bed bug products at home depot bed bug spray at home depot bed bug killer bed bug spray at home depot bed bed bug spray at home depot.
bed bug control killer products professional sprays, bed bug killer home depot pictures of, raid bed bug spray bully home depot ready to use dust mite,termite killer home depot bed bug bombs terminate oz killing foam , bed bugs insect pest control garden center the home, rat poison home depot bed bugs repellent best,bed bug spray home depot and flea killer oz ready to use , bed bug bombs home depot indoor by real kill design furniture,bed bug killer reviews best spray powder home depot , bed bug powder home depot.
Be the first to comment on "Bed Bug Products At Home Depot Bed Bug Spray At Home Depot Bed Bug Killer Bed Bug Spray At Home Depot Bed Bed Bug Spray At Home Depot"


OPED: MPG regs: good, bad — or other?
What do the CAFE and Clean Power Plan regulations have in common? They both limit carbon-derived pollution, also helping with energy independence (ideally partly via plug-in cars).
I greatly appreciate the two Op-Eds published recently in the York Dispatch on Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations. CAFE has been the standard way to keep MPG (miles per gallon, aka gas mileage) up since the '70s. But while today's engineers work miracles with aerodynamics and engine bay technology, consumers have been buying heavier vehicles that simply push a lot of air around them, endangering engineers' ability to reach those lofty standards.
I've read in Wards Auto newsletters and Charged magazine that consumers generally follow recommendations of salespeople. Pickups and SUVs are far more profitable and are a quicker sell than smaller vehicles (let alone retraining-requiring plug-ins with no profitable oil filter changes etc.), so what do you think salespeople push?
Every time I discuss cars the other person brings up their desire for good MPG. A hard-core conservative coworker loves his Nissan Versa for its 40+ MPG. A close relative loves the utility of her small (and not aerodynamic) SUV but wishes vehicles could be efficient without looking like an aircraft fuselage. I recommended hybrids and plug-ins and now she's seriously considering a new Chevy Volt. I love my small, aircraft fuselage-like 2000 Insight (68 mpg at 312,000 mi.), a great and fun commuter car.
I've read that people are starting to regret their low-mpg choices (like my close relative). And it is not reasonable to expect that with each new vehicle one gets the new vehicle gets better mpg than what it's replacing? Why turn one's back on more efficient (and often racing-derived) technology that makes for a better, longer-lived and typically safer (and thus easier to insure) vehicle? Charging a plug-in is normally done overnight as one sleeps, and 200+ mile battery-only range is becoming accessible (the already-available Chevy Bolt).
I think the original question itself is wrong. Why just focus on MPG regulation? The Clean Power Plan similarly focuses just on cleaning up electricity generation. That's what regulations do — focus narrowly. They're also generally all stick, no carrot, an unfriendly us vs. them approach that does not encourage compliance.
Root cause analysis tells us to drill down to the common core issue, and solve that. What do the CAFE and Clean Power Plan regulations have in common? They both limit carbon-derived pollution, also helping with energy independence (ideally partly via plug-in cars).
But putting a steadily rising tax/fee on carbon pollution at the source (wellhead, mine etc.) and then returning all the revenue directly to households most efficiently addresses that root problem pair. That way we're not bickering about regulating away our freedoms while growing government, which is what motivates people to attack science itself. That, of course, solves nothing.
So we have Op-Eds representing opposing views on regulating MPG. What's really needed is a workable solution based on common ground. With Carbon Fee & Dividend, — or simply a "carbon dividend with a tax in there somewhere" as President Ronald Reagan's Cabinet members George Shultz and James Baker like to put it when they often push for it — by taxing carbon pollution at the source and then simply refunding everything to households you get the most efficient and fairest solution.
The bottom two-thirds by income aren't harmed, and the wealthy take — at most — a 0.2 percent net financial hit, according to professional studies of the microeconomic and long-term macroeconomic effects of the Carbon Fee & Dividend proposal (see citizensclimatelobby.org for more details). My previous employer, the printing industry, is helped via added household discretionary income, along with the economy on average (it helps raise GDP). It nudges the market away from health-damaging inefficient high carbon pollution intensity products and services without adding rules, encouraging innovation. That will help with widespread asthma (I bet every reader knows at least one asthma sufferer) among many other related health, safety and national security issues. It lets the market choose technologies.
So forget the too-narrow "does CAFE help or hurt" question, and get to the root issues. Ask "Are inefficiency, carbon pollution and oil imports good?" Of course not — so what to do? Put a steadily rising fee/tax on carbon pollution at the source and return the revenues fully, directly, evenly to households.
Since a fully-returned tax isn't a tax, it's even been approved by Grover Norquist, it would decrease carbon pollution quicker than would the Clean Power Plan. It even accounts for in-product/service embodied carbon pollution, without regulations. It helps shift energy and manufacturing employment overall from inefficient high-pollution approaches and sectors to better, far healthier approaches and sectors just via market forces, without needing subsidies. It helps keep us competitive and safe in the world economy by encouraging innovation, America's specialty.
By helping grow GDP, it helps address the national debt. In short, it works.


You Are the Leader. Blaming Your Company Makes You Less.
If you work for a company long enough the policies will change (for some companies this can feel like a seasonal occurrence). The strategy may change. The product may change. Policies may change. The people will surely change. And, if you're in sales, you know that the compensation structure is going to get tweaked from time to time.
These changes can be disruptive. Some of them can be even be perceived as being negative and can be unpopular with your people.
Because you care deeply about your company and your people, you can oppose changes to policy while they are being discussed and developed. You can argue with your leadership about what you believe would be more effective and still accomplish the necessary outcomes. But after the decisions are made, blaming the company and intimating to your people that you disagree with the policy makes you less of a leader.
Even though you wouldn't intentionally undermine the policy, the net result is that you reinforce the belief that the policy is negative and that your executive team makes poor decisions—or intentionally damaging decisions (the first of which is sometimes true, the latter far less frequently).
What's wrong with letting blame lie with those who deserve it?
As a leader, you set and keep the standard your people follow. By deflecting the negativity, by making it known that you disagree, you are giving tacit approval to your people disregard the policy.
Here's a quick example. Your company has an activity quota. Let's say it's ten face-to-face sales calls per week. You believe it's too high. Your salespeople believe it's too high. When confronted by your salespeople, you say: "Yes, I believe the activity quota is too high, too." Now your salespeople believe that you believe that the quota is unfair, and many will use your agreement that it's bad policy to avoid doing what is required and expected of them. The worst of them will use your own words as an excuse not to try, and they will use your own words against you.
By making it "corporate's standard," it is no longer "your standard." If you want to lead your people, you have to set the standard.
Now it's your standard. Now your people are accountable to you. They also know that you are a counting on them to follow your standard and to bring their resourcefulness to bear on the problem.
First, bad decisions are bad decisions. Sometimes good decisions feel like bad decisions at first, especially when you don't have all the information and you don't quite understand them. If a decision is illegal or immoral, you are right to refuse to follow the decision, and you are right to resign rather than lead.
Second, none of this is to suggest that you aren't supposed to oppose the decisions that you believe will harm your company and your team. But to do so, you can make your case to management privately; you don't make your case for management with your people. If you do so, you are obligated to also bring your own resourcefulness to bear on the issue and bring your leadership better ideas that will achieve the outcome they need.
Why is it wrong to avoid ownership of unpopular decisions and unpopular policy changes?
What affect does avoiding ownership of policy and quotas have on your people's perceptions of you as a leader?
You have to fight for your people, and they have to know that you will go to bat for them. How do you do so without undermining your leadership team?
When you believe your leadership is making a poor decision, how are you most effective in advocating for your people and making change?


