text:
438 F. 3d 22 - Enwonwu v. R Gonzales
Federal Reporter, Third Series
438 F.3d
438 F3d 22 Enwonwu v. R Gonzales
Frank Igwebuike ENWONWU, Petitioner,
Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Heard January 11, 2006.
Decided February 13, 2006.
Robert B. Carmel-Montes and Morton Sklar of the World Organization for Human Rights USA, with whom The Carmel Law Group was on brief, for petitioner.
Andrew C. MacLachlan, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, with whom Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, and David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, were on brief, for respondent.
Before LYNCH and HOWARD, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge.
LYNCH, Circuit Judge.
Frank Igwebuike Enwonwu is a Nigerian who entered the United States in 1986 as a heroin drug courier, on behalf, he said, of members of the Nigerian military. He was convicted the same year of federal drug felony crimes, which made him an aggravated felon for immigration law purposes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). He agreed to cooperate with the government and avoided imprisonment in exchange for being an informant.
Some years later, in 1997, the INS served on him a Notice to Appear to show cause why he should not be deported. As an aggravated felon he was eligible for neither asylum nor withholding of removal; in 1999, however, he became eligible and applied for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) who considered his CAT claim ruled that he had met his burden of showing he would be tortured if returned to Nigeria. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) disagreed, reversed the IJ, and later denied Enwonwu's motion to reopen. Enwonwu did not petition this court for review of those two decisions.
Faced with removal, Enwonwu brought a habeas action in federal district court in Boston on the basis, inter alia, that removing him from the United States would violate substantive due process under the state-created danger theory because he is likely to be tortured on his return to Nigeria. The district court, which had habeas jurisdiction at the time pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, held evidentiary hearings and prepared findings of fact. On May 11, 2005, that court lost jurisdiction under the terms of the new REAL ID Act, Pub.L. No. 109-13, § 106, 119 Stat. 302, 311 (2005) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1252 note), and the case was transferred to this court. Nonetheless, the district court wrote an advisory opinion on what it was prepared to find, see generally Enwonwu v. Chertoff, 376 F.Supp.2d 42 (D.Mass.2005), including that Enwonwu should prevail on his state-created danger theory, id. at 74.
In this court Enwonwu continues to press three major issues and some minor ones. He again makes a habeas-type constitutional claim on the state-created danger substantive due process rights theory. He also argues that the REAL ID Act is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause, U.S. Const. art. 1, § 9, cl. 2, and that as a result the case must be returned to the district court. Finally, he makes a classic petition for review challenge to the BIA's determination that he is not eligible for CAT relief and to its denial of his motion to reopen, a claim also made in the habeas petition. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) concedes that this court has jurisdiction to review all of these issues.1
This opinion, then, addresses three claims: (1) that Enwonwu may not be removed from this country because it would violate constitutional substantive due process rights; (2) that the REAL ID Act itself is unconstitutional, and (3) that the BIA decision reversing the IJ's determination that Enwonwu had met the burden for CAT protection must be vacated.
We hold as a matter of law, regardless of the facts in this case, that a non-citizen trying to avoid removal from the country states no substantive due process claim on a state-created danger theory. As a result, in this case there is no possible claim that the REAL ID Act violates the Suspension Clause. Further, the case does not fairly raise Enwonwu's other arguments as to the constitutionality or proper interpretation of the REAL ID Act and so we do not reach those issues. Finally, utilizing our normal standards on petition for review of the BIA's decision on CAT relief, we remand to the BIA for further consideration of the CAT issue.
Prior Administrative Proceedings
Enwonwu first appeared before an IJ pursuant to a June 6, 1997, Notice to Appear. The INS alleged Enwonwu's removability and his ineligibility for asylum or withholding of deportation, based on his 1986 conviction for importation of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963, and his five-year prison sentence.2 The IJ agreed and ordered Enwonwu deported to Nigeria.
The BIA affirmed. On June 2, 1999, however, the BIA granted Enwonwu's motion to reopen proceedings on the ground that he had become eligible for relief under Article 3 of the newly applicable CAT.3 The BIA remanded the case to the IJ to provide Enwonwu an opportunity to apply for CAT protection.
On remand, the IJ held additional hearings and concluded on December 16, 1999, that Enwonwu had met his burden for deferral of removal under the CAT. The IJ found that Enwonwu had smuggled heroin from Nigeria into the United States, and that after he was apprehended, he "cooperate[d] with the Drug Enforcement Administration and provided names" of his co-conspirators. The IJ said he disbelieved Enwonwu's testimony that Enwonwu had told the DEA that "high level [Nigerian] military official[s]" were among his co-conspirators. Nonetheless, the IJ found that "the respondent was involved with others in Nigeria and there also remains the possibility that the people with whom he was involved were indeed connected to the military or the Government."
The IJ found that "the Nigerian prison system is a haven for human rights abuses and . . . prisoners within that system are routinely beaten and tortured." He also found that "it is the policy and the law in Nigeria that those who have been convicted of drug trafficking crimes outside of that country are subject to arrest, detention, and prosecution on account of those convictions." The IJ accepted the testimony of University of California at Berkeley Professor Michael J. Watts. Watts had testified that (1) Nigeria is a major heroin trafficking center, (2) members of the "Nigerian elite" with links to the Nigerian government and military had a hand in the drug trafficking in the country, and (3) Enwonwu would be "highly identifiable" upon his return to Nigeria because "many people who do return to that country after even 10 to 15 years are . . . arrested for grievances which the Government may have had against them which occurred a long time ago."
On the basis of this evidence, the IJ concluded that "it is more likely than not that the respondent would face torture if he were to be returned to Nigeria." The IJ reasoned that this was so because "either the Government would . . . arrest him because of his conviction in the United States and subject him to imprisonment and potential torture because of the law in that country, or because of the interrelationship of the drug traffickers, the military and the Government, that retribution would be still sought against him because of his cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Administration." The IJ thus identified two alternative reasons for his finding as to the likelihood of torture: one general, applicable to anyone convicted of drug crimes who is repatriated to Nigeria, and one specific to Enwonwu and his status as a cooperator and informant.
The DHS appealed, and on May 30, 2003, the BIA reversed the IJ's grant of CAT protection. It wrote:
The Immigration Judge granted relief largely based on the fact that the respondent, under Nigerian law, will likely be subject to arrest, detention and prosecution on account of his drug conviction in the United States. We have previously held that a Nigerian convicted of a drug offense in the United States failed to establish eligibility for deferral of removal because the evidence she presented regarding the enforcement of [Nigerian law] could not meet the burden of proof for CAT.
On the strength of this precedent, the BIA concluded "that the mere possibility of arrest and prosecution in Nigeria does not establish that the respondent in this instance would more likely than not be subject to torture by a public official or with the acquiescence of such an official." It vacated the IJ's decision and ordered Enwonwu removed from the United States.
Enwonwu did not petition for review of the BIA's order in this court. On October 13, 2004, more than a year after the BIA decision, Enwonwu filed a motion to reopen with the BIA. He stated that he had not been notified of the DHS' appeal to the BIA or even of the BIA's decision, and that he therefore had had no chance to oppose the DHS' position or to appeal the BIA's order. The BIA denied Enwonwu's motion as untimely filed. It denied his lack of notice argument, finding that a notice of the DHS' appeal had been mailed to Enwonwu's attorney of record and that Enwonwu, who was supposed to inform the government of any change of address, had failed to do so when he moved after the date of the October 1999 order which granted him CAT protection.
Prior Court Proceedings
On March 17, 2005, Enwonwu initiated habeas corpus proceedings in the district court. He argued (1) that his right to procedural due process was violated when the BIA issued its orders without providing him with sufficient notice of the proceedings, (2) that he had met his CAT burden and the IJ's finding to that effect should have been permitted to stand, and (3) that the BIA's order violated his substantive due process rights because his removal to Nigeria would subject him to a government-created danger.
On April 11, 2005, the district court granted Enwonwu an emergency stay of deportation. It then conducted a four-day evidentiary hearing, taking testimony from Enwonwu, DEA agents who had dealt with Enwonwu after his 1986 arrival, and other witnesses.
The hearing ended on May 3, 2005. Eight days later, before the district court issued a decision, the REAL ID Act took effect, stripping the district court of its habeas jurisdiction in this case and mandating that it transfer the case to this court. See REAL ID Act § 106(c) (transferring existing § 2241 habeas cases involving challenges to "final administrative order[s] of removal" to the court of appeals, which is to "treat the transferred case as if it had been filed pursuant to a petition for review"). The district court did transfer the case after writing the advisory opinion. See Enwonwu, 376 F.Supp.2d at 85.
In that advisory opinion, the district court made extensive findings of fact relating to Enwonwu's dealings with the DEA, based in part on evidence which had not been presented to the IJ. Id. at 43-59. As for Enwonwu's procedural due process argument based on lack of notice, the district court concluded that it should fail. It found that notice of the BIA's appeal was served on Enwonwu's attorney of record, which is all that is required under the applicable regulations. Id. at 62-63.
As for Enwonwu's CAT claim, the district court dealt with it in two analyses. First, it characterized the claim as an argument that the BIA decision was so flawed as to constitute a denial of due process, and so found. It noted that "[a]bsent from the BIA's decision is any acknowledgment of th[e] evidence [that Enwonwu would face retribution because of his cooperation with the DEA] or the portion of the hearing officer's decision which relied upon it." Id. at 68. It concluded that such a failure to consider all the evidence offended due process, id. at 64-65 (citing, inter alia, Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 337, 357, 57 S.Ct. 816, 81 L.Ed. 1143 (1937)), and recommended as relief that the case be remanded to the BIA for reconsideration.
The district court also analyzed separately a different ground for relief. It recommended that Enwonwu's "state-created danger" claim—that his substantive due process rights were violated when the government put him in danger by enticing him to be an informant and then sought to send him to the place where that danger would be most acute—should succeed. It found that government agents had coerced Enwonwu into serving as an informant by promising him protection, id. at 59, and concluded: "For the executive to subject Enwonwu to the risk of deadly retribution by inducing his cooperation though promises of protection and then force him to face that retribution is utterly egregious and intolerable," id. at 74. The court rejected the DHS' argument that as an alien, Enwonwu had no substantive due process rights, saying: "Enwonwu does not claim a substantive due process right to remain in the United States, but the right to live and the right to be free from state sanctioned torture, the danger of which, he alleges, the executive created."4 Id. at 70.
Finally, the district court suggested that the REAL ID Act's transfer of § 2241 petitions to the courts of appeals, where they are to be treated as petitions for review, may be an unconstitutional limitation on habeas corpus. Though it ultimately made no recommendation as to the provision's constitutionality, it noted that aliens like Enwonwu "are now without the benefit of the district courts' experience in conducting searching evidentiary hearings." Id. at 83.
A. Immigration Law and Separation of Powers
Under the Constitution, the tasks of defining how aliens are admitted to the United States, whether and under what conditions they may stay, and under what conditions such an alien will be removed or may avoid removal, are committed to Congress. See, e.g., Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792, 97 S.Ct. 1473, 52 L.Ed.2d 50 (1977); Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531-32, 74 S.Ct. 737, 98 L.Ed. 911 (1954). Congress has determined that aliens who commit the crime of smuggling heroin into the United States are subject to removal.5 See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), (C); id. § 1229a(e)(2). The IJ properly found Enwonwu inadmissible as a controlled substance trafficker, id. § 1182(a)(2)(C), and as an alien convicted of a controlled substance violation (other than simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana), id. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). These grounds of inadmissibility may not be waived.
