/pthreadtypes.h */


(This archived article was published in 2013. More recent data is found in the articles section of our web site). Bank foreclosures on church properties are a relatively rare occurrence. Only about 1.1% of churches close each year (around 3,707 Christian churches per year between 2000 and 2005). Many of these closures may include the orderly disposition of properties. Most lending institutions are reluctant to foreclose on a church because of the potential for negative publicity. Nevertheless, in some situations banks are forced to foreclose on a church and take possession of the property. We were recently confronted with this scenario in a Chicago church appraisal and the question of real estate tax liability to the bank was brought up. While a church is a not-for-profit and tax exempt, what would become the status of this exemption if a bank takes back the property? What are the real estate tax implications? The issue came up for a church property in Cook County (Chicago), Illinois and that is where we directed our inquiry. Our church appraiser consulted several law firms and accountants that specialize in real estate tax issues. They all agreed that the new owner is not a tax exempt organization and if the building is now "dark" there would be no tax exempt use. In Cook County not-for-profits are required to submit an affidavit every year that warrants the property continues to be owned and used for exempt purposes. With a change in status the property should be put back on the tax rolls. This Chicago church property could go for a time without being assessed if the assessor has no notice of the change. Should the assessor become aware of the omitted assessment then the bank could have some exposure for back taxes plus penalties and interest which must be considered by the church property appraiser. The amount of tax exposure would also be dependent upon the market value estimate of the church or house of worship put on the property by the assessor. Should the assessment be too high an assessment appeal could be considered. In Cook County if the property is 100% vacant for a year the bank could ask for vacancy relief. In Cook County they would not modify the land value but might reduce the improvement value by as much as 80% or 90% (although they need to be re-requested every year). Other counties have no set policy on the issue and take a more ad hoc approach to vacancy issues that are treated more on a case by case basis. Every County and State is different, however, and the issue could be treated differently. Real estate assessments are tricky around issues that are a little out of the box for most banking professionals and we would recommend consulting a tax attorney who is well versed in the subject.


According to Paul Dobson "Baron du Coubertin got his ideas for the modern Olympic Games from Rugby School".
Did he indeed? So what of the modern Olympic Games held in an Athens city square in 1859? Or the first modern Olympic Games to be held in a stadium (the Panathenian stadium) in 1870. Or the fact that Baron Pierre de Coubertin wasn't born before the 1st January 1863.
Who cares where Baron Pierre de Coubertin got his ideas from. His ideas came with hindsight. They had already been tried and tested on modern Olympic Games before he was 8 years old.


text:
Medieval Mythography, Volume 3
The Emergence of Italian Humanism, 1321-1475
Jane Chance
Hardcover: $100.00
Hardcover ISBN 13: 9780813060125 - Pub Date: 12/2/2014 Details: 704 pages, 6.125x9.25 Subject(s): Literature - Medieval/RennaissanceUniversity Press of Florida
Add Hardcover To Cart
"An extraordinary achievement and a fitting final volume in the Medieval Mythography series. It contains stunning, original treatments of the three enormous figures of the later Middle Ages: Dante, Boccaccio, and Christine de Pizan."--J. Stephen Russell, author of Chaucer and the Trivium: The Mindsong of the Canterbury Tales
"There is nothing comparable available in any language. Chance's first-rate knowledge of the texts in a variety of languages is equaled by her knowledge of the secondary literature as well as contemporary literature."--Jon Solomon, Robert D. Novak Professor of Western Civilization and Culture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
With this volume, Jane Chance concludes her monumental study of the history of mythography in medieval literature. Her focus here is the advent of hybrid mythography, the transformation of mythological commentary by blending the scholarly with the courtly and the personal.
Chance's in-depth examination of works by the major writers of the period demonstrates how they essentially co-opted a thousand-year tradition. Their intricate narratives of identity mixed commentary with poetry, reinterpreted classical gods and heroes to suit personal agendas, and gave rise to innovative techniques such as "inglossation"--the use of a mythological figure to comment on the protagonist within an autobiographical allegory. In this manner, through allegorical authorial projection of the self, the poets explored a subjective world and manifested a burgeoning humanism that would eventually come to full fruition in the Renaissance.
No other work examines the mythographic interrelationships among these poets and their unique and personal approaches to mythological commentary.
Jane Chance, Andrew W. Mellon Distinguished Professor Emerita of English at Rice University, is a recent recipient of an honorary doctorate of letters from Purdue University. She has published twenty-two books, including Lord of the Rings: The Mythology of Power; The Genius Figure in Antiquity and the Middle Ages; and The Mythographic Chaucer: The Fabulation of Sexual Politics, as well as the first two volumes of Medieval Mythography.
A superb mountain of material. The goddess of Ambition who frowned on Anaeas has smiled on Prof. Chance. This book is a wonderful accomplishment.
--Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance
Chance's analyses are frequently engaging.
--The Medieval Review
Gender and Voice in Medieval French Literature and Song
An Introduction to the Sagas of Icelanders
An Old French Trilogy
Shaping Identity in Medieval French Literature
Machaut's Legacy
Signs That Sing
An Introduction to Piers Plowman
Black Legacies
An Introduction to the Chansons de Geste
Boccaccio's Fabliaux