text:
Rohnert Park-Cotati Library news Home Instead hiring new CAREGivers in Rohnert Park Food for Thought to hold drive-thru food drive Laguna Foundation schedule What you need to know this tax filing season Rigor and challenge – Expeditionary learning Gregory named Executive VP and GM at Sonoma Raceway The Bells Of COVID Unique classes for LGBT seniors Sonoma County Job Link can help unemployed ¿Desempleado o Buscando un Impulso Profesional? Sonoma County Job Link Puede Ayudar Job Seekers: Hear about Sutter Health employment at online talk Buscadores de empleo: Aprende sobre empleo con Sutter Health durante una Presentación en Línea Proposed Sebastopol car wash gets second chance Feel like a falafel? You are in luck! Explore foster parenting PG&E reminds customers of the risks of Carbon Monoxide Tradition of a new year's celebration SSU extends Fall 2021 application deadline to January 15 SSU's Department of Nursing continues to thrive Health guidance for youth and recreational adult sports CityBus to resume fare collections Simple tips to rehydrate and diversify your garden Gallery Route One announces recipients Grieving and healing with music Coalescing Earths: Paintings by Toni Littlejohn Sebastopol's newest city council member
PG&E offering more than 120 College Scholarships
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) announced that scholarship applications are now being accepted for college-bound high schoolers as well as current college and continuing education students with a primary residence that's a PG&E customer in Northern and Central California.
More than 120 awards totaling nearly $300,000 are being made available through PG&E's employee resource group (ERG) and engineering network group (ENG) scholarships. These scholarships are awarded annually to help offset the cost of higher education. ERG and ENG scholarship winners will receive awards ranging from $1,000 to $6,000 for exemplary scholastic achievement and community leadership.
PG&E ERG and ENG scholarship information, including criteria and applications, is available on PG&E's website. To be considered for a scholarship, all applications must be submitted by Feb. 12, 2021.
"Many of our ERG scholarship recipients are the first in their families to attend college. They will be tomorrow's leaders and innovators. Our ERG scholarships take on even more importance this year because some of our applicants could've experienced financial challenges due to COVID-19. We're proud to invest in these promising young people," said Mary King, PG&E vice president of human resources and chief diversity officer.
"It's more than just funds for tuition. Many of our applicants are looking to ensure their families wouldn't have to make significant financial sacrifices so they could pursue college. These students are more than just straight A's and perfect test scores. They're inspiring members of our community destined to accomplish great things," said Alyssa Piring, a PG&E gas program manager who previously received an ERG scholarship.
Since 1989, PG&E's ERGs and ENGs have awarded more than $5 million in scholarships to thousands of recipients. The funds are raised totally through employee donations, employee fundraising events and Campaign for the Community, the company's employee giving program.
Nearly 6,000 PG&E employees belong to the ERGs and ENGs. Each group helps further the company's commitment to serving its communities and growing employee engagement.
PG&E's ERG and ENG scholarships are available through these 13 groups:
1. Access Network (individuals with disabilities)
2. Asian
3. Black
4. Latino
5. Legacy (tenured employees)
6. MEENA (Middle East, Europe and North Africa)
7. National Society of Black Engineers (STEM career employees)
8. NuEnergy (newer employees)
9. PrideNetwork (LGBT employees)
10. Samahan (Filipino)
11. Society for Hispanic Professional Engineers (STEM career employees)
12. Veterans
13. Women's Network
In addition to the PG&E scholarships, the Pacific Service Employees Association (PSEA), a non-profit mutual benefit organization serving PG&E employees and retirees, also provides scholarships for dependents of company employees.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA - 40258/03 [2009] ECHR 78 (15 January 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/78.html
Cite as: [2009] ECHR 78
CASE OF YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA
In the case of Yudayev v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 December 2008,
The case originated in an application (no. 40258/03) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Nikolay Viktorovich Yudayev ("the applicant"), on 8 October 2003.
The applicant was represented by Ms N. Labuzova, a lawyer practising in the Rostov Region. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained, in particular, that his detention on remand had been unlawful and excessively long and had not been attended by appropriate procedural guarantees.
On 24 October 2005 the President of the First Section decided to communicate the complaints concerning the applicant's detention on remand to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the Rostov region.
On 12 March 2003 the prosecutor's office opened criminal proceedings against the applicant and three other persons on suspicion of fraud. The applicant was suspected of forging payment orders using a counterfeit seal of a private company. His alleged accomplices had obtained large amounts of diesel fuel using the forged payment orders.
On the same day the applicant was arrested.
On 14 March 2003 the investigator asked the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don to remand the applicant in custody. In support of his request he stated as follows:
"Taking into account that at present the investigation does not have enough evidence to bring charges against [the applicant] and that the crime committed by him is serious, [the applicant], if left at liberty, may abscond, conceal the yet undiscovered evidence of his criminal activity, interfere with the establishment of the truth or re-offend."
On the same day the Leninskiy District Court remanded the applicant in custody in the following terms:
"The court considers that the investigator's request should be granted for the following reasons. It is clear from the materials submitted [by the investigator] that the applicant was involved in the forgery of documents of the private company 'Svetlana' and possessed the seals of that company... During the search in [the applicant's] flat many seals, seal matrices and parts for seal manufacturing ... were found. However, no seals or stamps of the 'Svetlana' company were discovered. Given that [the applicant] is suspected of committing a serious criminal offence, there are grounds to believe that if left at liberty, he may obstruct the investigation and destroy physical evidence."
On 19 March 2003 the applicant was formally charged with fraud.
On 28 April 2003 the investigator applied to the Leninskiy District Court for an extension of the applicant's detention. He submitted that the applicant was refusing to disclose evidence and was giving false testimony, trying to escape criminal responsibility. Given the gravity of the charges against him, he might obstruct the investigation by putting pressure on witnesses or destroying physical evidence, in particular the counterfeit seals of the "Svetlana" company which he had concealed from the investigation. There was also a risk of his re-offending.
The applicant asked to be released on bail or personal surety. He submitted that no seals of the "Svetlana" company or any other evidence of his involvement in the fraud had been found in his flat, that he had no criminal record, had positive references and permanent employment and residence in the Rostov Region. His father was disabled and he had to look after him.
On 30 April 2003 the Leninskiy District Court rejected the applicant's request for release and extended his detention until 5 June 2003. It found that it was necessary to perform additional investigative measures, in particular to obtain several expert opinions and to confront the applicant and his co-defendants with witnesses. Given that the applicant was charged with a serious criminal offence committed in criminal conspiracy and had no permanent place of residence in Rostov-on-Don, he might abscond, put pressure on witnesses who had not yet been questioned or interfere with the investigation in some other way.
On 5 May 2003 the applicant appealed. He submitted that the court's conclusions that he might abscond or obstruct the investigation had been hypothetical and had not been supported by facts. The court had disregarded the facts mitigating the risk of his absconding, such as his clean criminal record, positive references, permanent place of residence and an ailing parent. The applicant also doubted the necessity of further investigation, given that no investigative actions had been carried out during the previous two months.
On 16 May 2003 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. The appeal hearing took place in the presence of the prosecutor. Counsel for the applicant had not been informed of the date of the appeal hearing and was absent. The applicant was not brought to the courtroom either.
On 30 May 2003 counsel for the applicant lodged an application for supervisory review of the decision of 16 May 2003. The Rostov Regional Court received the application on 4 June 2003.
On 17 June 2003 the Rostov Regional Court reviewed the application, started the supervisory review proceedings and forwarded the application to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court for examination on the merits.
On 3 July 2003 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the appeal decision of 16 May 2003, finding that the failure to notify counsel of the date of the hearing was a serious breach of procedure requiring a re-examination of the applicant's appeal.
On 16 July 2003 the Rostov Regional Court held a new appeal hearing and upheld the extension order of 30 April 2003, finding that it had been lawful and justified. The fact that the applicant had a permanent place of residence could not guarantee that he would not abscond. His submissions that no investigation had been carried out were not persuasive as they were not supported by evidence.
On 4 June 2003 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 5 August 2003, referring to the gravity of the charge, the risk of his absconding and the need for further investigation. The court also mentioned that the applicant did not have a permanent place of residence in Rostov-on-Don.
The applicant appealed, offering to sign an undertaking not to leave his place of residence and an obligation to appear.
On 20 June 2003 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the extension order on appeal.
On 4 August 2003 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 5 October 2003. It found that the applicant had been charged with a serious criminal offence and had no permanent place of residence in Rostov-on-Don. Two of his accomplices who had previously absconded testified that they had done so on the applicant's instructions. Moreover, there were reasons to believe that the applicant possessed a counterfeit seal of the "Svetlana" company. As the seal had not yet been found, the applicant could destroy it if released. The court concluded from the above that the applicant might abscond or obstruct the investigation.
On 12 August 2003 counsel for the applicant dispatched her appeal submissions in which she complained that she had not been informed of the date of the hearing and had been absent. She further asked the court to release the applicant against an undertaking not to leave his place of residence.
The Leninskiy District Court received the appeal submissions on 18 August 2003 and sent them to the investigator, inviting him to submit comments by 27 August 2003. The appeal submissions and the comments received were forwarded to the Rostov Regional Court.
On 29 August 2003 the Rostov Regional Court examined the applicant's appeal submissions and quashed the extension order on account of the failure to notify counsel of the date of the hearing. It ordered a new hearing and held that the applicant should remain in custody in the meantime.
On 9 September 2003 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 5 October 2003. It repeated the reasons cited in the detention order of 4 August 2003 and added that there was a need for further investigation. In particular, it was necessary to question the applicant and his co-defendants, to draft a bill of indictment and to ensure that the defendants had sufficient time to study the case file.
On 18 September 2003 counsel for the applicant dispatched her appeal submissions, asking that the applicant be released against an undertaking not to leave his place of residence, and repeating the arguments set forth in the previous appeal submissions.
The Rostov Regional Court received the appeal submissions on 23 September 2003 and sent them to the investigator, inviting him to submit comments by 1 October 2003.
On 3 October 2003 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. The District Court had taken into account the applicant's character, the gravity of the charges against him and the absence of a permanent place of residence.
On 3 October 2003 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 5 November 2003 for the same reasons as before.
On 24 October 2003 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the extension order on appeal. It found that the District Court's conclusion that the applicant might abscond had been reasonable given the gravity of the charge against the applicant. There was no reason to vary the preventive measure.
On 3 November 2003 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 5 December 2003. The court noted that the investigation had been completed and the defendants were studying the case file. It held that the applicant could not be released as he was charged with a serious criminal offence and his detention was necessary to prevent a possible obstruction of justice and to ensure the execution of a prospective penalty.
On 5 December 2003 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 5 January 2004 for the same reasons as before.
On 5 January 2004 four defendants, including the applicant, were committed for trial.
On 22 January 2004 the Gukovo Town Court of the Rostov Region fixed a preliminary hearing for 5 February 2004 and ordered that the defendants should remain in custody. The preliminary hearing was later re-scheduled for 10 February 2004.
On 10 February 2005 the Gukovo Town Court held a preliminary hearing and ordered that the defendants should remain in custody.
On 22 March 2004 the Gukovo Town Court convicted the applicant and his co-defendants of fraud committed in criminal conspiracy. It sentenced the applicant to two years' imprisonment subject to three years' probation.
On 25 May 2004 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
1. The Russian Constitution
The Constitution guarantees the right to liberty (Article 22):
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and personal integrity.
2. Arrest, placement in custody and detention are only permitted on the basis of a judicial decision. Prior to a judicial decision, an individual may not be detained for longer than forty-eight hours."
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure
Since 1 July 2002 criminal-law matters have been governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Law no. 174-FZ of 18 December 2001 – "the CCrP").
"Preventive measures" or "measures of restraint" (меры пресечения) include an undertaking not to leave a town or region, personal surety, bail and detention (Article 98). If necessary, the suspect or accused may be asked to give an undertaking to appear (обязательство о явке) (Article 112).
When deciding on a preventive measure, the competent authority is required to consider whether there are "sufficient grounds to believe" that the accused would abscond during the investigation or trial, re-offend or obstruct the establishment of the truth (Article 97). It must also take into account the gravity of the charge, information on the accused's character, his or her profession, age, state of health, family status and other circumstances (Article 99).
Detention may be ordered by a court if the charge carries a sentence of at least two years' imprisonment, provided that a less restrictive preventive measure cannot be applied (Article 108 § 1).
After arrest the suspect is placed in custody "during the investigation". The maximum permitted period of detention "during the investigation" is two months but it can be extended for up to eighteen months in "exceptional circumstances" (Article 109 §§ 1-3). The period of detention "during the investigation" is calculated up to the day when the prosecutor sends the case to the trial court (Article 109 § 9).
From the date the prosecutor forwards the case to the trial court, the defendant's detention is "before the court" (or "during the trial"). Within fourteen days of receipt of the case file (if the defendant is in custody), the judge is required either: (1) to refer the case to a competent court; (2) to fix a date for a preliminary hearing (предварительное слушание); or (3) to fix a date for trial (Article 227). Upon receipt of the case file, the judge must determine, in particular, whether the measure of restraint applied should be lifted or changed (Articles 228 (3) and 231 § 2 (6)).
The period of detention "during the trial" is calculated up to the date the judgment is given. It may not normally exceed six months, but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences, the trial court may approve one or more extensions of no longer than three months each (Article 255 §§ 2 and 3).
An appeal may be lodged with a higher court within three days against a judicial decision ordering or extending detention. The appeal court must decide on the appeal within three days of its receipt (Article 108 § 10).
3. Case-law of the Constitutional Court
On 22 March 2005 the Constitutional Court examined an application by Mr Biryucheko and Others, who had submitted, in particular, that the practice of holding a defendant in custody without any judicial decision on the basis of the fact that the criminal case against him had been referred to the court competent to deal with the case was incompatible with the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary detention. The Court found that the provisions of the Code challenged by the claimants complied with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. However, their practical interpretation by the courts might have contradicted their constitutional meaning. In part 2.2 of the ruling the Constitutional Court reiterated the principles established by the European Court of Human Rights in its case-law:
"A practice of keeping a person in detention without a specific legal basis, but because of a lack of clear rules governing the detainee's situation, with the result that a person may be deprived of his liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation, is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness. The detention of a person for several months on the sole ground that the case has been transmitted to the court cannot be considered 'lawful' within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and is in itself incompatible with the principle of legal certainty, which is one of the common threads of the rule of law (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 54-57, ECHR 2000 III; and Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 62 and 63, ECHR 2000 IX)."
In part 3.2. of the ruling the Constitutional Court analysed and interpreted the domestic provisions in the light of the above principles:
"The second part of Article 22 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation provides that ... detention is permitted only on the basis of a court order ... Consequently, if the term of detention as defined in the court order expires, the court must decide on the extension of the detention, otherwise the accused person must be released...
These rules are common to all stages of criminal proceedings, and also cover the transition from one stage to another. ... The transition of the case to another stage does not automatically put an end to the measure of restraint applied at previous stages.
Therefore, when the case is transmitted by the prosecution to the trial court, the measure of restraint applied at the pre-trial stage ... may continue to apply until the expiry of the term for which it has been set by the relevant court decision [imposing it]...
[Under Articles 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure] a judge, after having received the criminal case concerning a detained defendant, should, within 14 days, set a hearing and establish 'whether the measure of restraint applied should be lifted or changed'. This wording implies that the decision to detain the accused or extend his detention, taken at the pre-trial stage, may stand, after the completion of the pre-trial investigation and transmission of the case to the court, only until the end of the term for which the measure of restraint has been set.
The prosecution, in its turn, when approving the bill of indictment and transferring the case file to the court, should check whether the term of detention has not expired and whether it is sufficient to allow the judge to take a decision [on the further detention on remand of the accused]. If by the time of transfer of the case file to the court this term has expired, or if it appears to be insufficient to allow the judge to take a decision [on detention], the prosecutor, applying Articles 108 and 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [must] ask the court to extend the period of detention."
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that his detention on remand had been unlawful as no criminal proceedings had been pending against him at the time of his arrest, there had been no grounds for keeping him in custody and his detention from 5 to 22 January 2004 had not been based on a court order. Article 5 § 1 (c) reads as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so..."
A. Admissibility
The Government submitted that the applicant had not appealed against the extension orders of 22 January and 10 February 2004 to the Rostov Regional Court. Therefore, he had not exhausted domestic remedies.
The Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his detention from 22 January to 22 March 2004, as his complaints concerning this period must in any event be declared inadmissible for the following reasons.
The applicant complained that his detention from 12 March 2003 to 5 January 2004 and from 22 January to 22 March 2004 had been unlawful because no criminal proceedings had been pending against him at the time of his arrest and there had been no grounds for keeping him in custody. The Court notes that on 12 March 2003 the prosecutor's office opened criminal proceedings against the applicant. On 14 March 2003 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don remanded him in custody because of the gravity of the charges against him. The applicant's detention was subsequently extended on several occasions by the domestic courts. The domestic courts acted within their powers in making those decisions and there is nothing to suggest that they were invalid or unlawful under domestic law. The question whether the reasons for the decisions were sufficient and relevant is analysed below in connection with the issue of compliance with Article 5 § 3 (compare Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2005 X (extracts)).
The Court finds that the applicant's detention from 12 March 2003 to 5 January 2004 and from 22 January to 22 March 2004 was compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
In so far as the applicant complained that his detention from 5 to 22 January 2004 had not been based on a court order, the Court finds that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
The Government conceded that there had been no judicial decision authorising the applicant's detention from 5 to 22 January 2004. They submitted that at the time when the applicant's case had been under consideration the domestic courts had interpreted Article 255 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 47 above) as permitting detention of an accused without a court order for up to six months from the date of receipt of the case file by a court. A judicial order had been required only if detention "during the trial" exceeded six months. The Constitutional Court had subsequently condemned that practice as unconstitutional, finding that it was contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 49 above).
The applicant maintained his claims.
The Court notes that on 5 January 2004 the applicant's pre-trial detention expired. Nevertheless, it was not until 22 January 2004 that a court ruled that the applicant should remain in custody during the trial. During those seventeen days the applicant was kept in detention on the basis of the fact that the criminal case against him had been referred to the court competent to try the case.
The Court has already examined and found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in a number of cases concerning the practice of holding defendants in custody solely on the basis of the fact that a bill of indictment has been submitted to the trial court. It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation – with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation – is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Fursenko v. Russia, no. 26386/02, §§ 77-79, 24 April 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 52-59, 25 October 2007; Melnikova v. Russia, no. 24552/02, §§ 53-56, 21 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 86-93, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 55-59, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 144-151; Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-64, ECHR 2000 IX; and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000 III).
The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It reiterates that for the detention to meet the standard of "lawfulness", it must have a basis in domestic law. The Government, however, did not point to any legal provision which permitted a defendant to continue to be held in custody once the authorised detention period had expired. The Russian Constitution and the rules of criminal procedure vested the power to order or prolong detention on remand in the courts (see paragraphs 40 and 44 above). No exceptions to that rule were permitted or provided for. Even though, as indicated by the Government, the domestic courts interpreted Article 255 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as permitting a six-month detention "during the trial" without a court order, that interpretation was condemned by the Russian Constitutional Court as incompatible with the Constitution and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 49 above). As noted above, in the period from 5 to 22 January 2004 there was no judicial decision authorising the applicant's detention. In these circumstances the Court finds that the detention was not "lawful" for Convention purposes.
It follows that during the period from 5 to 22 January 2004 there was no "lawful" basis for the applicant's detention. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant complained that his right to trial within a reasonable time had been infringed and alleged that the orders for his detention had not been founded on sufficient reasons. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."
The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as he had not appealed against the detention orders of 14 March, 3 November and 5 December 2003 and 22 January and 10 February 2004.
The Government further argued that the duration of the applicant's detention had not been excessive. The investigation and trial had been completed within a year. The detention had been based on sufficient reasons. The detention orders had not been grounded solely on the gravity of the charges. The domestic courts had also referred to the risk of the applicant's absconding or impeding the investigation and cited specific facts in support of their conclusions.
The applicant maintained his claims. He argued that it had not been necessary to hold him in custody as he had a permanent place of residence and an ailing parent. He had been charged with a non-violent offence and was not dangerous. Moreover, he had not participated in any investigative actions during the entire period of his detention.
As regards the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that under the terms of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention it can only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law. The application of that rule must, however, make due allowance for the fact that it is being applied in the context of machinery for the protection of human rights that the Contracting Parties have agreed to establish. Accordingly, the Court has recognised that Article 35 § 1 must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism. The rule is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically. In reviewing whether it has been observed it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of each case. This means, amongst other things, that the Court must take realistic account of the general legal and political context in which the remedies operate, as well as the personal circumstances of the applicant (see Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, §§ 92 and 94, 18 January 2007, with further references).
The Court notes that the applicant appealed against four extension orders, arguing that they had been founded on insufficient reasons. All of his appeals were rejected. It is understandable that in such circumstances doubts could arise in the applicant's mind as to the effectiveness of further appeals. Although mere doubts as to the prospects of success of national remedies do not absolve an applicant from the obligation to exhaust those remedies, in a situation where he had repeatedly and unsuccessfully used a remedy, his failure to have further recourse to it on assumption that it would offer little if any prospects of success cannot be said to have been unreasonable. However, the Court considers that it is not necessary to pursue this issue in further detail, as the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 3 must in any event be declared inadmissible for the reasons stated below.
The applicant was taken in custody on 12 March 2003. On 22 March 2004 he was convicted. Thus, the period to be taken into consideration lasted slightly more than a year.
It is not disputed by the parties that the applicant's detention was initially warranted by a reasonable suspicion of his involvement in the commission of fraud. The Court reiterates that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention. However after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
The judicial authorities relied, in addition to the gravity of the charges against the applicant, on specific facts relating to his behaviour. In particular, they found that there were reasons to believe that the applicant possessed counterfeit seals which he had used to forge payment orders and which he had concealed from the investigation with the intention of destroying them afterwards. Moreover, he had instructed his accomplices to flee from justice. The Court accepts that by concealing evidence from the investigation and by urging his accomplices to abscond, the applicant attempted to obstruct the investigation. There was a risk that, if released, he would continue his attempts to interfere with the proceedings. Therefore, the domestic courts could justifiably consider it necessary to keep the applicant in custody.
Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the present case is different from many Russian cases where a violation of Article 5 § 3 was found because the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006). In the present case, the domestic courts cited specific facts in support of their conclusion that the applicant might interfere with the proceedings. The Court concludes that the applicant's behaviour as described in the decisions of the domestic courts justified his detention. The applicant's detention was therefore based on "relevant" and "sufficient" grounds.
It remains to be ascertained whether the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings. The Court observes that the applicant's case concerned four defendants and was of a certain complexity. It reiterates in this respect that in cases involving numerous defendants, collecting evidence is often a difficult task, as it is necessary to obtain voluminous evidence from many sources and to determine the facts and degree of alleged responsibility of each of the co-suspects (see, mutadis mutandis, Łaszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, §§ 59 and 61, 15 January 2008). In the present case the investigation was completed within eight months. There is no evidence of any significant periods of inactivity on the part of the prosecution authorities. Although the applicant argued that no investigative actions were taken for several months, his argument was rejected by the domestic courts (see paragraph 19 above). The judicial decisions and other documents in the case file show that within eight months the prosecution had searched the applicant's flat, obtained several expert opinions, questioned the applicant and his co-defendants, confronted them with witnesses and drawn up the bill of indictment. It took the defendants about two months to study the case file which delayed the committal of the case for trial through no fault of the authorities. The trial was conducted with due expedition and was completed within two months. The Court considers that the domestic authorities handled the applicant's case with the requisite diligence.
Having regard to the above the Court concludes that the complaint under Article 5 § 3 must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant further complained that the appeal proceedings against the detention order of 30 April 2003 had not complied with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Moreover, his appeals against the detention orders of 4 August and 9 September 2003 had not been examined speedily. Article 5 § 4 reads as follows:
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."
The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
1. Appeal against the detention order of 30 April 2003
The Government submitted that the applicant's appeal against the detention order of 30 April 2003 had been examined twice by the Regional Court. During the second examination the Regional Court had remedied a violation of the applicant's defence rights committed during the first examination. The Government considered that the domestic courts had complied with the requirements of Article 5 § 4.
The Court reiterates that by virtue of Article 5 § 4, an arrested or detained person is entitled to bring proceedings for the review by a court of the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the "lawfulness", in the sense of Article 5 § 1, of his or her deprivation of liberty (see Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, 29 November 1988, § 65, Series A no. 154-B). Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005-...., with further references). The proceedings must be adversarial and must always ensure equality of arms between the parties. In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 74, 11 July 2000). The possibility for a detainee to be heard either in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, § 47, Series A no. 318-B).
The Court further reiterates that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in guaranteeing to persons detained a right to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and ordering its termination if it proves unlawful (see Baranowski, cited above, § 68). There is a special need for a swift decision determining the lawfulness of detention in cases where a trial is pending, as the defendant should benefit fully from the principle of the presumption of innocence (see Iłowiecki v. Poland, no. 27504/95, § 76, 4 October 2001).
The applicant lodged his appeal against the detention order in question on 5 May 2003. On 16 May 2003 the Regional Court examined and dismissed the appeal. The applicant and his counsel were absent, whereas the prosecutor was present.
The Court is of the view that to ensure equality of arms it was necessary to give the applicant the opportunity to appear, either in person or through some form of representation, at the same time as the prosecutor so that he could reply to the latter's arguments (compare Kampanis, cited above, § 58). Given that counsel was not notified of the date of the appeal hearing and that the applicant, who was in custody, was not brought to the courtroom, the examination of the applicant's appeal on 16 May 2003 did not meet the requirements of Article 5 § 4.
The Court has not overlooked that in reply to the applicant's application for supervisory review the Presidium of the Regional Court acknowledged a violation of the applicant's rights, quashed the appeal decision and ordered a new appeal hearing. The new hearing was held on 16 July 2003. Even assuming that the applicant and his counsel took part in the hearing, their presence did not remedy the situation complained of. The violation of the applicant's rights at the hearing of 16 May 2003 made necessary an application for supervisory review and a new appeal hearing, causing an inordinate seventy-one-day delay in the final determination of the applicant's appeal. That delay was attributable to the authorities, since the remittal for re-examination was ordered as a result of errors committed by the lower court (see, mutatis mutandis, Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003). The Court considers that a delay of seventy-one days in the examination of the applicant's appeal cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4.
There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
2. Appeals against the detention orders of 4 August and 9 September 2003
The Government submitted that the applicant's appeals had been examined speedily. In each case the appeal proceedings had lasted less than a month.
The Court notes that the applicant's appeal against the detention order of 4 August 2003 was received by the District Court on 18 August 2003, while his appeal against the detention order of 9 September 2003 reached the Regional Court on 23 September 2003. The domestic courts obtained comments from the investigator and examined the appeals on 29 August and 3 October 2003 respectively. Accordingly, the appeal proceedings lasted eleven days in the first case and ten days in the second case. Their length does not appear excessive.
In these circumstances, the Court finds that there was no violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as regards the "speediness" of review afforded by the domestic courts.
V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
The Court has examined the other complaints submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court's competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Damage
The applicant claimed 500,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The Government considered that the claim was excessive and unsubstantiated. The finding of a violation would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
The Court accepts that the applicant suffered distress and frustration resulting from his unlawful detention from 5 to 22 January 2004 and from procedural defects in the examination of his appeal against the detention order of 30 April 2003. The non-pecuniary damage sustained is not sufficiently compensated for by the finding of a violation of the Convention. However, the Court finds the amount claimed by the applicant excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 3,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
The applicant did not claim costs and expenses. Accordingly, there is no call to make an award under this head.
C. Default interest
The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
Declares the complaints concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant's detention from 5 to 22 January 2004 and the alleged violation of his right to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of his detention admissible, and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the period from 5 to 22 January 2004;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the appeal proceedings against the detention order of 30 April 2003;
Holds that there has been no violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the appeal proceedings against the detention orders of 4 August and 9 September 2003;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 January 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen	Christos Rozakis