There is no question that Enwonwu committed the crimes in question, crimes which constitute an aggravated felony, id. § 1101(a)(43)(B), and which resulted in a sentence of five years or more of imprisonment, id. § 1101(a)(48)(B). As such, Enwonwu committed "a particularly serious crime" and is not eligible for consideration for asylum. Id. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii). Further, he is considered a danger to the community and so is not eligible for withholding of removal. Id. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii), (iv); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). He is also not eligible for cancellation of removal because of his conviction. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3), (b)(1)(C).
Nonetheless, the law changed to provide one possible avenue of relief for Enwonwu to avoid return to Nigeria, under the CAT. Article 3 of the CAT prohibits "refoulement," or return, of an alien to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. See Mediouni v. INS, 314 F.3d 24, 26 n. 2 (1st Cir.2002). Against the background of Article 3, Enwonwu asks us to recognize a new constitutional right which prohibits the government from removing him from the United States, or at least from removing him to Nigeria. As to the violation of that purported right, he argues he is entitled to the remedy of release from DHS custody entirely.6
He argues that an alien has a substantive due process right not to be removed from the United States to a state-created risk, or at least not to be removed to the country where he faces greater danger on account of the state-created risk. As Enwonwu puts it: "If the DHS were to remove Mr. Enwonwu to Nigeria, it would be placing him in a position more dangerous tha[n] it found him and the Constitution prohibits this." The United States created this risk, according to Enwonwu, when (1) agents ran a drug sting operation in order to place him in a position in which he would cooperate; (2) the DEA and DHS refused to assist Enwonwu in his effort to ensure he would not be removed, even though the agencies knew he would be at high risk; and (3) the DHS actively tried to remove him.
B. The Substantive Due Process Argument Fails to State a Constitutional Claim
Perhaps if there were such a serious procedural irregularity as to affect those procedural rights recognized for aliens, Enwonwu could state a procedural due process claim. However, there can be no substantive due process objection to the order removing Enwonwu. The state-created danger theory argument fails because an alien has no constitutional substantive due process right not to be removed from the United States, nor a right not to be removed from the United States to a particular place.7 We disagree with the district court's conclusion that such a right could exist on any set of facts, including the facts in this case. The theory itself simply is not viable; it does not state a claim on any facts.8
Our holding does not rely on the reasoning that this circuit has never embraced the existence of a substantive due process state-created danger theory, even for citizens. See Velez-Diaz v. Vega-Irizarry, 421 F.3d 71, 80-81 & n. 3 (1st Cir.2005); Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27, 35 (1st Cir.2005). Whether or not the state-created danger theory is viable for citizens, it is not viable for non-citizens seeking to avoid removal from this country.
Nor do we rely on the reasoning that the facts here, as alleged or found, are insufficient to bring Enwonwu within the scope of a state-created danger theory. Even if this circuit did recognize such a theory as to citizens, and even assuming dubitante that these facts come within such a theory, the cause of action still would not exist as a defense against removal of an alien.
We also do not rely on the reasoning that the state-created danger theory is itself (to the extent other courts have recognized it) limited to cases where the harm has been done and there is an action for damages, as opposed to anticipatory-harm cases such as this one, where the relief sought is to restrain the government from taking action. See, e.g., Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1208 (3d Cir.1996) (recognizing state-created danger theory in post factum damages action); Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567, 572 (10th Cir.1995) (same); Dwares v. New York, 985 F.2d 94, 99 (2d Cir.1993) (same). Finally, we do not rest on the fact that if any threat exists to Enwonwu, it is from the Nigerian authorities upon his return to Nigeria, not from the United States.
Our holding rests instead on the constitutional assignment of responsibilities among the three branches of the federal government over matters of immigration. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 (granting Congress power to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," and to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization"); id. art. II, § 3 (stating that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"). By entertaining the state-created danger theory as means for relief from a removal order, a court, whether sitting in habeas or in judicial review, steps outside its defined constitutional role and intrudes into a realm reserved to the Executive and the Legislative Branches. See Galvan, 347 U.S. at 530-3, 74 S.Ct. 7371 (noting because the question of "admission of aliens and their right to remain ... touch[es] . . . basic aspects of national sovereignty, more particularly our foreign relations and the national security," "the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress," though the Executive, which enforces them, "must respect the procedural safeguards of due process"). The state-created danger theory is not a claim that an agency acted in a procedurally unlawful way to deny an applicant a fair hearing. Rather, it is an impermissible effort to shift to the judiciary the power to expel or retain aliens. That is a power the Constitution has assigned to the political branches.
If a reminder of this were needed at all, the Supreme Court in Fiallo said in 1977: [O]ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over the admission of aliens. Our cases have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control.
430 U.S. at 792, 97 S.Ct. 1473 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320, 339, 29 S.Ct. 671, 53 L.Ed. 1013 (1909); Shaughnessy v. U.S. ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210, 73 S.Ct. 625, 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953)); see also Galvan, 347 U.S. at 530-31, 74 S.Ct. 737 (rejecting the notion that the expansion of substantive due process might limit Congress' power over immigration, because "the slate is not clean" — "[a]s to the extent of the power of Congress under review, there is not merely a page of history, but a whole volume" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We hold that this state-created substantive due process claim by an alien seeking to avoid removal from the United States is not an actionable constitutional claim at all. On this point, we agree with the Third Circuit. Kamara v. Attorney Gen., 420 F.3d 202, 218 (3d Cir.2005).
This is not to say there is no possible remedy for petitioners in situations like Enwonwu's. Congress and the Executive are not ignorant of the problem and have established an alternative approach: For aliens who have committed aggravated felonies and are in particular danger of being tortured following removal, there is the remedy of relief under the CAT for those who qualify. "Under the CAT, the United States is prohibited from returning an alien to a country if `there are substantial grounds for believing the [alien] would be in danger of being subjected to torture.'" Ang v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 50, 58 (1st Cir.2005) (alteration in original) (quoting Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, Pub.L. No. 105-277, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, *2681-822 (1998)). We deal with that issue separately.
C. The Notice-Based Procedural Due Process Argument Also Fails to State a Claim
We quickly dispose of Enwonwu's claim that his procedural due process rights were violated because he received insufficient notice of the DHS' appeal from the IJ's decision granting CAT relief. The DHS filed its notice of appeal within thirty days, and that notice was mailed to Enwonwu's counsel of record at the address of record.9 The BIA correctly concluded that there was no failure of notice to Enwonwu under the applicable regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1292.5(a) (any required notice "shall be . . . served by or upon ... the attorney or representative of record"). Under these circumstances, there is not even a colorable claim for denial of procedural due process stemming from the BIA's decision not to reopen. Mehilli v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 86, 93-94 (1st Cir. 2005).
The REAL ID Act
The case was properly transferred to this court under the REAL ID Act. Ishak v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 22, 29-30 (1st Cir. 2005); Sena v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 50, 52 (1st Cir.2005) (per curiam). The claims are now reviewed as a petition in the court of appeals, which is now the exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal. Ishak, 422 F.3d at 27; see also REAL ID Act § 106(a).
A. Parties' Arguments
Enwonwu argues that the change effected by the REAL ID Act—the elimination of § 2241 habeas jurisdiction as to orders of removal in favor of consolidated review in the court of appeals—narrows the relief that was available in habeas, raising constitutional issues. He bases his argument on the Suspension Clause:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
U.S. Const. art. 1, § 9, cl. 2.
Enwonwu argues first that the federal courts of appeals, engaging in normal petition-for-review oversight of BIA decisions, may have a narrower scope of review than did district courts sitting in habeas and that this would violate the Suspension Clause. Cf. Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 381, 97 S.Ct. 1224, 51 L.Ed.2d 411 (1977) (writ is not suspended where an "adequate and effective" alternative remedy is provided). Second, he argues, the appeals courts lack the fact-finding capability of district courts; a capability essential in his case and others like it because he raises "constitutional claims requiring fact-finding efforts." He further argues that the Act "imposes [a] . . . time limit on the filing of habeas related claims that did not previously exist" because there was no deadline for habeas filings, whereas there is a thirty-day time limit, under both the REAL ID Act and previous law, for petitions for review. Finally, he suggests that aliens who have already completed the petition for review process may be deemed to have lost a pre-existing habeas right altogether, since presumably they will not be permitted to petition the court of appeals a second time on the same issue.
The DHS responds that the supposed infirmities Enwonwu identifies do not arise in this case. It offers its own, very different proposal as to where any fact-finding necessary to a REAL ID Act proceeding would take place. The DHS position is that all fact-finding, if the court of appeals deems any necessary, must occur in the administrative agency, before the IJ on remand, and not in the courts. In DHS' view, the court of appeals may not do fact-finding itself, or designate anyone to act as a fact-finder for it.
As to any potential differences in the standard and scope of review, the DHS points out that under the REAL ID Act the court of appeals may consider all "constitutional claims or questions of law," 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); it argues that this is the sort of "adequate and effective" substitute for habeas review that the Supreme Court has required. See Swain, 430 U.S. at 381, 97 S.Ct. 1224. Second, it argues that Enwonwu's claim based on the supposed incapacity of the courts of appeals to find facts, directly or through a designee, fails: it says that under the REAL ID Act, a court of appeals in need of fact-finding to determine a constitutional question can remand to the agency, which has the power to find facts, though not to rule on any constitutional issues raised.10 As to Enwonwu's remaining arguments, the DHS suggests he lacks standing because the changes in question do not affect him and there is therefore no "injury in fact."
B. Analysis
On the limited issues actually presented in the case, we reject Enwonwu's argument.
In Saint Fort v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 191 (1st Cir.2003), which followed the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001), this court held that § 2241 habeas corpus jurisdiction remained in effect even when judicial review of denial of CAT claims was constricted by statute. Saint Fort, 329 F.3d at 200-02. To hold otherwise, we found, would pose serious questions under the Suspension Clause. Id. at 201-02. We said "[t]he scope of habeas review is not the same as the scope of statutory judicial review in the courts of appeal." Id. at 203 (citing Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U.S. 229, 236, 73 S.Ct. 603, 97 L.Ed. 972 (1953)). Habeas review encompassed, at a minimum, "constitutional claims that are at least colorable," "colorable claims that an alien's statutory rights have been violated," and "pure issues of law." Id. (declining to reach the question of whether "pure issues of law" includes application of legal principles to undisputed facts). In St. Cyr, the Supreme Court likewise held that federal courts retained § 2241 habeas jurisdiction at least as to questions of law, even in the case of criminal aliens. 533 U.S. at 314, 121 S.Ct. 2271 (also outlining other areas in which habeas provided for review).