text:
Q: Pandas dataframe : assigning values according to ranks at row-level Consider the following pandas dataframe (df):
index    A      B      C      D      E      F      G      weights

1        NaN    1      NaN    NaN    NaN    3      2      [0.6 , 0.2 , 0.2]
2        3      2      NaN    1      NaN    NaN    NaN    [0.5 , 0.4 , 0.1]
3        NaN    NaN    1      2      3      NaN    NaN    [0.8 , 0.1 , 0.1]
4        NaN    3      1      NaN    NaN    2      NaN    [0.9 , 0.1 , 0.0]

Desired output (values matched to their corresponding weights at row-level) :
1        NaN    0.6    NaN    NaN    NaN    0.2    0.2
2        0.1    0.4    NaN    0.5    NaN    NaN    NaN
3        NaN    NaN    0.8    0.1    0.1    NaN    NaN
4        NaN    0.0    0.9    NaN    NaN    0.1    NaN

My current solution :
def assign_weights(row):
    for i in range(1,4):
        row.replace(i, row.weights[i-1], inplace=True)
    return row

df.apply(assign_weights, axis = 1)

Is there a faster way (for a big dataframe with more weights to be assigned) ?

A: Not sure if this will be faster, though:
>>> def worker(row):
...     n = np.array(row['weights'])
...     i = (row.notnull()) & (row.index != 'weights')
...     row[i] = n[row[i].astype('int').values - 1]
...     return row
>>>
>>> df.apply(worker, axis=1)
         A    B    C    D    E    F    G          weights
index
1      NaN  0.6  NaN  NaN  NaN  0.2  0.2  [0.6, 0.2, 0.2]
2      0.1  0.4  NaN  0.5  NaN  NaN  NaN  [0.5, 0.4, 0.1]
3      NaN  NaN  0.8  0.1  0.1  NaN  NaN  [0.8, 0.1, 0.1]
4      NaN  0.0  0.9  NaN  NaN  0.1  NaN  [0.9, 0.1, 0.0]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Believe it or not, giraffes are vulnerable to extinction. They are an endangered species. Their numbers have plunged over the last 30 years from around 150,000 to less than 100,000, or a little more than the population of New Braunfels, TX. Their numbers are declining because their landscape is disappearing, due to encroachment by people for farming and agriculture, as well as mining operations, civil unrest, resulting from rebel militias operating in giraffe habitats, illegal hunting, which sometimes funds the militias, and ecological changes, such as drought and global warming that require giraffes to wander into new areas.
SAVE THE GIRAFFES aims to stop the decreases in the number of giraffes in Africa so that future generations can marvel at these magnificent creatures, the tallest mammal on the planet. But we are not only trying to save giraffes. Because giraffes require a large amount of land for feeding, we can save other wildlife and habitats when we focus on giraffe conservation. Giraffes live in areas that are also inhabited by endangered mammals, such as Cape hunting dogs, leopards, and Abbott's duiker, endangered birds, such as the secretary bird, southern ground hornbill, and martial eagle, and endangered reptiles, such as the Usambara spotted worm snake. Giraffes are what conservationists call an 'umbrella' species because by protecting these iconic animals, we can protect a host of other not-so- iconic species that are also in trouble.