text:
CIA Makes Its UFO-Related Documents Available To Download For Free
By Izza Sofia, 13 Jan 2021
Image via CIA
A massive archive of documents amassed over the years by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) detailing information about unidentified flying objects (UFOs) has been made available to download.
The files have been released by a website called The Black Vault, which uses the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) to obtain declassified government information.
The trove involves what the government describes as Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) and dates back to the 1980s. The database includes hundreds of PDFs focusing on alien spacecraft encounters, strange cases, and studies on the UAP. The CIA states that this is its entire collection of records—although that remains difficult to verify.
John Greenewald Jr., who runs The Black Vault and spearheaded the initiative, told Motherboard the process of continually filing suits against the CIA to hand over its UAP records.
"Around 20 years ago, I had fought for years to get additional UFO records released from the CIA," Greenewald said. "I went around and around with them to try and do so, finally achieving it. I received a large box, of a couple thousand pages, and I had to scan them in one page at a time."
"Plain and simple, the public has a right to know!" Greenewald added. "When I began researching nearly 25 years ago at the age of 15, I knew there was something to this topic. Not because of viral internet hoaxes. Not because of back door meetings wherein I can't tell you who, but I promise it was mind-blowing information. No, none of that. It was simply because of the evidence that I got straight from the CIA. And the NSA. And the Air Force. And the DIA."
UFO enthusiasts can read or download the files here.
Want to know all about the @CIA and their connection to #UFOs?
JUST PUBLISHED: Here is a complete archive of ALL CIA UFO related records going back more than a half century. According to them, this is everything.
ENJOY the searchable pdfs & zip files!https://t.co/irRFG1qeIG
— 🇺🇸 T̷h̷e̷ ̷B̷l̷a̷c̷k̷ ̷V̷a̷u̷l̷t̷ 🇺🇸 (@blackvaultcom) January 7, 2021
[via Dazed Digital, cover image via CIA]