These cases analyzed the landscape prior to the REAL ID Act. Now, under the provisions of the REAL ID Act, Congress has eliminated habeas review as to most types of immigration claims. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). However, the REAL ID Act also grants this court full review of "constitutional claims or questions of law." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Mehilli, 433 F.3d at 92; accord Kamara, 420 F.3d at 209-10.
This case presents only pure questions of law, and so the Act encompasses at least the same review and the same relief as to Enwonwu as were available under prior habeas law. See St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 314 n. 38, 121 S.Ct. 2271 (noting in dicta that "[a]s to the question of timing and congruent means of [habeas] review, ... Congress could, without raising any constitutional questions, provide an adequate substitute through the courts of appeals" (citing Swain, 430 U.S. at 381, 97 S.Ct. 1224)). We need not decide here whether the Act affords greater relief than that previously available to aliens under § 2241.11 See, e.g., Kamara, 420 F.3d at 215 n. 11.
We have no need to address the other arguments about the proper functioning of the REAL ID Act and its constitutionality, because those questions are not presented on these facts. The substantive due process state-created danger theory fails to state a constitutional claim at all, and while there are procedural due process constraints on removal proceedings, see generally Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993), no colorable due process claim is stated about the BIA's denial of the motion to reopen. The only issues presented for these purposes are pure ones of law.12 Since there are no colorable constitutional issues, there is no need for fact-finding as to those issues. The same logic applies to the other supposed infirmities Enwonwu identifies, including time limits on filing: since none has worked a deprivation on Enwonwu, the issues are not presented and we need not reach them to resolve his case.
Statutory Review of BIA Denial of CAT Relief
A. Jurisdiction
Finally, we reach Enwonwu's argument that the BIA erred when it reversed the IJ's determination as to CAT protection.13
Under pre-REAL ID Act law, Enwonwu would have faced two jurisdictional hurdles to review of this claim. First, he did not petition this court for review of the BIA's final order of removal, dated May 30, 2003; this rendered his challenge untimely under pre-REAL ID Act law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petition for review must be filed not later than thirty days after final order of removal). However, § 106(c) of the REAL ID Act states that when the district court transfers a pending habeas case to this court, we are to treat it "as if it had been filed pursuant to a petition for review under [§ 1252], except that subsection (b)(1) of such section shall not apply." § 106(c), 119 Stat. at 311. The "subsection (b)(1)" to which the statute refers is the thirty-day time limit. Here, as in Ishak, the DHS has conceded that this provision of the REAL ID Act negates the time limit issue and that we have jurisdiction. See 422 F.3d at 29.
Second, under pre-REAL ID Act law, an alien convicted of an aggravated felony and removable on such grounds was statutorily barred from petitioning a court of appeals for direct review of the BIA's finding that he was ineligible for CAT relief.14 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). The REAL ID Act has eliminated this barrier as to "constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals." Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Kamara, 420 F.3d at 211 (noting that REAL ID Act's jurisdictional grant in CAT appeals by aggravated felons extends not just to legal determinations but also to application of law to facts); Hamid v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 642, 647 (7th Cir.2005) (under the REAL ID Act, court of appeals may review constitutional and legal questions "relevant to a petitioner's claim for relief under CAT, despite his aggravated felony conviction"). The DHS so concedes.
B. The BIA's Decision
In its decision reversing the grant of CAT relief, the BIA rejected the IJ's first finding as to why Enwonwu had met the CAT burden—that "the Government would . . . arrest him because of his conviction in the United States and subject him to imprisonment and potential torture." The BIA reasoned that, as a general matter, possible arrest and prosecution in Nigeria are insufficient to establish a prima facie case for CAT protection.
However, the IJ also made a second finding—that "because of the interrelationship of the drug traffickers, the military and the Government, . . . retribution would be still sought against [Enwonwu] because of his cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Administration." The IJ made explicit findings of fact in support of this conclusion, discussed it at length, and found that this second ground sufficed to meet Enwonwu's CAT burden. The BIA did not address this finding at all.
In circumstances such as these, the opinion is insufficiently reasoned as a matter of law. See Halo v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 15, 18 (1st Cir.2005); Gailius v. INS, 147 F.3d 34, 46-47 (1st Cir.1998) (holding that the BIA is obligated to "state with sufficient particularity and clarity" the reasons for its findings as to claims for relief from removal) (quoting Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 343 (9th Cir.1994)); see also NLRB v. Pan Am. Grain Co., 432 F.3d 69, 94 (1st Cir.2005) (noting that the court did not "understand the [NLRB's] rationale" and that while the Board's "result may or may not be sound, . . . until we understand its basis, we cannot effectively review it"). The agency need not spell out every last detail of its reasoning where the logical underpinnings are clear from the record. See Sulaiman v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 347, 350 (1st Cir.2005). However, the agency "is obligated to offer more explanation when the record suggests strong arguments for the petitioner that the [agency] has not considered." Id.
We remand to the BIA for expedited further consideration of the CAT issue in light of its failure to address the second ground in the IJ's decision. See Gailius, 147 F.3d at 47; see also Pan Am. Grain, 432 F.3d at 74-75. We intimate no view on the proper resolution of the CAT question.
The constitutional claims presented by petitioner are dismissed. Otherwise, the case is remanded to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. So ordered.
It concedes our jurisdiction as to the CAT claim only insofar as the claim involves an issue of lawSee Part VI, infra.
The prison term was suspended, and Enwonwu also was sentenced to parole and supervised release. The fact that the sentence was suspended is irrelevant to the removability and asylum eligibility analysesSousa v. INS, 226 F.3d 28, 33 n. 4 (1st Cir.2000) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(B)).
The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 113, provides that "[n]o State Party shall expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." Id. art. 3, § 1. It entered into force in the United States in November 1994, see Regulations Concerning the Convention Against Torture, 64 Fed.Reg. 8478, 8478 (Feb. 19, 1999) (background); however, it was not given domestic effect until 1998, see Saint Fort v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 191, 195, 202 (1st Cir.2003) (citing Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, Pub.L. No. 105-277, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, *2681-761, *2681-822 (1998)).
The remedial effect of such a ruling would, of course, differ from a mere remand to the BIA. It would preclude the BIA from ordering removal to Nigeria
We granted permission for Enwonwu, although represented by counsel, to file a pro se brief, in which he raised three issues. One of these issues is different from those discussed in the text. He argues that the IJ and BIA were wrong in concluding that he was removable. His argument proceeds as follows: He says the INS issued him a visa extension subsequent to his 1986 conviction, and that visa extension meant he was admitted to the United States. Since he was admitted, he argues, he is only removable if he is "deportable."See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(2)(B). He argues that he is not "deportable" because two of the statutory clauses defining "deportability"—8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (B)(i)—limit the term to aliens who have been convicted of crimes after admission, whereas he was convicted of a crime before admission.
This argument fails, at the least, because Enwonwu is deportable for a separate reason. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A), "[a]ny alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was . . . inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable." Because of his felony conviction, Enwonwu is inadmissible under current law, id. § 1182(a)(2)(C), and was inadmissible under all prior versions of § 1182 dating back to 1986 and beyond. See id. § 1182(a)(23) (1982) (rendering "excludable" "[a]ny alien who has been convicted of a violation of . . . any law or regulation relating to the illicit possession of or traffic in narcotic drugs"); Guaylupo-Moya v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 121, 125 n. 2 (2d Cir.2005) (noting the term "inadmissible" replaced the term "excludable" in 1996) (citing the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208, § 308(d), 110 Stat. 3009, *3009-616 to *3009-617).
See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689-90, 695, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001) (rejecting the proposition that "aliens that the Government finds itself unable to remove are to be condemned to an indefinite term of imprisonment within the United States" and holding that, consistent with due process, "an alien's post-removal-period detention" must be limited "to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States").
One might think that the problem could be mooted by simply removing Enwonwu to a country other than Nigeria. The respondent admits this is not a solution and that the issue before us is ripe. It is true that aliens such as Enwonwu are not necessarily removed to their native countries: They may designate a country to which they want to be removed, and the Attorney General is statutorily commanded to accede to that designation provided certain conditions (e.g., the approval of the designated country) are met. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2). As a practical matter, however, if the alien does not designate a country, the Attorney General has little choice but to remove him to the country of which he is a subject, national, or citizenId. § 1231(b)(2)(D) (mandating that the Attorney General "shall remove" the alien to that country unless the country is unwilling to accept the alien or refuses to say whether it will accept him). The respondent has represented that there is no reason to believe any other country would accept Enwonwu, a convicted heroin smuggler.
Because Enwonwu's habeas petition does not state a substantive due process claim at all, the district court should have dismissed this claim on its face and should not have heard evidence
Counsel of record moved at some point, though he did not deny receipt of the notice of appeal. In any event, he did not forward the notice to Enwonwu
DHS says that even before the REAL ID Act, this sort of fact-finding remand to the agency was the practice of district courts sitting in habeas and reviewing constitutional challenges to BIA decisions. This does not appear to be so. The case DHS cites for the proposition,INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002), does not support it, and various appellate and district court decisions are to the contrary, see, e.g., Magana-Pizano v. INS, 200 F.3d 603, 610 (9th Cir.1999); Wahab v. Attorney Gen., 373 F.Supp.2d 524, 525 (E.D.Pa.2005) (noting that prior to the REAL ID Act, aliens fighting removal via habeas were "allowed . . . to proffer evidence [to the district court] at an evidentiary hearing" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243).
It is ironic that Enwonwu's primary attack is on the REAL ID Act. The REAL ID Act gave Enwonwu greater rights than he had at the time he filed his habeas petition because it for the first time gave criminal aliens the right to seek judicial review of the CAT, and it reinstated his ability to seek standard appellate judicial review of the BIA's decision although he missed the 30-day deadline. By attacking the REAL ID Act, he is attacking the hand which opened the door to let him back into court to seek judicial review
To the extent Enwonwu makes an argument that deference is owed to a district court on its determination of a pure issue of law, we reject the argument. Putting aside the advisory nature of the district court's opinion, our review of issues of law is de novoSee Maine v. Dir., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 262 F.3d 13, 17 (1st Cir.2001) ("Decisions on abstract issues of law are always reviewed de novo. . . ." (quoting Cotter v. Mass. Ass'n of Minority Law Enforcement Officers, 219 F.3d 31, 34 (1st Cir.2000))).
The DHS argues that Enwonwu waived this argument by failing to assert it in his habeas petition or on appeal. We reject this contention. While Enwonwu's main focus before both the district court and this court was on constitutional issues, he offered sufficient argumentation as to the correctness of the IJ's CAT decision, and as to the flaws in the BIA's decision overturning the IJ, to preserve the claim
The alien could still have brought a habeas challenge to the BIA's decision, but the proper scope of review would then have been an issueSee Saint Fort, 329 F.3d at 202-03.