text:
Home » Donald Trump soon back on Facebook and Instagram
Donald Trump soon back on Facebook and Instagram
By Teilor Stonein Techno
Donald's Facebook account Trump had been suspended on January 7, 2021.
Social media giant Meta announced on Wednesday that it would "end the suspension" of Donald Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts in the coming weeks, two years after the banning of Donald Trump. ;former US president following the storming of the Capitol.
The public must be able to hear what political figures are saying in order to be able to make informed choices, justified Nick Clegg, Meta's head of international affairs, in a statement.
But that doesn't mean there are no limits to what people can say on our platform. When there is a risk of harm in the real world – a high risk that warrants Meta's intervention in the public debate – we act, he said.
L& #x27;former American head of state had been banned from the social network on January 7, 2021, while he was still in power, for having encouraged his followers during the attack on Congress in Washington the day before, an unprecedented decision, imitated at the time by most mainstream social networks, including Twitter.
In June 2021, Facebook had decided that the exclusion would last two years, and that the Republican billionaire could only return when the risks to public safety had disappeared.
The suspension should never again happen to a sitting president or to anyone who does not deserve sanctions!, reacted Donald Trump from his account on Truth Social, the social network he launched last month. last year.
Last week, the former president formally requested to be able to return to Facebook.
His lawyer had sent a letter to Meta founder and chairman Mark Zuckerberg, the ;calling not to silence a presidential candidate.
The politician had already been readmitted on Twitter on November 19, 2022, four days after declaring his candidacy in the 2024 presidential election.
He has yet to post to this account, however, communicating primarily through his own platform, Truth Social.
Truth Social's reach, however, is very small compared to the one Donald Trump had before.
Trump needs [Facebook] to raise funds, Andrew Selepak, professor of media and technology at the University of Florida, recently pointed out on Twitter .
Like it or not, Mr. Trump is one of the leading political figures in the country and it is in the public interest to hear what he has to say. , said Anthony Romero, the director of the powerful ACLU civil rights association, on Wednesday.
Start of the Twitter widget. Skip widget? End of Twitter widget. Back to top of widget?
He further notes that some of Trump's most shocking social media posts have been used as evidence against him and his administration in lawsuits.
C&# x27; is a calamitous and irresponsible decision by Meta, which will […] fuel the spread of hatred and misinformation, for its part commented on the Real Facebook Oversight Board, a very critical association of the social network.
Start of the Twitter widget. Skip widget? End of Twitter widget. Back to the top of the widget?
We know that any decision on this subject will be heavily criticized, pointed out Nick Clegg.
The world number two in online advertising is at the heart of the debate between supporters of stricter content moderation, to clean up the platforms – generally on the left of the American political spectrum – and those who accuse the major platforms of censorship, especially against Republicans, without proof.
Suspending a president from power was an extraordinary decision, taken in extraordinary circumstances, recalled Nick Clegg.
Meta has determined that the risk to public safety has diminished enough to reinstate the President's accounts, but with new safeguards in place, including against repeat offenders, to deter further policy violations of the two social networks.
In this photo from January 6, 2021, supporters of Donald Trump besiege the United States Capitol in Washington.
The company had, in fact, adopted a new grid of sanctions in 2021, after a particularly tense American presidential campaign on the platforms and the invasion of the Capitol on the day of the official victory of Joe Biden.
In addition to his support to his followers that day, Donald Trump had been hammering away his Big Lie theory for months — baseless allegations that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.
If Mr. Trump publishes transgressive content again, they will be removed and he will be suspended between one month and two years, depending on the seriousness of the offense, Nick Clegg said.
Meta will be able to curb the spread of messages that do not pose concrete risks but contribute to undermining the legitimacy of an election.
Previous ArticleThree landmark Developer_Direct announcements from Xbox and Bethesda
Next ArticleApple rolls out security update for iPhone 5S, released nearly 10 years ago