text:
Home » Our Blog » Jury Deliberations in Ghislaine Maxwell Trial
Jury Deliberations in Ghislaine Maxwell Trial
By Page Pate | January 3, 2022
Jessica: It may be a holiday weekend, but jury deliberations need to continue. That is the message from the presiding judge in the Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking trial. And this comes as fears grow over the Omicron variant and potentially a possible mistrial for the longtime Jeffrey Epstein associate. If convicted on all six counts, Maxwell could face up to 70 years in prison. Criminal defense and congressional law attorney Page Pate is joining us now to talk more about this case. Page, great to see you. Unless jurors decide on a verdict here, they're gonna keep going through New Year's. What do you make of that?
Page: Well, I think that's very unusual. But I understand the judge is concerned number one, that they don't have a verdict yet. Although they did indicate yesterday, they were making progress we have not seen the type of progress I think that the judge was hoping for when she decided to give them time off for Christmas. The other thing, obviously, that's concerning the judge, and I think many people right now, is the fact that COVID numbers are, you know, coming up again. And it's very possible when you have this many people serving on a jury together, they're doing deliberations, that there can obviously be some transmission of COVID. And if that happens, if someone gets sick, if they have to stop deliberations, then that could lead to a mistrial, which means they have to start all over again. So, obviously, the judge is concerned about those things.
Jessica: Right. And the jury we know has sent 14 notes and deliberations are now in their sixth day. Today was the first time they did ask for some testimony transcripts from five defense witnesses, but 14 notes they've sent out with questions. What do you think is happening here? What does that tell you?
Page: Well, it's always difficult to know what's going on inside the jury room. I think most people assume, "Hey, if they're asking for witness transcripts, if they're asking questions about the jury instructions, then maybe the jury is split." But it could just mean that there's one or two people that are holding out, and the others in the jury are trying to convince them on the evidence by getting that evidence again, going over the testimony of the witnesses again to try to convince them that it's either guilty or not guilty. And in this case, it's not like a simple murder case or manslaughter case where you have one or two counts, there are six separate counts. And these are fairly complicated federal charges. So that's necessarily gonna take some time to go through it.
Jessica: To go through all of that. At this point, what do you think the probability is of a mistrial? Is that something you think is still kind of out of the realm of possibility or possible?
Page: Well, it's certainly possible because even though the judge can make the jury stay through the holiday weekend, she cannot pressure them to return a verdict. Federal law requires the jury to understand that they don't have to give up a firmly, honestly held belief just in order to reach a verdict or to reach consensus. So, they've gone a long time. And it is certainly possible that we may see them extend through the weekend. And if they can't get a verdict before the holiday weekend, and they don't wanna stay through the holiday weekend, they may tell the judge that, "Look, we've tried but we just can't do it."
Jessica: Yeah, well, I guess we will see. Page Pate, thanks so much. We appreciate it.
Page: Thank you, Jessica.
Jessica: Mm-hmm.
Page Pate
Page Pate is an accomplished trial lawyer with over 25 years of experience in criminal defense, civil litigation, and whistleblower representation. Page is listed in The Best Lawyers in America, Top 100 Lawyers by The National Trial Lawyers, and named to the list of Super Lawyers for the past 15 consecutive years. Page is a frequent expert legal analyst for local and national media and has served as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Georgia Law School. Read Page's reviews on AVVO. Follow Page on Twitter @pagepate and on Linkedin.
Posted in TV Appearances