text:
Data Pipeline: How to access
Getting access to Parse.ly's Data Pipeline is easy. Using modern and secure data access techniques that are proven for scale and hosted by Amazon Web Services, you can rest assured that these access patterns are friendly to a number of open source projects and data integration tools.
Further, whether you store megabytes, gigabytes, or terabytes of data, and whether you track thousands of events per day or millions of events per day, these access patterns will work for you.
The Parse.ly Data Pipeline is built upon two technologies: Amazon Kinesis for real-time data, and Amazon S3 for long-term data storage. On sign-up to the Parse.ly Data Pipeline service, you'll receive access credentials to an Amazon Kinesis Stream and an Amazon S3 Bucket that we host for you.
Demoing Parse.ly Data Pipeline
Interested in taking a look at the data? You're in the right place!
There are two options for you to demo the Data Pipeline Data:
Download a csv file with 500 rows of sample data.
See a full 30 days of Data Pipeline data by connecting to our public S3. This allows you to see exactly how the data will be deliverdd to you.
Please note that these contain sample data for the Parse.ly Data Pipeline product. It is intended for public use and contains no sensitive information. All data, including IPs and UUIDs, are generated artificially and not intended to be associated with any real-world person or device.
Option 1: Download a CSV
By clicking on this link, a .csv file containing 500 rows of sample data will automatically be downloaded. To understand the data in the file, please see the detailed schema page.
Option 2: Extract 30 days of data from S3
This public S3 bucket s3://parsely-dw-parse-ly-demo contains 30 days of Data Pipeline json data in zipped format (.gz). You can view the files that are available in your browser here.. To use this S3 data, please follow the steps in Getting Started to learn the different ways to connect to and extract the Data Pipeline data.
The remainder of this page is pretty technical, and goes into how, specifically, Parse.ly stores its raw data and provides access to that data. This page will likely only make sense to Data Scientists and programmers who have had some exposure to Amazon Web Services before. If that's not you, but you still want to learn more, feel free to take a look at our use cases and our schema format.
Amazon Kinesis Stream
Amazon Kinesis is a hosted streaming data platform that Parse.ly uses to deliver our raw, enriched, unsampled streaming data to you. It is very similar to the one that Parse.ly uses in its own realtime data processing stream (Kafka).
The stream is similar to other "distributed message queues", such as Kafka or Redis Pub/Sub, except you don't have to lift a finger to set up any of the distributed infrastructure. Also, since it's hosted by AWS, your stream is always available, replicated in three geographic regions, and "sharded" so that it can handle high data volumes without any ops work on your part.
Some technical details about Kinesis Streams set up by Parse.ly:
In the us-east-1 region.
1 shard per stream by default.
Data is retained for 24 hours.
Record format is plain JSON.
At-least-once delivery semantics.
Secured via an AWS Access Key ID and Secret Access Key.
Real-time delivery delays can be tracked at http://status.parsely.com.
Alternately, Parse.ly can deliver data to a customer-hosted Kinesis stream. This simply requires some additional setup and coordination with our support team.
Kinesis has a standard HTTP API, as well as "native" integration libraries for a number of languages. In the "code" section of this documentation, we walk through accessing a Kinesis stream using the boto3 library in Python.
Amazon S3 Bucket
Amazon S3 is a long-term, static storage engine that is globally distributed for redundancy. It is intended for more complex analysis or bulk export to different databases, like Google BigQuery or Amazon Redshift.
The S3 bucket we provide to you as part of Parse.ly's Data Pipeline is similar to the bucket we use internally at Parse.ly for long-term storage of data, especially the backup systems behind our "Mage" time series engine. S3 allows users to pull the data and extract the information they need from it, while also giving you peace of mind that the data is safe and secure for the long-term.
Some details about your S3 Bucket with Parse.ly:
In the us-east-1 region (previously called "S3 US Standard").
99.999999999% durability ("eleven 9's").
99.99% availability ("four 9's").
Data is retained for 90 days by default, though actual retention length can vary based on contractual terms.
All raw events stored in the events/ prefix.
Data is stored as gzip-compressed plain JSON lines.
Typically stored in 15-minute chunks with maximum of 128 MiB of size per chunk.
Chunks up to 2GiB are possible for historically rebuilt/backfilled data.
Real-time data (from the current day) is stored, typically within the hour.
Custom one-time historical data import jobs are available upon request.
S3 also has the notion of "S3 URLs" which can be used with a variety of command-line tools.
This is our S3 bucket format:
s3://parsely-dw-mashable   # bucket name
/events            # event data prefix
/2016/06/01/12        # YYYY/MM/DD/HH
/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.gz      # compressed JSON file
s3://parsely-dw-mashable # bucket name /events # event data prefix /2016/06/01/12 # YYYY/MM/DD/HH /xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.gz # compressed JSON file
Here is an example single S3 object:
s3://parsely-dw-mashable/events/2016/06/01/12/parsely-dw-mashable-4-2016-06-17-02-16-39-6b06b63d-9c9b-4725-88df-51ced94baffb.gz
After decompression, there would be a single JSON raw event per line, typically up 128MiB of these in a single file, which might be 10's of thousands or 100's of thousands of raw events.
You are not supposed to rely on the (long) .gz filename. Instead, use glob patterns or use tools that support S3 prefix or include patterns. For example:
s3://parsely-dw-mashable/events/2016/06/01/12/
Will match all files for the site mashable.com, date 2016-06-01, and hour 12-noon UTC. During maintenance events, Parse.ly's systems may populate files with a different file format in that prefix, for example all files for a single hour might be compacted into a single data.gz file in that per-hour prefix. Using a glob pattern like *.gz can guarantee you will match data even in the case of these events.
Database Schemas & DDLs
Schema & Formats
Help from our team:
If you are already a Parse.ly customer, your site is already instrumented for Parse.ly's raw data pipeline. no additional integration steps are required to start leveraging your raw pageview and engaged time data. You simply get in touch with our support team or your Account Manager to add this product to your contract. From there, we will flip the switch and supply you with your secure access key ID and secret access key. From that point forward, you can use the service as you see fit, and you can also explore how to instrument custom events and custom data.
If you are not a Parse.ly customer, you simply need to go through our basic integration. Contact us for a demo and we can also walk through the integration steps necessary — which are generally pretty painless.
Due to the power and flexibility of the Data Pipeline, implementation is largely bespoke on the publisher's end and so we cannot offer any specific implementation details here. We do, however, offer sample implementations and use cases in an open source Github repository available here, also available in Python environments via pip install parsely_raw_data.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Julaybib est un martyr et l'un des compagnons moins connus de Mahomet dans la communauté musulmane ancienne.