text:
BEIJING — China will step up efforts to contain the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan ahead of the Lunar New Year holidays as a rise in confirmed cases fanned fears the virus could spread to other countries.
AMMAN — Jordan's parliament on Sunday approved a draft law to ban imports of Israeli gas to the country just days after they started under a multibillion-dollar deal struck in 2016 which is opposed by much of the population.
ISTANBUL — Turkey called on Sunday for the European Union to end what it said was the bloc's prejudice against Turkish Cypriots, defending its launch of a fresh round of hydrocarbons drilling off the Mediterranean island.
America Is Awash With Natural Gas and It's About to Get Worse
(Bloomberg) — Sign up here to receive the Davos Diary, a special daily newsletter that will run from Jan.
Bond-Market Jolt Will Have to Wait Ahead of Central-Bank Bonanza
(Bloomberg) — U.S. Treasuries are stuck in the biggest rut in months, with yields plying tight ranges and a round of central-bank meetings ahead unlikely to offer a lasting jolt.
Trump's China Deal Is His Hedge Against Impeachment Damage
(Bloomberg) — Total SA and Marubeni Corp. plan to sign agreements for a solar power plant in Qatar, according to a poster at the hotel in Doha where the signing ceremony is to be held later on Sunday.
Iran may review cooperation with IAEA if EU pressure mounts -TV
DUBAI — Iran will review its cooperation with the United Nations' nuclear watchdog should it face "unjust" measures, Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani said, after EU powers last week triggered a dispute mechanism under Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal.
REUTERS NEWS SCHEDULE AT 11 a.m. GMT/6 a.m. ET
Iran is trying to analyze the black boxes of a Ukrainian airliner that was shot down this month, the state IRNA news agency reported on Sunday, denying a report that a decision had been taken to send the plane's recorders to Ukraine.
BEIJING — China is stepping up restrictions on the production, sale and use of single-use plastic products, the state planner said on Sunday, as it seeks to tackle one of the country's biggest environmental problems.
Mandryk: Time for Sask. Party to recommit to solving ER woes – Regina Leader-Post
Rider Nation steps up in a big way to show support for legend George Reed ...
Palmer: Horgan hailed, assailed over his handling of Coastal GasLink project | Regina Leader-Post
Mueller moves up in coaching ranks with Stampeders | Regina Leader-Post