Son nom aurait été acquis avant son acceptation de l'Islam, et  considéré comme inhabituel et incomplet. En langue arabe, Julaybib signifie petit cultivé, car étant la forme diminutive du mot jalbab, indiquant qu'il était petit et court, voir nain. Il a également été décrit comme étant damim, c'est-à-dire laid, déformé ou répugnant.

Solitaire, même les petits enfants de Médine l'embêtaient et se moquaient de lui en raison de son handicap, et personne ne voulait s'asseoir en sa compagnie. Il survécut du mieux qu'il pût et passa beaucoup de nuits seul à Médine, pleurant de désespoir et arpentant les rues, personne ne voulant lui offrir ne serait ce qu'un peu d'affection ou de compassion , sans famille et sans un seul ami au monde .

Biographie

La lignée de Julaybib était inconnue et il n'y avait aucun récit de ses parents ou de la tribu à laquelle il appartenait. Il connaissait uniquement qu'il était arabe et qu'il était l'un des Ansâr à Médine.

Avec Julaybib à l'esprit, Muhammad est allé chez un homme Ansari et a déclaré :
.
, a t-il répondu.
, a ajouté Muhammad.
 demanda l'homme, évidemment déçu.
, a déclaré Muhammad.

L'Ansari est allée consulter sa femme, lui disant le désir de Muhammad de leur fille de se marier avec Julaybib. Sa femme a été repoussée et a protesté en disant : .

Alors que Ansari se préparait à informer Muhammad de ce que disait sa femme, la fille entendait les protestations de sa mère: «Qui vous a demandé de me marier avec moi?

 que la fille était si belle qu'il n'y avait personne parmi les femmes de ce clan qui pouvaient rivaliser avec son apparence. Elle était si timide et modeste que peut-être le ciel lui-même n'avait jamais vu sa tête découverte. Elle avait tellement peur de son créateur et de sa piété, qu'elle passerait ses jours et ses nuits en adoration. La fille a demandé ce qui se passait, on lui a dit que le Messager de Dieu voulait votre mariage pour Julaybib. Comme la Mère a continué à pleurer et à pleurnicher, la fille a parlé, elle a dit : .

Elle était mariée par Muhammad à Julaybib et ils vivaient ensemble jusqu'à ce qu'il soit tué dans une expédition.

Le jour de l'expédition, son beau-père l'avait plaidé : .

Julaybib, celui qui avait passé toute sa vie dans le désespoir, avait maintenant trouvé une femme aimante. Mais il a répondu à la demande de son père et a dit : .

Julaybib a participé à une expédition avec Muhammad dans laquelle une rencontre avec certains ennemis s'est produite.

Après cette bataille, le Prophète de Dieu a demandé à ses compagnons d'aller voir si quelqu'un était absent de leur famille et de leurs clans. Chacun retournait la comptabilité pour tous les membres de sa famille. Alors le Prophète a parlé avec des larmes dans ses yeux, il a dit : . Ils ont trouvé son petit corps couché près de sept ennemis qu'il avait tués dans la bataille.

Le Prophète de Dieu a demandé qu'une fosse  soit creusée, comme l'a dit le Prophète de Dieu au corps de Julaybib. , il l'a répété trois fois. Les compagnons pleuraient abondamment : . Ainsi, un compagnon qui avait autrefois vécu comme un paria, évité par la société qui l'entoure aimait Dieu et son Messager et atteignait un statut aussi élevé. Celui qui n'était pas beau était béni d'une belle femme, celui qui était pauvre était béni par une femme riche, celui qui n'avait pas de famille ou de statut, était béni par une femme de statut noble et de lignage, celui qui avait vécu dans la solitude et le désespoir était aimé par Allah et son messager, il a dit au Messager de Dieu : .

Il est dit : .

Notes et références
https://mouhajiroun.com/histoire-du-compagnon-julaybib/

Martyr musulman
Entourage de Mahomet
Personnalité du haut Moyen Âge par nom

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


This top-floor condo enjoys an extra-deep lot and has been lovingly renovated, featuring timeless Spanish-Med architecture. Located just steps from the Marina Green and Moscone Park, the home is also close to all the incredible Chestnut Street shops and restaurants. The floor plan features a large living room with fireplace and a formal dining room, both with oversized windows providing an abundance of natural light. The bedrooms are spacious, located in the back, and enjoy access to a sizable sunroom. The gourmet kitchen features a Thermador stove, double oven, and built-in wine fridge and has direct access to a breakfast nook. 2 car parking, storage room, and huge landscaped backyard complete this extraordinary home. Don't miss!


The General Motors Sequel Concept, first presented at the Detroit Motor Show 2005, is the second running prototype of the program "reinventing the automobile" launched by GM chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner in 2002. The GM Sequel concept follows the Autonomy Concept and the Hy-wire concept of 2002.
The Sequel Concept integrates the skateboard platform with hydrogen fuel cells,hydrogen storage, electric motors and by-wire technology. The prototype represents a fully operational Sport Utility Vehicule (SUV).
Compared to the previous prototype, the development of the technologies have permitted to double the operation range to 300 miles (480 km) and halve the 0-60 mph (0-100 kph) acceleration time to 10 seconds.
According to Larry Burns, GM vice president of research and development and planning, "GM's goal is to design and validate a fuel cell propulsion system by 2010 that is competitive with current internal combustion systems on durability and performances, and that ultimately can be built at scale affordably".


by Ernest Jones September 13, 1906---Alberto Santos Dumont, a Brazilian resident in France, famous for his experiments with small airships, made the first recognized airplane flight in France, on of 7-8m. at Bagatelle, in his XIV-bis (Antoinette 50 h.p.), after experiments with the helicopter.
November 12, 1906---Flew 220m., officially observed, in 21.2 secs., winning the Archdeacon Cup and the Aero Club of France prize of 1,500 F. for the first flight of 100m. FIRST "OFFICIAL" DURATION AND DISTANCE RECORD.
' Five other flights were made this day of 40, 40, 60, 50 and 82.6m.
The winter was spent in building a new machine, though his next flight was at St. Cyr, on April 4, 1907, 50m., in the XIV-bis of 1906.
Trials went on at same time with the new machine XV (Antoinette 100), a headless biplane with sharp dihedral in wings like XIV-bis, a tractor this time, with elevators on outer forward corners of dihedral main planes of wood instead of fabric, biplane tail enclosing two vertical panels. The tail acted as both elevator and rudder, being mounted on a universal joint at the end of bamboo outriggers. No flights appear to have been made, though trials began March 22, 1907.
November 16, 1907---With this machine were made flights of 200m., 100m. and 200m. at Issy on November 17, among others.
Flights were continued at various times through 1909, including the FIRST CROSS-COUNTRY flight one of about eight kils., from St. Cyr to Buc on September 13, returning the following day, and another on the seventeenth, of 18 kils. in 16 mins. Dumont's name was not thereafter prominently connectied with aeronautics.
Nato in Brasile il 20.7.1873 a diciotto anni si trasferisce a Parigi interessato alla meccanica e all'aeronautica. Il suo primo pallone Il BRASIL si innalza destando lo stupore di tutti, ma � solo un inizio; con il SANTOS-DUMONT n. 1. un pallone di forma allungata in senso orizzontale, il primo dirigibile, il 20.9.1898 si alza fino a 400 metri, compie evoluzioni e rientra al punto di partenza. Il SANTOS-DUMONT n. 6 il 19.10.1901 effettua il tragitto Parc de Saint Cloud - Tour Eiffel e ritorno in 30 minuti vincendo il premio Deutsch di 100.000 franchi oro che il grande pioniere devolve per � poveri di Parigi.
SANTOS-DUMONT non va ricordato solo per la progettazione a costruzione dei suoi nove dirigibili, tutti differenti, ma anche per due biplani a tre monoplani.
Famoso � il suo No. 14bis, biplano di lunghezza m. 10, apertura alare m. 12, peso Kg. 160, motore Levasseur da 50 HP, che il 23.10.1906 decolla e atterra con i propri mezzi compiendo un volo di 60 m., il fatto � eccezionale perch� siamo al tempo in cui altri pionieri usano catapulte per il decollo.
Il 1907 � l'anno del DEMOISELLE un elegante monoplano con cui Santos-Dumont compie il (primo volo tra due citt� da Saint-Cyr a Buc con il record di velocit� di 95 Km/h.
Born in Brazil on July 20, 1873, at eighteen years of age he travelled to Paris to pursue his interests in mechanics and aeronautics. His first balloon, the BRASIL, astonished everyone when it flew, but it was only a beginning. The SANTOS-DUMONT n. 1, a balloon in the shape of a dirigible, the first airship, was flown on September 20, 1898 to an altitude of 400 meters, made turns successfully and returned to the point of departure.
The SANTOS-DUMONT no. 6, on October 19, 1901, flew from Parc de Saint Cloud to the Eiffel Tower and returned in 30 minutes, winning the Deutsch prize of 100.000 in French goldwhich the great pioneer donated to the poor of Paris. SANTOS-DUMONT is not only remembered for the planning and construction of his nine airships, all different, but also for two biplanes and three monoplanes.
The most famous is his 14bis, a biplane 10 meters in length, with a wing span of 12 meters, a weight of 160 Kg. and powered by a 50 hp Levasseur motor. On October 23, 1906, it took off and landed under its own power, travelling a distance of 60 meters. It made an exceptional flight at a time when other pioneers had to use catapults for the takeoff.
1907 was the year of the DEMOISELLE, an elegant monoplane in which Santos-Dumont completed the first flight between two cities, from Saint-Cyr to Buc, at record speed of 95 Km/h.