text:
Los Angeles County, CA: Pedestrian Struck by Train in Burbank
Pedestrian struck by train in Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County, California (April 20, 2018): A pedestrian has been transported to a hospital after being struck by a train in Burbank, CA, early yesterday evening, Thursday, April 19, 2018. The victim has not yet been publicly identified and only limited information has been made available while authorities conduct a full investigation into the incident.
According to reports, the incident unfolded just after 5:00 p.m. when a pedestrian was struck by a Ventura County line train, Train 150, bound for Los Angeles at the Metrolink station in downtown Burbank. The pedestrian was severely injured in the crash but was still alive when he was transported to a nearby hospital. No updates on his condition have been released. None of the 140 passengers aboard the train were injured in the accident. No further details have been provided at this time.
The Los Angeles Injury Group would like to extend our sympathies to the victim and offer our prayers for his swift and complete recovery. The burdens imposed in the aftermath of a motor vehicle collision can be substantial and overwhelming under any circumstances, and our thoughts are with the victims during this difficult time. It is important for all accident victims to know that help may be available under the civil liability laws in their state.
If you or someone you love suffered injuries as a result of a collision with a train or other motor vehicle, California law may give you a legal right to recover monetary compensation for your pain, loss, and expenses. At the Los Angeles Injury Group, we are dedicated to helping victims obtain the relief they need and the justice they deserve. Call us at 310-954-7248 and schedule a free consultation to discuss your case and review your options with one of our trusted and experienced motor vehicle crash attorneys today.
Tags: Burbank: Man Struck and Injured by Metrolink Train at Burbank Downtown Station, Los Angeles County: Pedestrian Struck by Train in Burbank, Pedestrian Injured in Burbank Train Accident on Ventura County Line, Pedestrian struck by train in Los Angeles County


This September, HubPages is setting sail on its most boisterous contest yet: HubPages Marks the Spot!
HubPages Marks the Spot, sponsored by Outside.in, is all about mapping out local treasures using the HubPages Map Capsule – and sharing lots of loot with those HubBuccaneers who care to join us. This contest has not four but five kinds of prizes, ranging in rewards from $50 (awarded to two winners daily) to $500 (awarded to the swashbuckling author of the contest's best hub).
Topics rotate weekly and include local attractions, resources, and places to unwind, as well as more distant vacation destinations.
I hope you can join in on the fun – and I hope you win something too! To be honest, there's no losing here… unless ONE OF YE SCURVY DOGS THINKS YEH CAN GET THE BEST OF OL' SWASHBUCKLING SIMONE! Keep that in mind. Because dead men write no hubs.
← Introducing The First Ever HubCamp!
Ahoy there my merciless boatswain!
I be hiring no crimps for there 'ere battle o' will. An' my deadlights be on the booty and the swag. No hornswagglin' from me, I promise ye….
Sounds like a really awesome contest, and a great idea for using the map capsule. thanks!
Interesting! Map capsule is seldom used in hubs compared to other capsules. This contest will help hubbers more familiar to the use of map capsule. 🙂 Wise idea!


text:
Oprah gets teary as she receives honorary degree from Harvard | Mail Online
RAM PhD, May 31, 2013
cookderosa Resident Chef
Am I the only one who never really embraced why this would have ANY meaning at all? Seriously? Why would someone cry or even feel privileged to receive an honorary degree. I don't get it?
cookderosa, May 31, 2013
cookderosa said: ↑
Because they made a donation so big it hurt? :Eyecrazy:
Randell1234, May 31, 2013
Because it's an honor.
nmesproject New Member
Well put Randell. Hon. doctorates need to be banned. I am ok if it is given to somebody who has 'earned' a doctorate before.
nmesproject, May 31, 2013
nmesproject said: ↑
Well put Randell. Hon. doctorates need to be banned.
Agreed!!!!!!!
SteveFoerster, May 31, 2013
Agreed. If you don't like it, ignore it.
RobbCD, May 31, 2013
Indeed, perhaps the best approach would be to eliminate them. In this way, the abuse (using the title "Dr" as though the honorary certificate was an earned doctorate. Not all recipients do this of course, but many do.) would decrease. However, since eliminating the honorary doctorate probably isn't going to happen, I do exactly what Steve/Robb have stated. I don't like it, so I ignore/disregard it.
Perhaps a bit of clarification would be in order. It isn't so much the concept of an honorary credential that I dislike; rather, it is the usage of the title "Dr" based on the honorary credential alone. If recipients would list the honorary credential on a CV/resume under "honors" or "awards" or even "things I've obtained via money," it may not be so bad. But to list an honorary credential under "education" or "academic background," or to use the title "Dr" based solely on the honorary credential is, imho, stretching the ethics of the award.
That said, if a person has only an honorary doctorate (i.e., they do not also hold an earned legitimately accredited doctorate), I never reference them as "Dr" John/Jane Doe.
sanantone Well-Known Member
I don't think Oprah needs to stretch anything on her resume.
sanantone, May 31, 2013
Oprah is a philanthropist. She has given tons of money to charities, especially "to organizations that support the education and empowerment of women, children and families in the United States and around the world."
So she gave money to Havard. Do you think it was her intention to buy an honorary doctorate? I don't think so. I understand this is her second honorary doctorate. A university in South Africa awarded her one too. She could have more.
Fault Harvard for granting her the honorary doc, not Oprah. I think the name "Oprah Winfrey" evokes more admiration and respect for her work around the world than the title "doctor."
Boethius, May 31, 2013
My comments aren't directed at Oprah, but toward honorary doctorates in general.
There was a big kerfuffle here in Canada some years back - while pre-Lewinsky Bill Clinton was still in the White House, IIRC. A Canadian University was granting "Slick Willie" an honorary doctorate. A lot of people, including alumni, didn't like it one bit. "Whoring," some of 'em called it - the degree-granting for money, that is. :smile:
My take - then and now. If it makes the school major money, it's OK. I don't see that granting honorary sheepskins dilutes the value of "real" degrees one bit - because these "honorary" things...just aren't "real." It's apples and oranges! If a university does this sort of thing and gets tons and tons of money for honorary degrees -- well that's GOOD - as long as the money (or greater proportion thereof) is spent to benefit present and future students. Hopefully, they will enjoy better education & facilities at a little less than they would have had to pay without the school having this source of revenue.
Go ahead and ignore these "doctorates" - nobody should regard them as "real," anyway! The money that changes hands just might do some good --who knows?
Johann, May 31, 2013
That's fine, but inaccurate. Holders of honorary doctorates are "doctors." It is in good taste that the vast majority of them do not use the title. But it would not be incorrect to refer to such a person as "doctor."
Personally, I could do without them. But they don't bug me and I think it's kinda cool to see some folks honored. We don't have many ways for that to happen to Americans.
Persons who warrant honor should certainly be honored, and it is probably true that the majority of honorary doctorate recipients do not tout the title. I disagree that recipients of honorary doctorates are "doctors" in any utilitarian sense.
LGFlood New Member
I agree. Persons who warrant honor have already been honored by having the degree bestowed upon them. But to refer to them as "Dr." without earning a doctorate, nah that's a different ballgame IMO.
LGFlood, Jun 1, 2013
novadar Member
The honor bestows a degree which the institution has the authority to grant. The recipient is authorized to use that title as they see fit. End of discussion. My next door neighbor is an MD, but I don't call him "Dr BlahBlah", he's just Dave. You can call people whatever you want but if they introduce themselves as "Dr" based on an honorary degree you can either 1) Take a stand and refuse because of your principles or 2) Go along with it. Hey, whatever floats your boat. Frankly I don't intend to stress out over someone's Honorary Doctorate.
novadar, Jun 1, 2013
Oh, and Oprah's other "Doctorate" is from the University of the Free State.
novadar said: ↑
The recipient is authorized to use that title as they see fit. End of discussion.
Robert Hickey, author of the book, Honor & Respect: The Official Guide to Names, Titles & Forms of Address, writes that an honorary doctorate is "a great honor, but it is an honor, not a degree." He further writes that "Everyone is entitled to have their name be what they want it to be, but recipients of honorary doctorates are not entitled to be addressed as Dr."
SpeedyAlchemist Member
Just one more example of an institution plagued by grade (or, in this case, degree) inflation.
Do people still watch Oprah? I mean, of course, other than single mothers on welfare.
SpeedyAlchemist, Jun 1, 2013


text:
Q: How to prove that another definition of permutation is the same as the Default Permutation Library for COQ I need to proove that a secondary definition of permutation is equivalent to the default definition of permutation in Coq:
Down bellow is the default Permutation definition in Coq
Inductive Permutation : list A -> list A -> Prop :=
| perm_nil: Permutation [] []
| perm_skip x l l' : Permutation l l' -> Permutation (x::l) (x::l')
| perm_swap x y l : Permutation (y::x::l) (x::y::l)
| perm_trans l l' l'' :
    Permutation l l' -> Permutation l' l'' -> Permutation l l''.

I need to prove that the above mentioned definition is equivalent to the following definition:
Definition perm l l' := forall x, occurences_number x l = occurences_number x l'.

Which as you have noticed uses the definition occurences_number down bellow:
Fixpoint occurences_number x l := match l with
                       | nil => 0
                       | h::tl => if (x =? h) then S(occurences_number x tl) else occurences_number x tl
                       end.

What I need to prove indeed is the following:
Lemma permutation_to_perm: forall l l', Permutation l l' -> perm l l'.

Down bellow is my incomplete proof
Proof.
 induction l.
 - admit.
 - intros l' Hequiv.
   generalize dependent a.
   generalize dependent l.
   case l'.
   + Admitted.

A: Here is a proof that follows the strategy I outlined above:
Lemma Permutation_to_perm l l' : Permutation l l' -> perm l l'.
Proof.
intros H. induction H as [| x l1 l2 _ IH | x y l | l1 l2 l3 _ IH1 _ IH2 ].
- intros ?; reflexivity.
- intros y. simpl. now rewrite IH.
- intros z. simpl. now destruct (z =? y), (z =? x).
- intros ?. now rewrite IH1.
Qed.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Priced for quick sale. Once in a lifetime opportunity to purchase a rare Paul Trevethan worked 5 main bearings, 2 litre MGB Mark 11. Recently underwent mechanical restoration, now running superbly. It has both hard top and soft top as well as a tonneau cover. Am downsizing to small townhouse with only room for one car, so sadly the B has to go.
1967 MGB Mark 1 in very good condition. Red with black interior. Wire wheels. Sports steering wheel fitted but original steering wheel also supplied. Current owner has had the car for approximately 12 years and has kept car garaged when not in use. Drives like a dream. Genuine buyers only please.
VERY PRETTY MGB. Ready to use and enjoy as it presents. Drives well. Mechanically good. Low 82,773 mileage (133,210 kilometres). Engine is strong. New hood. Tonneau cover. Ignition kill switch. 4-speed gearbox. Weber carby update. A FUN CAR.
MGB 1971 Roadster immaculate condition 1.8 litre engine, the following components have been replaced with new components, Roof soft top assembly, full interior trim kit, interior carpets, boot carpet kit, seat covers, seat foam bases,full rubber sealing kit, door trims,windscreen, batteries, tyres and body moulds. only genuine enquiries.


The fact is that there can not be a sustainable business without strong corporate reputation and Ardency Consulting can help you build both your reputation and its business around it. Reputation is one of the core business assets and as such it must be built, managed, and increased in value.
This is a process both closely interconnected with company's values and one that needs consistency and credibility – both internally and externally.
Externally, Ardency Consulting can manage your reputation asset in order to improve your stakeholder relations – with partners, distributors, suppliers, customers, NGOs, and government. Through strategic approach and consistency in execution Ardency Consulting will use innovative tools to mitigate organizational change and general business environment risk. Even more, we can transform your reputation in a strategic tool in acquiring new business.
Ardency Consulting can develop your strategy, create messages, prepare company executives to deliver them in a proper way, and use innovative channels to communicate messages to stakeholders.
The final result would be a reputable organization with credibility and respect among analysts, media, and other stakeholders.