When awarding custody, family courts in Oklahoma weigh the interest of the child, or children heavily. Unless there are mitigating circumstances, it is generally preferable to award custody jointly to both parents; this is in expectation of both parents acting in a manner that is conducive to providing a safe, and nurturing environment for their children, regardless of their disagreements.
When an initial agreement is reached by the parents, there still must be court approval. It is imperative that a preliminary custody agreement be in writing; this is to ensure if disputes arise later, there is a written record of the agreement. Oftentimes, parents are separated before a divorce and make agreements pertaining to where the children will live, who will be responsible for medical care expenses and reach agreements on visitation and support.
These initial agreements, prior to divorce, may be approved by the court, particularly if they are working well. I have seen the best intentions go awry when one parent refuses to abide by the terms of the original agreement. This can result in the court not approving an original agreement.
Once the courts in Tulsa County, Creek County, Wagoner County, Osage County, or Washington County have validated a custody agreement, it is in full force and effect. However, there are circumstances which may warrant modifying such an agreement. For example, in some cases, as children get older, they may wish to live with a noncustodial parent. One parent may be concerned about neglect, or abuse and wish to modify visitation and custody arrangements. There may also be problems if one parent accepts an out-of-state job and that parent has physical custody of the children. Any of these issues that arise could be a reason to consider filing a motion to modify custody.
Thanks to my extensive experience handling divorce and custody cases, I can help you with initial custody or modification of custody matters. Contact the Tulsa, Oklahoma office of Adam Carroll Legal, PC and let me help you through these challenging issues.


Since the 1920s, Ojai has been a desirable destination for spirit seekers. Peace and serenity is just 90 minutes outside of the hustle and bustle of Los Angeles.
The town's official motto, "There's nothing to do in Ojai, and not enough time to do it," wonderfully describes its easygoing ambience.
Locally known as "Pink Moments," Ojai enjoys what some believe are the most breathtaking sunsets in the SoCal region.
In Ventura County just 3 miles from the expansive Los Padres National Forest, the accommodations at Ojai Valley Inn & Spa's are inspired by haciendas. Resplendent and rustic, the resort's accolades include Condé Nast's 2015 Gold List and Travel + Leisure's 500 Best Hotels. The resort is is serene and surrounded by rolling hills and mountains. The city has long served as a spiritual retreat to the masses and locals place an emphasis on natural beauty and health. Serving as a backdrop for various Hollywood films for decades, Ojai is conveniently located just 15 miles inland from the breakers of the Pacific Ocean.
Ready to take your game to the next level? Ask your Destination Concierge to book a private lesson with one of Ojai Valley Inn & Spa's certified PGA professionals at the on-site, 18-hole course.
The on-site apothecary welcomes you to take a class in watercolor, silk scarf painting, basic drawing or Orizomegami. Beauty buffs will treasure the opportunity to custom blend their own perfume.
Ojai Valley Inn & Spa is an ideal retreat for families thanks to Camp Oak, a series of programming for kiddos ages 4 to 12. The younger set will enjoy outdoor activities, arts and crafts, swimming and nature exploration.
A half-hour drive from your accommodations, Ventura Pier and Promenade is a sleepy piece of shore perfect for a long walk with the family. Benches along the way allow you to rest and admire the sunset.
With seven on-site dining options as well as room service, there will be no shortage of culinary adventures during your stay in Ojai. Poolside cocktails, tapas and alfresco dining under a vine-covered pergola will not disappoint.
Hiking is pretty much a religion in this region of California and north of Ojai, Rose Valley Falls Trail is an easy hike (less than a mile total, out and back) with views of a waterfall and a terrain friendly to all fitness levels.
On Ladera Road, Ojai Olive Oil Ranch is open for complimentary tours and tastings on Wednesdays and Saturdays. On Sundays from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., find them at the Ojai Farmers Market downtown on Matilija Street.
Wander the trees. Tours are not scheduled at designated times, just given when people stop by. Gather near the old olive oil trees and wander through the property. The tour takes anywhere from 25 to 45 minutes, depending on the size of your group and how many questions you have.
Tasting room. Visit the tasting room to sample the oil and buy gifts to take home. In addition to its edible wares, the ranch sells mandarin olive oil lip balm and soaps.
Harvest time. Olive trees thrive in the Mediterranean climate of Ojai and harvest season generally runs from mid-October to mid-January. The olives are carefully picked by hand by the meticulous staff of the ranch and then pressed and processed in November and December. A Christmas or early January visit to the ranch means you'll taste the freshest olive oil in California.
Surrounded by cool breezes over the coastal valley, Ojai is a gentle region. Summers that are warm and dry and winters that are relatively mild and cool mean that temperatures are never extreme. This keeps the area attractive to travelers year-round.
Ojai is beautiful and remote but if you crave a cityscape, the City of Angels is just 82 miles away. Quench your appetite for high-end shopping on Rodeo Drive or settle into a low-lit, romantic table for two in Hollywood.
These luxurious herbs grow happily in the valley and you'll find these fresh delights incorporated both into the variety of entrees available at the on-site restaurants and in the body treatments served up for your pleasure at the resort's spa.
Thanks to its Mediterranean climate, the valley is a mecca for fruits and vegetables. Many locals sell their goods at roadside fruit stands and some even operate on an honor system; leave money in the locked box and take your items to go.
Ojai enjoys pleasant temperatures year-round with minimal rainfall. Located about 20 miles inland from the ocean and separated from the water by idyllic mountains, the valley is generally warmer than other Southern California destinations that are right on the beach. However, temperatures can vary greatly from day to night, so it's a good idea to carry light jacket with you during your vacation.


text:
Tag Archive: the International Criminal Court
Judges order arrest of Gadhafi, son for slayings
http://beta.news.yahoo.com/judges-order-arrest-gadhafi-son-slayings-122452359.html
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants Monday for Moammar Gadhafi, his son Seif, and his intelligence chief for crimes against humanity in the Libyan leader's four-month battle to cling to power.
Judges announced that the three men are wanted for orchestrating the killing, injuring, arrest and imprisonment of hundreds of civilians during the first 12 days of an uprising to topple Gadhafi from power, and for trying to cover up the alleged crimes.
The warrants turn Gadhafi, his son Seif al-Islam Gadhafi and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanoussi into internationally wanted suspects, potentially complicating efforts to mediate an end to more than four months of intense fighting in the North African nation.
Presiding judge Sanji Monageng of Botswana said Monday there were "reasonable grounds to believe" that Gadhafi and his son are both "criminally responsible as indirect co-perpetrators" for the murder and persecution of civilians.
She called Gadhafi the "undisputed leader of Libya" who had "absolute, ultimate and unquestioned control" over his country's military and security forces.
Libyan officials rejected the court's authority even before the decision was read in a Hague courtroom, claiming the court had unfairly targeted Africans while ignoring what they called crimes committed by NATO in Afghanistan, Iraq "and in Libya now."
"The ICC has no legitimacy whatsoever. We will deal with it. … All of its activities are directed at African leaders," government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim told reporters Sunday.
Monageng said evidence presented by prosecutors showed that following popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, Gadhafi and his inner circle plotted a "state policy … aimed at deterring and quelling by any means — including by the use of lethal force — the demonstrations by civilians against the regime."
She said it was impossible to put an exact number on the casualties, but said Gadhafi's security forces likely "killed and injured as well as arrested and imprisoned hundreds of civilians."
Prosecutors at the court said the three suspects should be arrested quickly "to prevent them covering up ongoing crimes and committing new crimes."
"This is the only way to protect civilians in Libya," said the statement from the office of Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo.
Shortly before the court announced the warrants, French President Nicolas Sarkozy reiterated his call for Gadhafi to step down.
"After 41 years of dictatorship, it is perhaps time to stop, for him to leave power," he told a news conference in Paris. "Mr. Gadhafi knows perfectly well what he must do for peace to return. It only depends on him."
In Tripoli, two loud explosions shook the area near Gadhafi's compound Monday. NATO jets were heard over the Libyan capital minutes after the blasts as sirens from emergency vehicles blared in the streets.
The thunderous late-morning blasts were felt at a hotel where foreign journalists stay in Tripoli.
Smoke rose from the area near Gadhafi's Bab al-Aziziya complex, where Libyans hold daily rallies in support of the government. Gadhafi is not believed to be staying in the compound.
It wasn't immediately clear what was hit or if there were civilian casualties.
A coalition including France, Britain and the United States began striking Gadhafi's forces under a United Nations resolution to protect civilians on March 19. NATO assumed control of the air campaign over Libya on March 31 and is joined by a number of Arab allies.
Adam Schreck in Tripoli, Libya contributed to this report
Tags: Abdullah al-Sanoussi, Afghanistan, America, Botswana, Britian, Canada, china, Egypt, England, facebook, France, Germany, Iran, iraq, japan, Libya, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, mexico, Moammar Gadhafi, Morocco, Moussa Ibrahim, myspace, NATO, Netherlands, Nicolas Sarkozy, Sanji Monageng, Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, Sryia, THE HAGUE, The ICC, the International Criminal Court, the United States, Tripoli, twitter, yahoo, Yeman, YouTube
Amnesty: Ghadafi's troops suspected of war crimes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110506/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya
By KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Karin Laub, Associated Press – 21 mins ago
TRIPOLI, Libya – Moammar Gadhafi's forces may have committed war crimes in the rebel-held city of Misrata and the humanitarian situation is rapidly deteriorating because of regime attempts to tighten its siege and block access by sea, Amnesty International said Friday.
Libyan troops have indiscriminately fired heavy artillery, rockets and cluster bombs at residential areas of Libya's third-largest city during a two-month siege, in a clear breach of international humanitarian law, the group said in a report.
"Weapons designed for the battle field and not for residential areas are being launched into residential neighborhoods, killing civilians and really just creating a situation of terror," said Amnesty's Donatella Rovera.
Earlier this week, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court told the U.N. Security Council he would seek arrest warrants against three Libyans for crimes against humanity committed in Libya. He did not name the suspects.
Misrata is the main rebel stronghold in western Libya, a region still largely under Gadhafi's control, while the rebels hold positions in the east of the country.
Libyan troops besieging the city of 300,000 by land recently stepped up shelling of Misrata's port to close the remaining lifeline. Hundreds of people have been killed in Misrata since February, medics say.
On Wednesday, government forces shelled Misrata's port area as an aid vessel docked to evacuate hundreds of stranded migrant workers. The shells killed two toddlers and their aunt and uncle, all from Niger, as they waited for evacuation in a nearby tent camp.
The humanitarian situation has deteriorated sharply in recent days because the attempted port blockade has made it even more difficult to bring in supplies, said Rovera. She said there is no electricity or running water in large parts of the city, and food supplies are dwindling.
Government officials deny wrongdoing by Libyan troops, including shelling of civilian areas. Libya's deputy foreign minister, Khaled Kaim, said Thursday that the military has decided to block ships from reaching Misrata, but would not discuss the tactics by regime loyalists, such as last week's mining of Misrata harbor or Wednesday's shelling.
"We will not allow those ships to bring arms to the city and then evacuate some criminals," Kaim said. The government claimed that aid ships would be allowed to pass if they coordinate with the regime.
The fate of Misrata is of strategic importance in the battle for Libya. Unless his forces retake the city, Gadhafi cannot attempt to partition the country, perhaps his only option for remaining in power in some areas of Libya.
For much of the past two months, Gadhafi's troops in tanks were deployed along parts of a downtown thoroughfare, Tripoli Street, while snipers took over high buildings. Late last month, rebel fighters drove regime loyalists to the outskirts of Misrata from where they've continued daily shelling attacks.
Amnesty said scores of Misrata residents not involved in fighting have been killed and hundreds injured by indiscriminate attacks, including with 122mm Grad rockets and 155mm artillery shells.
The report cited an April 14 attack in which rockets hit the Qasr Ahmed neighborhood, killing 12 residents, among them several who were waiting in line outside a bakery.
A day later, the research team found evidence of the use of cluster bombs which pose particular risk to civilians because they scatter small bomblets over a wide area. The group also said snipers targeted residents in areas under control of opposition fighters. Many residents were trapped near the front lines for weeks, the group said.
In another development Friday, France ordered 14 Libyan embassy employees to leave within 48 hours. They had worked for Libya's embassy in Paris before it was shut about a month ago. French Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero would not say what the diplomats had done to merit expulsion.
France has recognized Libya's opposition movement, and has been a major backer of a NATO-led military mission intended to protect civilians from an onslaught by Gadhafi's forces.
On Thursday, members from the 22-nation Contact Group on Libya agreed to set up an internationally monitored fund that the rebels can access to provide basic services to the Libyan people. Countries have already pledged $250 million.
The United States said it would move to free up at least some of the more than $30 billion it has frozen in Libyan assets. Kaim, the Libyan government official, said the international community has no right to divert frozen Libyan assets, which total about $120 billion. "Any use of the frozen assets is like piracy on the high seas," he said.
Associated Press reporter Martin DiCaro contributed reporting.
Tags: America, Amnesty, Bernard Valero, Britian, Egypt, England, France, Iran, iraq, Kaim, Khaled Kaim, Libya, Misrata, Moammar Gadhafi, Paris, Qasr Ahmed neighborhood, the International Criminal Court, The U.N. Security Council, the United States, Tripoli, Yemen