text:
ABC Family's Memorial Day Marathon Is Baby Daddy; Episodic Review: How to Live with Your Parents - "How to Run the Show" Airing Tonight on ABC
Grab your favorite blankie and cozy up on the couch for a Memorial Day Baby Daddy marathon on ABC Family. On Monday, May 27, viewers can catch up on all ten episodes from Season 1 that aired last summer of this freshman sitcom, airing in order from 2:00pm– 7:00pm ET/PT. And it's the perfect chance to do so because the second season of Baby Daddy premieres two nights later on Wednesday, May 29, at 8:30 pm ET/PT, following the season premiere of Melissa & Joey. The series is a multi-camera comedy that shoots in front of a live studio audience in Los Angeles. If you like shows like Boy Meets World and Saved by the Bell, you'll certainly like this show, as it is hip and has a young cast. Look for our review of the first two episodes of the second season closer to the season premiere. Hint: Kyle XY star Matt Dallas will guest star on the season premiere, reuniting him with his former Kyle XY buddy Jean-Luc Bilodeau!
Baby Daddy, which launched as the network's #1 comedy series in ABC Family history, follows Ben (Jean-Luc Bilodeau), a young man in his early 20s living the life of a bachelor as a bartender in New York City with his buddy, Tucker (Tahj Mowry), and his brother, Danny (Derek Theler), a professional hockey player. Their lives are turned upside down when they come home one day to find a baby girl left on the doorstep by an ex-girlfriend of Ben's. After much deliberation, Ben decides to raise the baby with the help of his friends and his protective and sometimes over-bearing mother, Bonnie (Melissa Peterman), and his close female friend, Riley (Chelsea Kane), who has had a secret crush on him since childhood. Riley is hopeful that Ben will finally take notice, but she doesn't realize that Ben's brother, Danny, is harboring a secret crush on her.
On the next...How to Live with Your Parents (for the Rest of Your Life):
By: Skees
ABC's Comedy Wednesday sitcom starring Sarah Chalke, Elizabeth Perkins and Brad Garrett and airs Wednesday nights at 9:30pm and we have just watched the next episode that airs tonight (May 1). In the episode airing tonight, "How to Run the Show," Elaine (Elizabeth Perkins) and Max (Brad Garrett) encourage Polly (Sarah Chalke) to put her needs first, as they did when Polly was growing up, and offer to babysit Natalie (Rachel Eggleston) so Polly can spend time out with Scott (guest star Reid Scott). But they get a quick lesson in parenting the middle ground between letting kids run the show and ending up on a milk carton.
The episode begins with a typical parent-child struggle, where Polly and Natalie just can't seem to find common ground (specifically, Polly has no authority over her own daughter). The struggle ends with Polly taking Natalie to work after she refuses to go to soccer practice. But with Polly constantly putting Natalie first, this creates a problem when she wants to go on a date. Max and Elaine decide to put their own daughter first and agree to babysit Natalie so that Polly can go on the date, but the plans that they have truly do put the grandparents first. Meanwhile, Polly's surprise date with Scott turns out to be an even bigger surprise when she his kids tag along on the date, and they too are determined to have all of the control in the parent-child relationship.
I've been enjoying this series, but this episode isn't really one of the strongest ones that I've seen. It seems that the overall theme of the episode was just the battle of control between parents and children, but there didn't seem to be much explanation behind the battles (and this seems to actually be an on-going criticism that I have of the series, the lack of a full back-story). Polly's date introduced another battle (with different kids), but again, it just seemed to be parent vs. child without much of an explanation. Perhaps the best part of the episode, though, was the day that Natalie spent with Max and Elaine. As always, they have their own (somewhat irresponsible) views of raising children, and that irresponsibility results in a nightmare at the wine and jazz festival (the "family friendly" event that they take her to). As much as I like Polly, I feel that Max and Elaine have had some of the best moments in the series so far, and this episode is no exception. Unfortunately, though, I don't feel that the day of "family fun" at the wine and jazz festival was enough to make up for the shortcomings of this episode. C
Labels: ABC, ABC Family, Baby Daddy, Episodic Review, How To Live With Your Parents
GMC Becomes UP Tomorrow, Schedule Changes; Sitcom ...
Esquire Network Rescheduled to Launch Sept. 23; An...
ABC Family Orders 4th Season of Melissa & Joey; Ep...
MeTV Network's Summer 2013 Schedule "Summer of Me"...
Memorial Day 2013 TV Marathons; Top 10 Summer 2013...
Final Week of 2012-13 TV Ratings and Analysis; How...
Digital Digest: Growing Pains and Inspector Gadget...
Memorial Day Happy Days Marathon in The Big Apple;...
NBC Midseason Pilot Review: Save Me - Premieres Ma...
New Sitcom My Crazy Roommate Coming to Bounce TV; ...
2013-14 New Sitcoms Preview; TV Land Schedule Shak...
Fox Midseason Pilot Review: The Goodwin Games - Pr...
Digital Digest: Family Ties, The Office, and More ...
USA Network Upfront 2013: First Comedies Ordered, ...
The CW Upfront 2013-14: Fall 2013 Schedule; COZI T...
CBS Upfront 2013-14: Fall 2013 Schedule; Episodic ...
ABC Upfront 2013-14: Fall 2013 Schedule; Episodic ...
Fox Upfront 2013-14: Fall 2013 Schedule; TBS Goes ...
NBC Upfront 2013-14: Fall 2013 Schedule; Week 33 T...
Digital Digest: Family Ties Season 7 Coming Soon; ...
SitcomsOnline.com 2013-14 Upfront Preview: The CW;...
SitcomsOnline.com 2013-14 Upfront Preview: CBS; Fo...
SitcomsOnline.com 2013-14 Upfront Preview: ABC; Ep...
SitcomsOnline.com 2013-14 Upfront Preview: Fox; Ep...
SitcomsOnline.com 2013-14 Upfront Preview: NBC; Re...
Digital Digest: More Eight is Enough on DVD; Priva...
Episodic Review: American Dad! 150th Episode - "Lo...
Antenna TV's Hazel Mother's Day Marathon; Episodic...
ABC Family's Memorial Day Marathon Is Baby Daddy; ...


text:
Jean Charles François Carle (Chambéry, 29 de junho de 1910 – Neuilly-sur-Seine, 8 de março de 2000) foi um médico e alpinista francês, participante da primeira expedição francesa ao Caracórum, nos Himalaias, que foi realizada em 1936 e chefiada por Henry de Ségogne.

Excelente esquiador foi fundador do Ski-club alpin parisien e foi vice-presidente da Federação francesa de esqui.

Alpinismo
Jean Carle integrou a primeira expedição francesa ao Caracórum nos Himalaias em 1936., liderada por Henry de Ségogne, na qual também participaram Pierre Allain (considerado o melhor escalador da sua geração),  Marcel Ichac, o fundador do cinema de montanha, Jean Leininger, Jean Deudon, Jean Charignon, Jean Arlaud e Jacques Azémar.

Bibliografia
 Les étoiles de midi de Marcel Ichac

Montanhistas da França
Esquiadores alpinos da França
Exploradores da França
Médicos da França
Médicos escritores
Escritores da França
Himalaias
Naturais de Chambéry

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


This is a super vibey '52 Telecaster, built in 2002 by the very talented John Cruz with a Super Relic treatment to the Surf Green finish. The guitar was spec'd with a 1-piece premium ash body, quartersawn maple neck with the usual "U" shape you find on '52s, albeit with slimmer shoulders for easier chord playing, especially with the 10" radius and 6105 frets. Pickups are Abby handwound single-coils, and modern wiring for access to the tone control even on the neck pickup. The guitar is in overall excellent shape with all wear and tear original, and the original case, COA and Fender case candy included.


Welcome to The Body Shop ®! Buy natural, ethically produced beauty products online at The Body Shop ®.
In addition to the Buy 3 Get 3 Free, you get free shipping this weekend. Be sure to pick your favorite nonprofit (charities tab above - then "shop for them") then pick The Body Shop.
No added charge to support your favorite group and 4% of your purchase price goes to them.


The premiere of – a situation for dancing was staged this February in New York's Dance Theater Workshop. The project defined by its authors Antonija Livingstone and Heather Kravas as ''choreography conversation'' and designed as a duet in four parts, deals with evil in all its representational forms. One of these parts is related to the conditions under which the dancers, who started their collaboration three years ago, work together; namely: sporadically, at a distance, and initially without any tangible objective. Thus the simplicity of their vocabulary of movement and repeating sequences is ruthless, and occasionally irritating to audiences.