TEL TEMIR – At least ten people were killed when a car bomb attack hit a Kurdish security checkpoint in the vicinity of Tel Temir town in the northeastern Syrian province of Hasakah, activists reported on Friday.
The car bomb exploded at a checkpoint for the People's Protection Units (YPG) in Aghbish village near Tel Temir.
"More than ten people were killed during the terrorist attack, including three civilians," YPG member Murad Berkho told ARA News in Tel Temir.
"Seven others were wounded and subsequently transferred to the Hasakah hospital for treatment," Berkho said.
The YPG leadership accused extremists of the Islamic State (ISIS) of being behind the attack.
"After its consecutive defeats in the province, the terror group started to use car bombs in order to infiltrate into the YPG-held areas in Hasakah," the source said.
Also on Friday, ISIS militants bombed Kurdish headquarters near Mount Abdulaziz in Hasakah countryside, a YPG spokesman told ARA News.
The group has targeted YPG centers with three car bomb attacks, followed by mortar shelling on the YPG-held villages of Jafar and Dawoodiyah. At least six Kurdish fighters were killed and more than ten others wounded during the ISIS offensive.


Bluenoise plugins has released Seven, a freeware synth capable of lush pads and heavenly leads.
2 Osc (Sine, Saw, Ramp, Triangle, Pulse, White Noise, Pink Noise), with pitch, ADSR, volume and pan controls.
Pitch control for each Osc with Octave, Note and Fine.
Sample slot (load custom samples), ADSR, Lowpass filter.
LFO and Delay, with lowpass filter.
Seven is freely available for Windows PC.
Visit Bluenoise for more information and a link to download Seven.


text:
Thomas Brezinka (* 5. Mai 1961 in Innsbruck) ist ein österreichischer Dirigent, Musikwissenschaftler, Kulturmanager und Dozent.

Leben
Thomas Brezinka, ein Sohn von Wolfgang und Erika Brezinka, absolvierte 1980 das Abitur in Konstanz und studierte im Anschluss Oboe bei Arthur Jensen am Mozarteum in Salzburg sowie Dirigieren bei Otmar Suitner und Musikwissenschaft bei Hartmut Krones. An der Universität für Musik und darstellende Kunst Wien wurde Brezinka zum Magister Artium und zum Doktor der Philosophie promoviert. Hinzu kam ein Abschluss im Fach Kulturmanagement an der FernUniversität Hagen. Nach kurzer Tätigkeit als Korrepetitor in Baden wurde er 1990  Dirigent des Staatlichen Orchesters Wernigerode, mit dem er zum Tag der Deutschen Einheit 1990 in der Sylvestrikirche sein erstes Konzert gab. 1993 legte er dieses Amt nieder.

1997 gründete Brezinka das Orchester Ensemble NiederRhein, dessen Kinderkonzertreihen überregionale Bekanntheit erlangten. Seit 2001 ist Brezinka Geschäftsführer des notabu.ensemble neue musik Düsseldorf und seit 2002 Leiter der Dom-Musikschule Xanten.

Daneben leitete Brezinka im Rahmen des Studiengangs Kulturmanagement an der FernUniversität Hagen 2001–2005 Seminare über Orchestermanagement und betätigte sich als Mitarbeiter der Enzyklopädie "Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart" sowie als Autor eigener Buchveröffentlichungen und Artikeln in Fachzeitschriften.

Veröffentlichungen
Max Brand (1896–1980) – Leben und Werk. Selbstverlag, Wien 1989; Musikverlag Katzbichler, Salzburg/München 1995. ISBN 3-87397-134-8
Erwin Stein – Ein Musiker in Wien und London. Böhlau, Köln/Weimar/Wien 2005. ISBN 3-205-77384-5
Orchestermanagement – Ein Leitfaden für die Praxis. Bosse, Kassel 2005. ISBN 3-7649-2461-6

Weblinks
 www.thomas-brezinka.de

Dirigent
Musikwissenschaftler
Österreicher
Person (Wernigerode)
Geboren 1961
Mann
Absolvent der Universität für Musik und darstellende Kunst Wien


text:
Charles Hinman Graves, född 14 augusti 1839, död 7 oktober 1928, var en amerikansk affärsman och diplomat.

Graves, som ursprungligen var militär, erhöll avsked 1870, och verkade därefter som framgångsrik affärsman och politiker. Åren 1888–1891 var han republikansk medlem av Minnesotas representanthus och tillika dess talman. Graves var 1905–1906 minister i Sverige-Norge, 1906–1914 minister i Sverige.

Källor
 Svensk uppslagsbok, Malmö 1932

Personer som tjänstgjort i USA:s armé
Amerikanska diplomater
Amerikanska delstatspolitiker
Personer inom USA:s näringsliv
Födda 1839
Avlidna 1928
Män
Svensk uppslagsbok


Neglecting the Airtel #1000 for 1.5GB data plan, Airtel subscribers can now Enjoy Airtel 2GB Data for N1000 on Airtel SmartTrybe. Although, People are still getting double data offer and 150% data offer on Airtel.
Dial *312# to migrate to Airtel Smart Trybe 2.0 if you are not an existing SmartTrybe subscriber.
Recharge you like with #1000 airtime credit.
Now dial *312*2*1# to get 1GB for #500, as #500 will be deducted from your balance.
Then Repeat (3) again for another 1GB for #500 summing it up to 2GB for #1000.
The 2GB data is only valid for 2 weeks.


Our expertise lies in bringing people together: professional Artists, participants and health professionals, to bring about positive social and community change, through creativity.
We can offer creative activities packaged in ways to suit you, and to suit the people you work with. Please see more on what we offer, and get in touch for more information.
We can work with you to effectively meet your outcomes.
We find creative approaches to inspire your community, group, project or team you work with.


Aroma: Sweet red cherry, red plum, mint, white pepper and blood orange flesh out nicely.
Palate: This is an especially effortless, inviting Pinot Noir done within the mid-weight style of the year. Highliner is made from a number of top sites in Santa Barbara County.


text:
Home » Copyright » Copyright Dark Forces
Copyright Dark Forces
Copyright is a system which grants creatives (i.e. writers, artists, composers, film makers, record producers and the like) certain exclusive rights to their works which enable those works to be commercially exploited for financial reward. Creatives are thus empowered to make a living out of their works, which in turn is an incentive to make more and better works. In general, the modus operandi is for copyright owners to grant licences for the use of their works, subject to the payment of royalties. They have complete freedom and flexibility regarding the nature and content of the licences.
This system has been in place for centuries. The Berne Convention, the figurative twelve tables of copyright law, which regulates the content of copyright law and its international application, dates from 1886. The system works well and has played a significant role in the development of the arts and sciences over the years. Many creatives have accumulated wealth from the system, while at the same time enriching the arts and sciences to the benefit of the public at large.
COPYRIGHT ANTAGONISTS
In recent times copyright has come under attack. It is seen by some as placing unwarranted restrictions on the dissemination of knowledge and information, and to be restrictive of development. This school of thought holds that the public interest is best served by removing most, if not all, restrictions on free use of works and in particular doing away with the element of payment for the privilege. Copyright is perceived by them to be an oppressive evil which is best debilitated or even eradicated. Those who actively seek the debilitation of copyright can be considered to be the copyright dark forces.
The copyright dark forces are made up of essentially two groups of people. The first are mainly idealists who honestly subjectively believe that copyright is prejudicial to modern society and are guided by this principle. Ivory tower academics are a significant component of this group. The second group are business people whose selfish commercial interests will be furthered by the ability to indulge in wholesale unauthorised copying of works with impunity. Large international on-line businesses which rely on having vast libraries of works which can be accessed freely by the public are prominent members of this group. Although they are very different in their make-ups and ideologies, the two groups have the same objective, which makes them allies of a sort, and they can be tarred with the same brush.
Amongst those who tend to be antagonistic towards the copyright system are movements or organisations such as Open Source (which propagates free public access to works), Copyleft (which advocates the right to freely distribute and modify works), and Creative Commons (which has as its goal helping to overcome the legal problems to the sharing of knowledge and creativity). These bodies are actively eroding authors' exclusive rights arising from copyright. They harbour in their midsts members of the copyright dark forces.
WEAPON OF DESTRUCTION
One of the chief weapons of the copyright dark forces is the promotion of widespread exceptions to copyright. Exceptions have been made to copyright since the days of yore. The Berne Convention provides for them, subject to conditions, namely that they should only be granted in certain exceptional cases that are not in conflict with the normal exploitation of a work and which are not unreasonably prejudicial to the copyright owner. These conditions are known as the 'Three Step Test'. These exceptions in moderation balance the interests of copyright owners with those of the public who reasonably require free use of works in certain circumstances. However, the copyright dark forces see exceptions as an excellent means of achieving their objective and pursue them in excess. When the exception becomes the rule, copyright is rendered nugatory.
ATTACK STRATEGY
In seeking the demise of copyright, how should one go about it? The system is far too firmly entrenched internationally to launch a frontal attack on it. The prospects of success of this approach would be minimal. The better approach would be to attack it from within – to feed it a slow poison or infect it with a virus that will progressively destroy it. One could do this relatively unobtrusively while even creating the façade of supporting it. Duplicity in public life is not unknown. As we know only too well, a virus can act invisibly and can effectively kill the host stealthily. Implanting excessive debilitating exceptions in copyright legislation would act very effectively as a fatal virus leading to the demise of the system.
WIELDING EXCEPTIONS
The Copyright Amendment Bill seeks to implant excessive exceptions, which do not comply with the Three Step Test, in the Copyright Act. The introduction of these exceptions is applauded by the copyright dark forces. The crucial question is whether the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Parliamentary Trade and Industry Portfolio Committee, the authors and sponsors – the patrons – of the Bill, are innocent parties caught up in the process of infecting the Copyright Act with the exceptional virus, or are they active, knowing participants?
There is no doubt that elements of the copyright dark forces have consulted with the patrons in the drafting of the Bill and egged them on. The patrons have also sought the counsel of such persons when dealing with the justified criticism of the Bill. Conversely, the patrons have paid scant regard to the opinions and representations of what might be termed the copyright purists, namely those who seek to uphold the ideals of the copyright system. Have the patrons been duped by the duplicitous conduct of ostensibly well-meaning members of the copyright dark forces, and thus been misguided in their adoption of excessive exceptions, or are they the accomplices and fellow travelers of the virus carriers? Have they perhaps been captured by big business? What are the true intentions and attitudes of the patrons towards copyright? These are questions on which informed opinion has differing views.
What is certain, however, is that, in introducing excessive exceptions into our copyright law by means of the Copyright Amendment Bill, the patrons are advancing the aims and objectives of the copyright dark forces. In the interests of preserving the integrity of our copyright law this process must be aborted.


LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. This theme coordinated 23 room motel is located in Moffat County on a prime corner of downtown Craig, CO. Each room features a kitchenette. All rooms were completely remodeled in 2008 with new wiring, plumbing, and furniture. 12 month trailing income 8/13/17 thru 8/13/18 was $353,485.
It doesn't get any better than this for the entrepreneurs who see the potential of this property. Live, work and play in one of Colorado's pristine areas; famously known as the "Elk Hunting Capital of the World". There is so much to do in Moffat County and Craig is the perfect place to plant your roots with being minutes from hunting, boating, fishing, ATV/OHV, reservoirs, rock climbing, rafting, petroglyph viewing, dinosaur bone digging, snowmobiling, ranching, bird watching, gold panning, scenic vistas and this list goes on.


text:
Q: How to get Paths to all executables from Get-ChildItem I am currently trying to get a list of all installed applications and would like to build a feature that can launch those.
I'm using these PowerShell commands:
gci HKLM:\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\* | % { Get-ItemProperty $_.PsPath } | Select DisplayName,InstallLocation
gci HKLM:\\SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Uninstall\\* | % { Get-ItemProperty $_.PsPath } | Select DisplayName,InstallLocation
in conjunction with ConvertTo-Json in order to get a good stdout I can work with.
Now, this only gives me the InstallPath without any executables.
Is there any easy way to get the main executable of the applications i nthe list?
Expected Result (Name of the key does not matter):
    // ...
    {
        "DisplayName":  "Microsoft Edge",
        "InstallLocation":  "C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Microsoft\\Edge\\Application",
        "LaunchApplication": "C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Microsoft\\Edge\\Application\msedge.exe",
    },
    {
        "DisplayName":  "Audacity 2.4.2",
        "InstallLocation":  "C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Audacity\\",
        "LaunchApplication": "C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Audacity\\audacity.exe"
    },
    // ...

A: Like others have pointed out in the comments, there isn't a conventional way of getting the executable paths of certain programs.
To answer your indirect question of building an app launch method, we can make use of a few things. Fortunately for us, PowerShell has a Get-StartApps cmdlet that produces an output of the current users installed apps:

Name                                                 AppID
----                                                 -----
3D Viewer                                            Microsoft.Microsoft3DViewer_8wekyb3d8bbwe!Microsoft.Microsoft3DViewer
AdGuard                                              AdGuard
Adobe Acrobat DC                                     {6D809377-6AF0-444B-8957-A3773F02200E}\Adobe\Acrobat DC\Acrobat\Acrobat.exe
Battle.net                                           {7C5A40EF-A0FB-4BFC-874A-C0F2E0B9FA8E}\Battle.net\Battle.net Launcher.exe
Blend for Visual Studio 2022                         Blend.d58ce8bb
Calculator                                           Microsoft.WindowsCalculator_8wekyb3d8bbwe!App
Calendar                                             microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe!microsoft.windowslive.calendar

There are 2 properties that are displayed:

*

*Name

*AppID.

This becomes important due to the AppID being the value needed for shell: to execute/launch the program. Given the above output of Get-StartApps, you can launch "Adobe Acrobat DC" by passing the AppID to shell:\AppsFolder\"AppID".
Start-Process shell:AppsFolder\"{6D809377-6AF0-444B-8957-A3773F02200E}\Adobe\Acrobat DC\Acrobat\Acrobat.exe"

Using @zett42's approach, we can query your start menu, along with the system start menu folder paths for .lnk's retrieving its target path using the WScript COM object:
$paths = "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs","$env:APPDATA\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu"
Get-ChildItem -Path $paths -Filter "*.lnk" -File -Recurse |
    ForEach-Object -Begin {
        $WScriptShell = New-Object -ComObject "WScript.Shell"
    } -Process {
        [PSCustomObject]@{
            Name = $_.BaseName
            Path = $WScriptShell.CreateShortcut($_.FullName).TargetPath
        }
    } -End {
        [void][System.Runtime.Interopservices.Marshal]::ReleaseComObject($WScriptShell) #release COM object
    }

which will output:
Name                         Path
----                         ----
Adobe Acrobat DC             C:\Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat DC\Acrobat\Acrobat.exe
Blend for Visual Studio 2022 C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio\2022\Community\Common7\IDE\Blend.exe
Firefox                      C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe
Google Chrome                C:\Program Files\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe
Microsoft Edge               C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Edge\Application\msedge.exe
TechPowerUp GPU-Z            C:\Program Files (x86)\GPU-Z\GPU-Z.exe

Not entirely sure this is what you're after, but it may be of help to others.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


1.	Traditional face-to-face courses: These courses are 100% face-to-face with no online technology and content delivered to students orally or in writing.
a.	Courses where students and faculty meet in a classroom setting physically like traditional face-to-face courses with the use of web based components. These courses are 100% face-to-face physically.
b.	Courses where students and instructors meet in a virtual online meeting room and conduct class activities such as lectures, presentations, Q/A and discussions. The structures of these courses are the same as part (a), with the exception that students will meet in a meeting room anywhere at a weekly assigned date and time. These courses are 100% face-to-face via online meeting rooms.
3.	Blended Courses: These courses are designed to take advantage of both traditional face-to-face and online learning activities. A blended course is designed so that online learning activities will enhance, reinforce and compliment face-to-face components. Blended courses at Langston University will use the online learning activities built into Desire2Learn (D2L) Online Course Management System to enhance the traditional face-to-face components. Students attend classes face-to-face on time and participate in learning activities online. If there is a percentage of class time for online activities, it should clearly be stated on the syllabus what portion of the course will be online and what portion will be face-to-face.
4.	Online Courses: These courses are totally online and students can access the course anywhere and anytime using a computer or a mobile device such as an iPad and Internet to access the course contents. The content of the online course is built in the course management system (D2L) and can be accessed by using their login, username and password. These courses have no physical face-to-	face meetings.


Farmhouse placed inside a former convent dating from 1300 with private garden and common courtyard with communal pool. The farmhouse, free on 4 sides, develops on one single floor with four split-levels.
Italy, Tuscany, Siena, San Gimignano.


text:
Q: detect if a python function was activated with an assignment operator (and should return a value) I have a function that can return values, but in order to do so it collects outputs from AWS (and it can be very large jobs, so it can take a long time and not always necessary).
Is there a way I can know, at run time, if the user has called my function with an assignment operator (i.e: x = foo()) or not (i.e foo()).
I know I can just add a flag, but the idea of checking the call during runtime seems elegant.
Thanks!